Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What they put in writing was debated before they put it in writing, to ascertain what they were meaning when the put it in writing.

"Subject to the jurisdicton" by itself is meaningless because anyone can assign meaning to it they want. But because they fleshed out what it was before hand, we know what the meaning is, because they told us.

Subject to the jurisdiction has a specific meaning. There were no illegal aliens then, so it was not applicable. Every immigrant was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless they were a diplomat.

 

[Rawley]

It had nothing to do with birthright (the exclusion act). Wong decided birthright citizenship 127 years ago.

Read the thread dude

 

[Rawley]

Pretty much.

Nope. If they broke the law, they were subject to deportation or imprisonment. Read the Act and stop flaunting your gross ignorance.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Subject to the jurisdiction has a specific meaning. There were no illegal aliens then, so it was not applicable. Every immigrant was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless they were a diplomat.

Here is the original quote, from Senator Jacob Howard. Referring to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, he says:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Notice they denote "foreigners", "aliens", and families of ambassadors, separately.

If they specificly mention foreigners and children of ambassadors, then who are the "aliens"? Maybe they were forward looking? Future proofing, if you will?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Notice they denote "foreigners", "aliens", and families of ambassadors, separately.

If they specificly mention foreigners and children of ambassadors, then who are the "aliens"? Maybe they were forward looking? Future proofing, if you will?

They did not say that in the Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Notice they denote "foreigners", "aliens", and families of ambassadors, separately.

If they specificly mention foreigners and children of ambassadors, then who are the "aliens"? Maybe they were forward looking? Future proofing, if you will?

You are misstating what Senator Howard said during the debate on the 14th. He didn't say "foreigners, aliens, and families of amassadors."

You are injecting an "and" which changes the context. What he actually said was "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Foreigners and aliens define the context of families of amabassadors.

It's like saying "apples, pears, members of the fruit family of foods". Apples and pears are inclusive of the group that follow, not in addition to that group.

WW

 

[JoeB131]

Exceptional.

You need to think we are miserable scum, just like you.

Do you really want me to give you a list of scummy things this country has done?

Hmmm

Okay

Slavery
McCarthyism
Genocide of Native Americans
Exploitation of immigrant labor (wouldn't want you white folks to feel left out.)
Trump

 

[martybegan]

Do you really want me to give you a list of scummy things this country has done?

Hmmm

Okay

Slavery
McCarthyism
Genocide of Native Americans
Exploitation of immigrant labor (wouldn't want you white folks to feel left out.)
Trump

Which we got rid of.
McCarthy was right in principle but bull headed and overzealous.
Exploitation, not genocide.
Awesome guy.


Name a country that hasn't done scummy things.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They did not say that in the Amendment.

No, that was in the debates. The debates give insight to what they were thinking at the time.

If you want to go strictly by the words of the amendment, then one person's definition of jurisdiction is just as valid as any others, and now we're just going off what people feel. Or, we could look at the words of the senators who wrote it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are misstating what Senator Howard said during the debate on the 14th. He didn't say "foreigners, aliens, and families of amassadors."

You are injecting an "and" which changes the context. What he actually said was "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Foreigners and aliens define the context of families of amabassadors.

It's like saying "apples, pears, members of the fruit family of foods". Apples and pears are inclusive of the group that follow, not in addition to that group.

WW

I disagree. The commas separate a list of descriptions concluding with "but shall include every other person"


In your version, the appropriate way to say it would be "...born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens, who belong to families..."

The way I read it is "This will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who are aliens, who are families of ambassadors...."

In fact, that was one of the questions answered by the person who wrote this article:

Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics - Claremont Review of Books

claremontreviewofbooks.com

In their debates, the whole premise was not being subject to a foreign power, or owing allegiance to any other country

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read the thread dude

All the whining here does not change what subject to jurisdiction meant.

I believe SCOTUS will not even come close to overturning its meaning.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, that was in the debates. The debates give insight to what they were thinking at the time.

If you want to go strictly by the words of the amendment, then one person's definition of jurisdiction is just as valid as any others, and now we're just going off what people feel. Or, we could look at the words of the senators who wrote it.

SCOTUS did that in 1898.

 

[JoeB131]

Which we got rid of.
McCarthy was right in principle but bull headed and overzealous.
Exploitation, not genocide.
Awesome guy.


Name a country that hasn't done scummy things.

If yoyou think any of those things are acceptable, that's on you, man.

Whataboutism doesn't work here.

 

[martybegan]

If yoyou think any of those things are acceptable, that's on you, man.

Whataboutism doesn't work here.

Most are in the past.

Meanwhile you are someone that thinks drugging and mutilating confused children is a great idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Most are in the past.

Meanwhile you are someone that thinks drugging and mutilating confused children is a great idea.

Well, no, medical professionals think that gender-affirmation surgery has positive results in reducing suicidal ideation and depression, and the stats back them up.

 

[martybegan]

Well, no, medical professionals think that gender-affirmation surgery has positive results in reducing suicidal ideation and depression, and the stats back them up.

Cop out as usual from a **** like you.

Medical professionals used to think there were 4 humors and skull measurements could denote intelligence.

The stats are bullshit.

 

[JoeB131]

Cop out as usual from a **** like you.

Medical professionals used to think there were 4 humors and skull measurements could denote intelligence.

The stats are bullshit.

And if we find out in 100 years that GA reassignment surgery was a bad treatment, so be it.

Although in a 100 years, they'll probably have gene resequencing to deal with the problem.

 

[martybegan]

And if we find out in 100 years that GA reassignment surgery was a bad treatment, so be it.

Although in a 100 years, they'll probably have gene resequencing to deal with the problem.

100 years to figure out mutilating and drugging kids is a bad idea?

You are a ******* psychopath.

 

[JoeB131]

100 years to figure out mutilating and drugging kids is a bad idea?

You are a ******* psychopath.

Where's all your outrage about mutilating people with

Breast implants
Hair plugs
Rhinoplasties
Blephoroplasties
Liposuction
and so on.

Why aren't you so upset about the kids who get drugged up with Ritalin because their parents and teachers find them to be a handful?

Come on, guy, this isn't about your concerns about drugs and mutilations, this is your biases at work. Trannies make you uncomfortable, but that's your hangup.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Cop out as usual from a **** like you.

Medical professionals used to think there were 4 humors and skull measurements could denote intelligence.

The stats are bullshit.

You are the cop out.

You do not know better than those medical professionals.

Stats kick your ass.

You are a loser, Marty. When did that start? As a young boy?