Birthright citizenship, and "anchor baby" tourism.

[medi]

There is no reasonable debate. The 14th Amendment has always meant birthright citizenship and the meaning has never been challenged. Just because MAGA morons have now come along trying to say different does not mean they're mounting a credible challenge. They're simply sucking up to their cult leader in yet another, unconstitutional, un-American, unrealistic spasm of racist enmity.

You want to be using "un-American" and then slander your fellow citizens because they may disagree with your point of view? Is that the NEW American style? 'You disagree, so you are a moron.' That is the NEW American way?

 

[Lursa]

Well, you were posting that question just about when I was providing that answer.

Do you not know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the US)" means? It means anyone in the US unless they're excepted: diplomats/their children, foreign troops.

You can look the definition up yourself, right? Here's a question for you...are legal and illegal immigrants, tourists, foreign students, foreign business travelers, etc..."subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Can they be arrested, charged, convicted?

 

[Rexedgar]

So there is no debate within the circles of professional legal folks about the meaning of that which you wish me to study? It is absolutely concrete clear what the law states?

What do the words say?

 

[medi]

Do you not know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the US)" means? It means anyone in the US unless they're excepted: diplomats/their children, foreign troops.

You can look the definition up yourself, right? Here's a question for you...are legal and illegal immigrants, tourists, foreign students, foreign business travelers, etc..."subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Can they be arrested, charged, convicted?

Well, then there won't be much debate within the halls of the legal professionals and this thread will be about useless, yes? And I should just focus on some breakfast. Thank you for your help.

 

[Lursa]

Well, then there won't be much debate within the halls of the legal professionals and this thread will be about useless, yes? And I should just focus on some breakfast. Thank you for your help.

That's no surprise. Much of what TACO is attempting is unconstitutional, and so far, much has been reversed.

You are very welcome, IMO it's important to help educate those in need.

 

[BirdinHand]

There is no reasonable debate. The 14th Amendment has always meant birthright citizenship and the meaning has never been challenged. Just because MAGA morons have now come along trying to say different does not mean they're mounting a credible challenge. They're simply sucking up to their cult leader in yet another, unconstitutional, un-American, unrealistic spasm of racist enmity.

They are idiots and their abject ignorance is showing.

14th Amendment was written to codify BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

Thats the history of it. Prior to that, immigrants would come to the US, have children, and then those children would be at the mercy of whatever local and state rules were until their parents became naturalized citizens.

These children faced discrimination regarding schooling, etc.

Northern states would draw out naturalization for what were - at that time - viewed as “lesser” immigrants.

Irish and Germans among them.

I swear, people are so god damned ignorant of history - it is amazing.

The Amendment was written the way it was on purpose.

 

[rahl]

Have you got any idea of the strain it would be on local, state, and federal budgets if we were to open up the borders to this idea of anyone coming to a locale on U.S. soil and have a baby and that infant is immediately a U.S. citizen and thus may immediately receive aid, if that parent (or the parents) can't afford taking proper care of the baby?

This is already the case and it isn’t a strain.

You open that door and the rush to the United States would be amazing. Not 'good' amazing.

The door was opened with the ratification of the 14th amendment lol. This isn’t new.

BirdinHand, do you honestly advocate that anybody should be allowed to come to the U.S. and have a baby and that baby is automatically a citizen?

This is what the constitution explicitly says. You can lobby to amend the constitution if you want.

Do you really wish for that to be made the law of the land?

It’s been the law of the land since the ratification of the 14th amendment.

 

[rahl]

I think the Supremes should look at this issue in light of the historical reality when the 14th Amendment was ratified. In other words, what was the purpose of the Amendment at that time.

If they do that, they'll have to rule that the Amendment was never intended to allow EVERYONE born on US soil to be considered an American citizen.

If you can’t read English perhaps. The amendment says all persons. That is crystal clear.

However, a Supreme Court ruling will never lay the matter to rest. Rulings can be, and often are, contradictory to previous rulings. The proper way to resolve this issue is to remove and/or rewrite the 14th Amendment to make it clear that birthright citizenship is strictly limited.

Which there is zero chance of.

 

[rahl]

Excuse me, but are you advocating that ALL births on U.S. soil should immediately be given U.S. citizenship?

The constitution is crystal clear on this.

Just trying to get a handle on your starting point, that's all. That is, I am really interested in what folks think.

I do sense, though, your "However" sentence is an attempt at redirecting attention away from those two paragraphs I quoted and so now I'll go find out more about actual numbers of the babies born that were given immediate citizenship. Might take me a bit of time, though.

By the way, I remember many years ago about some mother giving birth on a U.S. registered passenger plane and the baby was stated to then be a U.S. citizen. But that is a memory in my brain that seems way back, so I don't know if we could find that through a search engine. Probably can.

 

[medi]

That's no surprise. Much of what TACO is attempting is unconstitutional, and so far, much has been reversed.

You are very welcome, IMO it's important to help educate those in need.

Seems you have to extend your educating to at least one other person that might just be a tad smarter than I:

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Well, very likely a whole bunch smarter than I.

Anyway, I figured there wouldn't be such a ruckus about all this if all those professionals agreed with you.

NOW I can try and get some breakfast.

 

[rahl]

So there is no debate within the circles of professional legal folks about the meaning of that which you wish me to study?

No. This was settled in 1898.

It is absolutely concrete clear what the law states?

Yes. Which is why this was settled in 1898.

 

[rahl]

Well, thank you, because I was just advised to read that. BUT this strikes me as the little peep hole in an otherwise solid wall:

Nope. That was settled in plyler v doe.

 

[medi]

The constitution is crystal clear on this.

Very sorry, but there are others that don't agree that the 14th Amendment is that clear. But I'm no legal scholar and will leave all that debate in all those courtrooms to those legal folks.

But a flat claim that it is crystal clear might mean you bought a crystal copy and not the real thing.

EDIT: In fact, I see just in that snippet for that link that in at least five states there are at least five people that do not agree that all is crystal clear. And I'd bet those five individuals are legal professionals.

 

[Lursa]

Seems you have to extend your educating to at least one other person that might just be a tad smarter than I:

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Well, very likely a whole bunch smarter than I.

Anyway, I figured there wouldn't be such a ruckus about all this if all those professionals agreed with you.

NOW I can try and get some breakfast.

Heh heh heh, you fell for that source. It's been pulled apart in at least 2 other threads on this topic. With the SCOTUS challenge cases to support it.

And all the professionals that do matter, understand what the 14th A says...and means.

Like I wrote...it's important to educate when one can. Enjoy your breakfast.

 

[rahl]

Very sorry, but there are others that don't agree that the 14th Amendment is that clear.

And there are just as many if more retards that think the earth is flat, we didn’t land on the moon, or Obama was born in Kenya.

But I'm no legal scholar and will leave all that debate in all those courtrooms to those legal folks.

There is no debate. The matter was settled in 1898.

But a flat claim that it is crystal clear might mean you bought a crystal copy and not the real thing.

The real thing is crystal clear. “All persons” doesn’t just mean “former slaves” or “us citizens”.

EDIT: In fact, I see just in that snippet for that link that in at least five states there are at least five people that do not agree that all is crystal clear. And I'd bet those five individuals are legal professionals.

It doesn’t matter how many retards reject reality. The amendment is crystal clear. The court has already told you this. Way back in 1898.

 

[medi]

Now that is cute;

... only the professionals that do matter ...

Well, like I just wrote, there are at least five professionals that "might" matter that may not share such concrete solid opinions as to what the 14th Amendment means.

And an interesting point was made by another member around here some place, the rulings in the courts, even in SCOTUS, can be changed.

And you'll excuse me 'HE-HE-HE' but I already stated in some post I was only just starting my research on this and I was trying to understand how so many could be arguing this matter, IF it is so crystal clear; so I apologize that I haven't studied all the other fine material already introduced into other threads on this platform. And I assume the dissenting voices in those other threads are on a par with the author of that HE-HE-HE article; as in they are legal professionals.

I wonder if the author of the HE-HE-HE is also on a par with the legal qualifications of any law professor who might think there is room for discussion on this matter.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Sean Hannity takes home $600,000 - $700,000 (net) every two weeks. That's not counting his side businesses where he owns like a thousand houses (while MAGAs on this board struggle to pay for one I'm sure).

Rush Limbaugh made about twice what Sean Hannity makes.

Neither one of those guys will let anything touch their $$$$$$$$$$$$ and they know the easiest way to do it is to convince white people that they're being replaced ny brown/black people (who eat cats). Fox News is the same way. And, yes, I realize Rush is dead.

And that, folks, is why the United States is where it is. A bunch of lowlifes had to keep their MASSIVE money flowing so they just scared the shit out of the white folks (many I'm sure who pocket about two grand or less every couple weeks).

So it's really smart, extremely rich people using poor and middle class Republicans to gain unthinkable riches.

Idiots.

 

[Lursa]

Now that is cute;

... only the professionals that do matter ...

Well, like I just wrote, there are at least five professionals that "might" matter that may not share such concrete solid opinions as to what the 14th Amendment means.

And an interesting point was made by another member around here some place, the rulings in the courts, even in SCOTUS, can be changed.

And you'll excuse me 'HE-HE-HE' but I already stated in some post I was only just starting my research on this and I was trying to understand how so many could be arguing this matter, IF it is so crystal clear; so I apologize that I haven't studied all the other fine material already introduced into other threads on this platform. And I assume the dissenting voices in those other threads are on a par with the author of that HE-HE-HE article; as in they are legal professionals.

I wonder if the author of the HE-HE-HE is also on a par with the legal qualifications of any law professor who might think there is room for discussion on this matter.

No one says SCOTUS rulings cant be changed. The Const itself can be changed. As can the 14th A, repealed or amended.

The question is the meaning of the 14th A as it currently pertains to birthright citizenship. Yes..."he he he" it's been discussed in depth elsewhere...do you know the counterarguments to your cherry-picked, questionably sourced article?

And the "heh heh heh" was in response to your post...smug and snarky. Trying for the probing gotchas...and ending up with nowhere to go but the MAGA desperate one. The smart move would have been to attempt to educate yourself...instead of grasping one edge case to look...'edgy" Were you prepared enough on the issue to recognize how slanted and amusing that article is?

"The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.​

​

...we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation." link​

Despite all the cases where SCOTUS decided otherwise.

There is room for discussion on the matter of birthright citizenship...that's what the OP is about. However the meaning of the 14th re: that matter has been clear thru continual SCOTUS decisions and federal law.

 

[Individual]

There is a procedure for modifying the Constitution.

Until the amendment procedure is used, the SC is responsible for interpreting the meaning of the words in modern times, and often along party lines.

 

[Visbek]

I would suggest that you do the proper work and go to the author's of that page in Wikipedia and explain that you find some of their information may no longer be supported by proper sourcing.

LOL

No, that's not my responsibility. It is also not my problem that you happened upon a particularly shitty Wiki page, did not even try to critically examine it, didn't bother to read the part which -- albeit briefly and incompletely -- discusses steps already taken to avoid "anchor baby tourism."

I am only just getting started on the research.

Suuuuuure you are

Wouldn't you care to help?

Nope.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Section 1, 14th amendment, read it.

We all know that. Should it be changed?

 

[Visbek]

So there is no debate within the circles of professional legal folks about the meaning of that which you wish me to study?

Nope.

The SCOTUS unambiguously found in US vs Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment provides birthright citizenship.

There is a handful of extreme right-wing racists and xenophobes that are trying to twist the meaning of the words to push their own agenda. They're the legal equivalent to Flat Earthers.

It is absolutely concrete clear what the law states?

Yes. It is.

Maybe you should read it, instead of repeating this "just asking questions" nonsense.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Trump (as POTUS) shouldn’t be able to make (change or delete) federal law. IMHO, the SCOTUS should leave it at that and let congress deal with the situation if (when?) they choose to do so.

Well if Trump wants to have his way, right now would be the time to do it before the midterms happen.

 

[Rexedgar]

We all know that. Should it be changed?

Yes, if the procedure is followed.

 

[Rexedgar]

Until the amendment procedure is used, the SC is responsible for interpreting the meaning of the words in modern times, and often along party lines.

EO won’t change it, or shouldn’t.