The 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship was intended for the children of freed slaves

[Rich2018]

Biden counted people turned away at the Port of Entry as being "deported."

Citation ?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The Supreme Court has already told you what the 14th means.

The Wong case was slightly different than that of the majority of illegal aliens that came into the country in the last four years. Sometimes those differences matter. Sometimes they don't. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[rahl]

Biden counted people turned away at the Port of Entry as being "deported."

Biden deported more people than Trump did.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Citation ?

People who were first arrested by Customs and Border Protection, which typically means those arrested at the border, accounted for most of the deportations in February 2024 under Biden.

Trump deported fewer people last month than Biden a year ago, but border crossings have plummeted

About 11,000 immigrants were deported last month, compared with over 12,000 a year ago, data obtained by NBC News shows.

www.nbcnews.com

Another reason, obviously, is that Trump stopped the flow of aliens across the border.

 

[rahl]

The Wong case was slightly different than that of the majority of illegal aliens that came into the country in the last four years.

No it wasn’t.

Sometimes those differences matter.

There is no difference.

Sometimes they don't. We'll just have to wait and see.

We already saw. This is not going to the Supreme Court

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Biden deported more people than Trump did.

When?

 

[rahl]

When?

When he was president.

 

[soap box]

At what?

Your vote is not at risk of being diluted. This same thing has been happening since the beginning and nothing terrible or wrong has happened. Immigrants have flooded urban areas and descendants of immigrants fight against the new generations that keep coming. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to vote, so that's not the problem. Are there statistics that can verify that our current situation is markedly unique?

Their children are able to vote, but no one knows how they will mature politically. There are many Hispanics who voted for trump, I know them personally in the Rio Grande valley, look at Little Havana in Florida.

That's to say, if Republicans have solid policies, the voters will come in all colors.

You previously posted:

"I believe they assumed that poor Mexicans and Latin Americans would be so grateful to the Party that enabled their immigration that they would vote Democrat as soon as they could. I would also point out that Democrats have been urging a "fast track" to citizenship for all illegal aliens, not just their children."

'As soon as they could' might be a decade later. You're making a guess about what they will vote for. And I would repeat, you can't count on how they will vote because we can't predict the political landscape and individual Hispanics can change their mind when they wish.

Immigrants aren't going to steal anyone's vote. Immigrants are not going to replace anything or anyone. Immigrants are the parents of tomorrow's citizens and it has been that way from the beginning.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

No it wasn’t.

Yes, it was, as the Court noted. The Wong family has been in a settled and stable "domicile" for some years before young Wong was born. Today's illegal aliens haven't, in many cases.

There is no difference.

Your full of, ummm, mistakes.

We already saw. This is not going to the Supreme Court

The USSC will hear arguments on May 15th, this coming Thursday.

​

 

[RetiredAtLast]

When he was president.

Biden had four years to turn people away at the border. Trump has only been in office for four months.

 

[rahl]

Yes, it was, as the Court noted. The Wong family has been in a settled and stable "domicile" for some years before young Wong was born. Today's illegal aliens haven't, in many cases.

No, it wasn’t. Neither are citizens.

You’re full of, ummm, mistakes.

I have made no mistakes in this thread. It’s why I have and will continue correcting you on constitutional law.

The USSC will hear arguments on May 15th, this coming Thursday.

 

[rahl]

Biden had four years to turn people away at the border. Trump has only been in office for four months.

Trump was president for 4 years prior to Biden. Biden deported more people than Trump did.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Your vote is not at risk of being diluted. This same thing has been happening since the beginning and nothing terrible or wrong has happened.

You assume that I'm concerned about something about which I'm not.
The vote is one of our most treasured rights of citizenship. If Democrats succeed in granting citizenship to the illegal aliens, as they propose to do, those aliens will have, in effect, stolen that right to vote. I believe it should not be that easily gotten.

'As soon as they could' might be a decade later. You're making a guess about what they will vote for.

I expressed an opinion about the thinking of Biden and/or his advisors.

Immigrants aren't going to steal anyone's vote.

They won't take my vote away from me or anyone else. But they will gain a treasured right through an illegal act, if Democrats have their way.

 

[StillBallin75]

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution, apportionment, slavery slaves citizenship vote

www.14thamendment.us

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves.
It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to Blacks born in the United States.
But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
Thus by definition there were no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.
Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Comment:
Birthright Citizenship was never intended for the children of people who illegally entered our country.
It was intended to protect the children of freed slaves.
It is automatically assumed that Birthright Citizenship includes the children of American citizens.
Therefore if neither of the parents of a child who is born on American soil are American citizens, then that child should not be granted birthright citizenship.

So you're admitting, full throatedly, that when the 14th Amendment was written the country had open borders and therefore we had no such thing as "illegal" immigration. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[StillBallin75]

You assume that I'm concerned about something about which I'm not.
The vote is one of our most treasured rights of citizenship. If Democrats succeed in granting citizenship to the illegal aliens, as they propose to do, those aliens will have, in effect, stolen that right to vote. I believe it should not be that easily gotten.

I expressed an opinion about the thinking of Biden and/or his advisors.

They won't take my vote away from me or anyone else. But they will gain a treasured right through an illegal act, if Democrats have their way.

"stolen the right to vote" lol.

The average native born American was handed the right to vote at birth, they didn't earn it and didn't have to take a single test. Most of the white folk in America are either descendants of colonizers, or their ancestors came through Ellis Island in the course of a day (whereas the legal path to citizenship now takes something like ten years and thousands if not more in attorney fees).

In contrast, "illegal" immigrants have been proving to be paying taxes into public benefits that they themselves cannot access.

The real injustice is that there exist people who contribute to society who are deemed to be illegal at all.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

No, it wasn’t. Neither are citizens.

Both are dead. But before Wong was born, as the Court noted, they had established a solid home here. I'm not going to tell you again.

I have made no mistakes in this thread. It’s why I have and will continue correcting you on constitutional law.

You mistakenly said there is no difference between Wong and the current cases. You also said that the current cases won't go to the Supreme Court. Not only did you make those mistakes, you obviously don't know Jack about Constitutional law. (I was being polite when I said you were full of mistakes.)

 

[craig]

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution, apportionment, slavery slaves citizenship vote

www.14thamendment.us

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves.
It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to Blacks born in the United States.
But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
Thus by definition there were no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.
Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Comment:
Birthright Citizenship was never intended for the children of people who illegally entered our country.
It was intended to protect the children of freed slaves.
It is automatically assumed that Birthright Citizenship includes the children of American citizens.
Therefore if neither of the parents of a child who is born on American soil are American citizens, then that child should not be granted birthright citizenship.

So what would that mean for the millions of children born to Ellis Island immigrants that were not naturalized?

 

[rahl]

Both are dead. But before Wong was born, as the Court noted, they had established a solid home here.

Irrelevant.

I'm not going to tell you again.

I know more about the case than you do lol.

You mistakenly said there is no difference between Wong and the current cases.

I correctly pointed it out.

You also said that the current cases won't go to the Supreme Court. Not only did you make those mistakes, you obviously don't know Jack about Constitutional law. (I was being polite when I said you were full of mistakes.)

Yet I am correcting you on constitutional law. Lol

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The average native born American was handed the right to vote at birth, they didn't earn it and didn't have to take a single test. Most of the white folk in America are either descendants of colonizers, or their ancestors came through Ellis Island in the course of a day (whereas the legal path to citizenship now takes something like ten years and thousands if not more in attorney fees).

I regret that you place so little value on it that you denigrate it so.

In contrast, "illegal" immigrants have been proving to be paying taxes into public benefits that they themselves cannot access.

So you say. Others disagree.

The real injustice is that there exist people who contribute to society who are deemed to be illegal at all.

The real ignorance lies in that statement.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Irrelevant.

The Court didn't think so.

I know more about the case than you do lol

Obviously not, if you got so much wrong.

I correctly pointed it out.
Yet I am correcting you on constitutional law. Lol

 

[soap box]

You assume that I'm concerned about something about which I'm not.
The vote is one of our most treasured rights of citizenship. If Democrats succeed in granting citizenship to the illegal aliens, as they propose to do, those aliens will have, in effect, stolen that right to vote. I believe it should not be that easily gotten.

" those aliens will have, in effect, stolen that right to vote."

Would they be stealing my right to vote too? Would that include stealing your right to vote? Or is that something all citizens can participate in.

So you are concerned about something. You think Dems are going to allow aliens to steal your right to vote. That's a fairness question. That bill never passed.
No dem said illegal aliens should vote. A pathway to citizenship is not something to be feared.

If you think that it's wrong or unjust that undocumented migrants may fulfill a lawful path to citizenship and eventually vote, are you saying is just an issue of fairness, or an issue of being outvoted?

If Republicans want voters they can find them through better policies. Their color doesn't matter.

I expressed an opinion about the thinking of Biden and/or his advisors.

They won't take my vote away from me or anyone else. But they will gain a treasured right through an illegal act, if Democrats have their way.

If they're undocumented, they won't be able to vote so that's null. If they are permanent residents they still are not eligible to vote so that's null. How would "gained a treasured right through an illegal act" be illegal if they must go through the process of naturalization in order to be a citizen and vote?

You said "You assume that I'm concerned about something about which I'm not."


If you're not concerned then why change the Constitution now?

 

[rahl]

The Court didn't think so.

Of course they did.

Obviously not, if you got so much wrong.

I have gotten nothing wrong. It’s why you keep being corrected on constitutional law.

 

[Hamish Howl]

You assume that I'm concerned about something about which I'm not.
The vote is one of our most treasured rights of citizenship. If Democrats succeed in granting citizenship to the illegal aliens, as they propose to do, those aliens will have, in effect, stolen that right to vote. I believe it should not be that easily gotten.

I expressed an opinion about the thinking of Biden and/or his advisors.

They won't take my vote away from me or anyone else. But they will gain a treasured right through an illegal act, if Democrats have their way.

The fact that you are allowed to vote steals my right to vote.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The fact that you are allowed to vote steals my right to vote.

Nope. You still have the right. I just offset it with my vote.

 

[Peter]

The fact that you are allowed to vote steals my right to vote.

How?
Every legal American has a right to vote for who they want to vote for even if I strongly disagree with their choice.
I think every legal American including those in prison be given the chance to vote for who they want.
My personal feeling are irrelevant.