The 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship was intended for the children of freed slaves (4 Viewers)

[Gordy327]

it says all persons

It says "all persons born.... Full stop!

and all persons means all citizens

Where does it say that? It says all persons born are citizens. Not persons born to citizens.

it doesn't include people who are not citizens
it doesn't mean all of the people on our planet
the real question is why do the Democrats want to flood our country with millions of poor third world people

It includes those born in the US.

 

[Gordy327]

who do you think the 14th amendment was created for

"All persons born...!" It's right there in black and white.

 

[Buster Keaton]

It says "all persons born.... Full stop!

Where does it say that? It says all persons born are citizens. Not persons born to citizens.

It includes those born in the US.

persons means citizens
it does not mean non-citizens
you do not understand why the 14th amendment was created
it was created for freed slaves who were citizens

 

[Gordy327]

When, besides the Wong case in 1898, has it been to the Supreme Court? Please provide cites.

If it hasn't been to the SCOTUS since 1898, then that ruling still stands regarding children born here to non-citizens. You defeat your own argument.

 

[Gordy327]

persons means citizens

Specify where that is legally defined or decided!

it does not mean non-citizens

No one said it did! Youdon't seem to understand your own argument, whatever that is.

you do not understand why the 14th amendment was created
it was created for freed slaves who were citizens

It does not specify "freed slaves" only. It does specify "all persons born or naturalized."

 

[Rexedgar]

A dedication from Kenny Rogers,

 

[BirdinHand]

has to do with your question, for one thing. For another, it's clear that our friends here on the left want no restrictions on immigration or on the status of illegal aliens in this country

Lie.

Who do you think the birthright citizenship was created for?

What does the 14th Amendment say?


It says “ALL PERSONS”


That is EXACTLY what they wrote.

Not “former slaves”. Not “children of freedmen”.

They wrote “all persons”

Even though they had an opportunity to use ALL THE OTHER WORDS in the English language.

So, you want us to believe they used ALL PERSONS - the author being a practicing attorney and most congressmen at the time having formal legal training and in such recognizing the weight of the words they write - chose them by mistake?

Whereas you - what are your formal educational qualifications? - a MAGA, know better their choice of words?


Man…my dogs are looking smarter and smarter by the day.

 

[Buster Keaton]

"All persons born...!" It's right there in black and white.

you need to understand what they meant by "persons"
it means the children of slaves
and it also includes the children of all citizens
they had no intension for it to apply to non-citizens
if they wanted it to also apply to non-citizens they would have said so
you have to be able to understand the context of the 14th amendment
it was about birthright citizenship for the children of emancipated slaves who were citizens
there is no mention of illegal border crossers in the 14th amendment

 

[Buster Keaton]

Specify where that is legally defined or decided!

No one said it did! Youdon't seem to understand your own argument, whatever that is.

It does not specify "freed slaves" only. It does specify "all persons born or naturalized."

who was the 14th amendment created for?
slaves or illegal border crossers?

 

[Fledermaus]

you need to understand what they meant by "persons"
it means the children of slaves
and it also includes the children of all citizens
they had no intension for it to apply to non-citizens
if they wanted it to also apply to non-citizens they would have said so
you have to be able to understand the context of the 14th amendment
it was about birthright citizenship for the children of emancipated slaves who were citizens
there is no mention of illegal border crossers in the 14th amendment

WTF?

All persons = All persons.

If they meant children of slaves they would have worded it differently.

 

[Fledermaus]

who was the 14th amendment created for?
slaves or illegal border crossers?

All persons.

 

[Rexedgar]

you need to understand what they meant by "persons"
it means the children of slaves
and it also includes the children of all citizens
they had no intension for it to apply to non-citizens
if they wanted it to also apply to non-citizens they would have said so
you have to be able to understand the context of the 14th amendment
it was about birthright citizenship for the children of emancipated slaves who were citizens
there is no mention of illegal border crossers in the 14th amendment

There is no mention of slave children either. I would have thought that you would have quit the field after the first drubbing…….

 

[BirdinHand]

And here’s where MAGAs and their lack of formalized education and understanding of history and laws falls apart.


One of the men instrumental in getting the 14th passed was Senator John Fesserman of Maine.

You know what else John Fesserman fought for Congressionally - federally AND within Maine? Opposition to the discrimination being faced by Irish, Chinese and German immigrants AT THAT TIME - in the north and nativism being displayed by states such as Maine - where they were treating naturalized citizens differently than citizens born here.

And the AUTHOR of the 14th was John Bingham. Known for fighting for the rights of the Irish, Germans, Chinese, etc and against the discrimination THEY faced in the North at the time - including extending the amount of years they had to be here before becoming citizens, etc. That discrimination is a big part of why he wrote the 14th. EXACTLY the way he did.

ALL PERSONS.

So when these racist MAGas are trying to shove their revisionist bullshit down your throats and talk about how the 14th was ONLY written about slaves, perhaps point them to actual history books and history of the era - not just MAGA YouTube and right wing am radio echo chambers.

 

[Redress]

The birthright citizenship was created for emancipated slaves and not for illegal immigrants.
That is not debatable.
That is a fact.
Who do you think the birthright citizenship was created for?

Well, no. It is not a fact. Birthright citizenship certainly was created for emancipated slaves, but not limited to them. The wording chosen was very explicit and clear.

 

[Buster Keaton]

WTF?

All persons = All persons.

If they meant children of slaves they would have worded it differently.

it was not created for non-citizens
it was created for citizens
that is a fact

 

[Buster Keaton]

All persons.

it was created for emancipated slaves
that is a fact

 

[BirdinHand]

Well, no. It is not a fact. Birthright citizenship certainly was created for emancipated slaves, but not limited to them. The wording chosen was very explicit and clear.

These idiots can’t understand multiple things happening in the US at one time.

They also don’t know god damned history.

 

[Rexedgar]

it was not created for non-citizens
it was created for citizens
that is a fact

A fact not in evidence.

 

[Mr Person]

Are we seriously entertaining a trolling argument that "all persons born" actually means "only this one specific set of persons this one time"?

@Buster Keaton is just trying to rile people up. Nobody would make this argument in any seriousness.

 

[rahl]

When, besides the Wong case in 1898, has it been to the Supreme Court? Please provide cites.

A history of birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court

This article was updated on Feb. 6 at 2:04 p.m. Shortly after being sworn into office on Jan. 20 for a second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[rahl]

who do you think the 14th amendment was created for

All persons. It’s why it explicitly says, all persons.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Irrelevant to the topic.

Very relevant to the discussion.

That ruling establishes a legal precedent whch can be applied today. Especially when it's the same issue. You trying to make it a numbers game

It can be, or not. Things have changed since 1868 or 1898. In fact, when the 14th amendment was enacted, the concept of illegal immigration didn't exist, so Congress would have had no reason to exclude illegal immigrants (of which there were none at the time) from the the birthright citizenship provision in the Amendment.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

It can be, or not. Things have changed since 1868 or 1898.

Has the Amendment changed?

In fact, when the 14th amendment was enacted, the concept of illegal immigration didn't exist, so Congress would have had no reason to exclude illegal immigrants (of which there were none at the time) from the the birthright citizenship provision in the Amendment.

Do you really not see how this defeats the whole argument?

How could the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended to exclude "illegal immigrants," if no such thing existed?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

A history of birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court

This article was updated on Feb. 6 at 2:04 p.m. Shortly after being sworn into office on Jan. 20 for a second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order […]

www.scotusblog.com

Your source doesn't indicate that there have been any birthright citizenship cases, besides Wong, ever to go to the Supreme Court. So your comment, "It’s why your argument has failed every times it’s been to court." means absolutely nothing as a response to mine.

 

[rahl]

Your source doesn't indicate that there have been any birthright citizenship cases, besides Wong, ever to go to the Supreme Court.

Strawman.

So your comment, "It’s why your argument has failed every times it’s been to court." means absolutely nothing as a response to mine.

It’s a direct refutation of your premise. Every court your argument has been in front of (up to and including the Supreme Court) has ruled against you.