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

[TheDoctorWasIn]

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.

You understand that the Supreme Court isn't the only court in this country, right?

 

[BirdinHand]

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

Absolute bullshit.

In that era was when you saw “No Irish Need Apply” and all sorts of discrimination against Irish, German and Chinese immigrants in the north. When they were not yet citizens! And their CHILDREN were also being discriminated against and excluded from schools, etc.

It is also when you saw the amount of time after an immigrant arrived - before they could become naturalized - being extended in states and localities. To EXCLUDE those immigrants from schools, jobs, public services, buying property, etc.

The writers of and those who argued FOR the 14th were fighting THAT discrimination in their home states. In addition to being concerned with freed slaves.

But, you are sitting here trying to tell us that people who were fighting AGAINST nativist policies and discrimination that was going on in the north - somehow used the words ALL PERSONS in the authoring as a mistake and they’d be TOTALLY fine with nativist discrimination today?


They FORMALIZED and enshrined jus soli common law European practice to stop the discrimination. ON PURPOSE.

But tell us how nope, that is not at all what they meant to do





My god the pretzels MAGAs twist themselves into.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Has the Amendment changed?

The conditions surrounding the intent of the Amendment have changed. Consideration of those changing conditions is one of the reasons the Supreme Court exists.

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

I haven't said that was their intent. What I have said is that there would have been no reason, at the time, to exclude people who didn't exist. It follows that Congress could not have intended to include the babies of people who didn't exist. IOW, "All persons" couldn't have included non-existent people.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You understand that the Supreme Court isn't the only court in this country, right?

Sure. Have there been any other cases dealing with birthright citizenship in any Courts other than the Supreme Court?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

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.

Desperate nonsense.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

But, you are sitting here trying to tell us that people who were fighting AGAINST nativist policies and discrimination that was going on in the north - somehow used the words ALL PERSONS in the authoring as a mistake and they’d be TOTALLY fine with nativist discrimination today?

First, the rest of your post has nothing to do with the laws of the country on immigration, with the possible exception of the Chinese Exclusion Law.
Second, your attempt in the above sentence is yet another predictable attempt from the left to turn the issue into one of racism, and I won't argue racism with the most racist Party in the country, the Democrats.

 

[Nickyjo]

I repeat, you need to understand the context and intent.
Read about why the 14th was created and passed.
It was about freed slaves.
It was not created for people who illegally crossed our border.

Doesn’t matter. We are free to interpret the plain language of the Constitution in various ways. Look how “equal protection” or freedom of speech has been interpreted historically. There has always been a tension between strict and loose constructionists, the original intent folks and the plain language folks.

And what would you have happen to someone born here of parents who were illegal and perhaps arecnow dead, which person has a US birth certificate and passport, but no citizenship elsewhere, send them to our Salvadoran Gulag?

 

[BirdinHand]

First, the rest of your post has nothing to do with the laws of the country on immigration, with the possible exception of the Chinese Exclusion Law.
Second, your attempt in the above sentence is yet another predictable attempt from the left to turn the issue into one of racism, and I won't argue racism with the most racist Party in the country, the Democrats.

The entire 14th Amendment is about combatting racism.



Sort of a central point of the Civil Rights Amendments. (13,14,15)

 

[rahl]

Desperate nonsense.

Your position remains refuted. Every single time your argument has been before a court, you’ve lost. All the way up to the Supreme Court level.

 

[Gordy327]

Very relevant to the discussion.

Not really. The 14th is about citizenship, not immigration.

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.

Times may have changed. But the 14th and the ruling has not. It is still in effect and is affirmed by the 14th Amendment.

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.

Birthright deals with rights or privileges one has from birth. In the context of the 14th, birth on US soil confers citizenship.

 

[Gordy327]

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.

I doubt few, if anyone here at all, takes his argument seriously. It's based on nothing more than conjecture at best.

 

[Rexedgar]

Very relevant to the discussion.

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.

They should have had the foresight to predict things, right? The press has evolved, the weapons have evolved, (may be some different opinions here,) most things have evolved since the ratification and the adoption of various amendments. That’s why I opine that the US Constitution is not a living, breathing document. You know they established procedures when people thought the Constitution needed changing, right?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The entire 14th Amendment is about combatting racism.

No, it isn't. It's about freedom for slaves. But, of course, Democrats have nothing else to talk about.

Sort of a central point of the Civil Rights Amendments. (13,14,15)

They aren't "The Civil Rights Amendments." They are "The Civil War Amendments" or "The Reconstruction Amendments."

 

[rahl]

Very relevant to the discussion.

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.

Which is why you will need an amendment to end birthright citizenship for children of non citizens or children of illegals. The 14th is crystal clear and unambiguous. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been to court.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Every single time your argument has been before a court, you’ve lost. All the way up to the Supreme Court level.

Yep. All one times at SCOTUS.

 

[rahl]

The conditions surrounding the intent of the Amendment have changed.

Meaningless.

Consideration of those changing conditions is one of the reasons the Supreme Court exists.

No it isn’t.

I haven't said that was their intent. What I have said is that there would have been no reason, at the time, to exclude people who didn't exist. It follows that Congress could not have intended to include the babies of people who didn't exist. IOW, "All persons" couldn't have included non-existent people.

Which is why an amendment is required to end birthright citizenship for non citizens or illegals.

 

[BirdinHand]

No, it isn't. It's about freedom for slaves. But, of course, Democrats have nothing else to talk about.

They aren't "The Civil Rights Amendments." They are "The Civil War Amendments" or "The Reconstruction Amendments."

Read a book perhaps about what was also going on in the north - where the authors of the amendments were from.

 

[rahl]

Sure. Have there been any other cases dealing with birthright citizenship in any Courts other than the Supreme Court?

Yes. I gave you a citation that listed several.

 

[rahl]

Yep. All one times at SCOTUS.

And in each and every lower court since 1898. Your position remains refuted.

 

[Lursa]

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

Why dont you prove there are some and that they support your statements? Why should he go find something you want? If you want to find something to prove YOUR point...please present it.

 

[Lursa]

it says all persons
and all persons means all citizens
it doesn't include people who are not citizens
it doesn't mean all of the people on our planet

Nope, it defines citizens. And that would be:

Section 1​

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

[Lursa]

who do you think the 14th amendment was created for

"We the People of the United States..."

 

[Lursa]

Lie.

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.

The lying really shows that they've bottomed out on the legal and rational aspects of debate.

 

[Mr Person]

I doubt few, if anyone here at all, takes his argument seriously. It's based on nothing more than conjecture at best.

Hell, it doesn't matter what it's based on. The plain language of the amendment is unambiguous. His argument requires people to believe that the framers of the 14th were so stupid and careless that they said "all persons born . . . " when they meant "only this one specific group of people this one time".

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You know they established procedures when people thought the Constitution needed changing, right?

Yes, with great foresight. It was after the writing of the Constitution, though, that Marshall in Marbury v Madison decided that it provided that the Supreme Court would interpret the laws. Their "interpretation," of course, has the effect of modifying the Constitution. Thus, without explicit definition in the Constitution, it is a second method of "amending" it when the Court, not necessarily "the people." thinks it needs changing.