Birthright Citizenship

[Sandlord]

Huge! The congressman who submitted the 14th amendment, which concerns birthright citizenship, states that it was never intended to include foreigners.

These discussions happened May 30, 1866.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore:

“The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]”

Mr. HOWARD:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

 

[bonesfab]

Huge! The congressman who submitted the 14th amendment, which concerns birthright citizenship, states that it was never intended to include foreigners.

These discussions happened May 30, 1866.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore:

“The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]”

Mr. HOWARD:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

View attachment 1471679

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[LHC30]

He may have never intended it, but I suspect a lot depends on how it was worded and THOSE words voted on. I also believe a challenge based at least in part on INTENT absent other members written opinions may be successful.
one can only hope a challenger comes forth!

 

[Racey]

It's blatantly obvious, why use redundant language..... There would be no need for the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if they just meant born here by itself.

 

[530RL]

'Blatantly unconstitutional': US judge temporarily blocks Trump's ban on birthright citizenship

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, told the court he could not remember in his more than 40 years on the bench seeing a case so "blatantly unconstitutional."

www.foxnews.com

 

[4Waters]

'Blatantly unconstitutional': US judge temporarily blocks Trump's ban on birthright citizenship

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, told the court he could not remember in his more than 40 years on the bench seeing a case so "blatantly unconstitutional."

www.foxnews.com

It's really not. I know you don't like to but read the constitution.

Maybe the democrats will say that they used the illegals as slaves for their labor, we know how much democrats love slavery

 

[530RL]

It's really not. I know you don't like to but read the constitution.

Maybe the democrats will say that they used the illegals as slaves for their labor, we know how much democrats love slavery

I did. It is as clear as the second amendment.

Let’s see how the courts rule. If they agree with trumps view, about 40 percent of the white folk in America are no longer citizens as their ancestors were not naturalized citizens and their offspring relied on the 14th for their citizenship.

Let’s see what happens when they start deporting multi generational white folks who are deemed not valid citizens.

 

[4Waters]

I did. It is as clear as the second amendment.

Let’s see how the courts rule. If they agree with trumps view, about 40 percent of the white folk in America are no longer citizens as their ancestors were not naturalized citizens and their offspring relied on the 14th for their citizenship.

Let’s see what happens when they start deporting multi generational white folks who are deemed not valid citizens.

My white family came to America between 1911 and 1918. Am I ok?

 

[530RL]

My white family came to America between 1911 and 1918. Am I ok?

If they came here under a visa, and then had children prior to becoming naturalized citizens, then what part of illegal don’t you understand.

Go home you invader

 

[4Waters]

If they came here under a visa, and then had children prior to becoming naturalized citizens, then what part of illegal don’t you understand.

Go home you invader

They signed in legally at Ellis Island, what part of that was the process at that time don't you understand. You have to abide by the process at the time. The amendment was created for the children of freed (by Republicans I might add) slaves, so unless the democrats want to admit that they used the illegals as slaves their children don't receive birth right citizenship.

 

[530RL]

They signed in legally at Ellis Island, what part of that was the process at that time don't you understand. You have to abide by the process at the time. The amendment was created for the children of freed (by Republicans I might add) slaves, so unless the democrats want to admit that they used the illegals as slaves their children don't receive birth right citizenship

No,

The argument being made by the administration is that unless one of the parents are a US citizen at the time of birth, the child is not.

Your ancestors coming through Ellis does not make them citizens. Therefore under the desired interpretation by this administration, their children and future children are also not citizens unless your ancestors had become naturalized citizens prior to having children.

Their argument is not to just deny citizenship to the children of illegal entrants, it is to deny citizenship to any individual born in America where there was not a US citizen parent. Even if those non citizen parents were legally in the United States such as your ancestors.

 

[monkeyswrench]

This is kind of funny banter...ya'll are new comers. "Get off my lawn!" I'm "half Mexican" from a racial point of view. Both sides though (turns out Mexican side actually was from half breeds from the 1850's) have roots starting in Europe, and landing here before the Revolution.

If the family is a multi-generational draw to the economy, boot them. Really, I don't think many people care about those that are self sufficient. Those who are here only for a better life by handouts, or commit crimes...F'em, hit the bricks.

 

[92562]

No,

The argument being made by the administration is that unless one of the parents are a US citizen at the time of birth, the child is not.

Your ancestors coming through Ellis does not make them citizens. Therefore under the desired interpretation by this administration, their children and future children are also not citizens unless your ancestors had become naturalized citizens prior to having children.

Their argument is not to just deny citizenship to the children of illegal entrants, it is to deny citizenship to any individual born in America where there was not a US citizen parent. Even if those non citizen parents were legally in the United States such as your ancestors.

You are only partially correct. The part the left wants to leave out is, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; meaning, If you enter the country illegally, you are still a citizen of where you came from, not a US citizen. Therefore, your children born here are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Mexico, Haiti, wherever you are from. Once you are naturalized, your children born here would become citizens.

 

[4Waters]

You are only partially correct. The part the left wants to leave out is, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; meaning, If you enter the country illegally, you are still a citizen of where you came from, not a US citizen. Therefore, your children born here are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Mexico, Haiti, wherever you are from. Once you are naturalized, your children born here would become citizens.

It's pretty obvious that the 2nd amendment isn't very clear to him

 

[530RL]

You are only partially correct. The part the left wants to leave out is, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; meaning, If you enter the country illegally, you are still a citizen of where you came from, not a US citizen. Therefore, your children born here are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Mexico, Haiti, wherever you are from. Once you are naturalized, your children born here would become citizens.

If an illegal is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, how do you deport them legally. They are not subject to US jurisdiction?

Of course illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are exactly as outlined in the original post, those that belong to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

 

[92562]

If an illegal is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, how do you deport them legally. They are not subject to US jurisdiction?

Of course illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are exactly as outlined in the original post, those that belong to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

You forgot that what I said refers to the OP. By entering the country illegally, you are subject to our legal system because you committed a crime. The statement I quoted refers to children born here, not illegals being here.

 

[530RL]

You forgot that what I said refers to the OP. By entering the country illegally, you are subject to our legal system because you committed a crime. The statement I quoted refers to children born here, not illegals being here.

So your argument is that a child born in the US to illegal parents is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Then how would one legally deport them if they are not subject to US jurisdiction?

 

[92562]

So your argument is that a child born in the US to illegal parents is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Then how would one legally deport them if they are not subject to US jurisdiction?

That is correct. Per current law, just like our kids, they are their parents liability. Therefore, when you deport the parents, you have to deport the children with them. Now if the child breaks a law, they are subject to the legal system with respect to the law that was broken.

 

[bonesfab]

So your argument is that a child born in the US to illegal parents is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Then how would one legally deport them if they are not subject to US jurisdiction?

WETOD alert WETOD alert.

 

[4Waters]

You forgot that what I said refers to the OP. By entering the country illegally, you are subject to our legal system because you committed a crime. The statement I quoted refers to children born here, not illegals being here.

That is correct. Per current law, just like our kids, they are their parents liability. Therefore, when you deport the parents, you have to deport the children with them. Now if the child breaks a law, they are subject to the legal system with respect to the law that was broken.

Some day he will realize he is an extreme left wing liberal

 

[samsah33]

Let’s see what happens when they start deporting multi generational white folks who are deemed not valid citizens.

So if the SC interprets today that the 14th does not apply to children of illegals, then you think the legislature would send back multiple generations?

Kinda like if they change the speed limit today then I can get a ticket tomorrow for speeding yesterday...?

 

[530RL]

So if the SC interprets today that the 14th does not apply to children of illegals, then you think the legislature would send back multiple generations?

Kinda like if they change the speed limit today then I can get a ticket tomorrow for speeding yesterday...?

No, it would simply recognize as a matter of law that many who thought they were citizens are not and as non citizens are subject to the same rules as anyone else who is here without appropriate legal status.

 

[Smitty7]

Then give me all my tax money back and I'll leave .

 

[Sandlord]

If an illegal is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, how do you deport them legally. They are not subject to US jurisdiction?

Of course illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are exactly as outlined in the original post, those that belong to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

Thats not how “Subject to Jurisdiction” was defined in US vs Wong Kim Ark

 

[530RL]

Then give me all my tax money back and I'll leave .

I’d take that deal too.

 

[monkeyswrench]

"Then how would one legally deport them if they are not subject to US jurisdiction?"

Might I suggest a catapult or trebuchet?
More "green" for the libs, but still plenty of range for a "Mijo Missile"

 

[Chili Palmer]

Why do you guys argue with this tool? He might as well be just another alias to Grads. He’s very good at getting a rise out of some of you.

 

[RitcheyRch]

 

[monkeyswrench]

Now the left will say you want to castrate the males, and brand all immigrants...

Wait, didn't they brand pisoners in the 1700's? That way everyone knew they'd been locked up? Maybe an option. Then if you see a brand either they produce papers, or off to the slaughterhouse.

 

[17 10 Flat]

Why do you guys argue with this tool? He might as well be just another alias to Grads. He’s very good at getting a rise out of some of you.

I have asked that question before, Regor loves to F with him usually bringing a smile to my face.

 

[Smitty7]

Now the left will say you want to castrate the males, and brand all immigrants...

Wait, didn't they brand pisoners in the 1700's? That way everyone knew they'd been locked up? Maybe an option. Then if you see a brand either they produce papers, or off to the slaughterhouse.

You don't have to be so barbaric branding people . We have lasers today for marking . Much more accurate .

 

[monkeyswrench]

You don't have to be so barbaric branding people . We have lasers today for marking . Much more accurate .

 

[Flying_Lavey]

My white family came to America between 1911 and 1918. Am I ok?

Im a bit concerned. I know one branch of my family goes all the way back to farming in Compton in the 1850's. According to Pete's Puffer Pal, I may not be a citizen......