Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Yes, they are an invading army, and their weapons of choice are: draining the US Treasury with the massive amounts of social services they receive, their anchor babies--300,000 of them born to hspanic women this year alone. These children, aside from being future little Marxists--everyone, will change the very fabric of American culture turning it into a mirror image of the culture they left behind. The reason their countries are so dysfunctional is their countries are full of people just like the ones invading America.

 

A little bit more on the issue.....

 

I keep saying the 14th is what it says it is which is what the courts say but that has to be contorted for the right to argue about.

 

But all illegals do not work for cartels so you can not include them, unless you can prove connections to a cartel.

 

The Supreme Court says it is.

- - - Updated - - -

No other countries laws have any effect inside US borders.

- - - Updated - - -

The parents are subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. Everyone on US soil with 2 exceptions is.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court has already settled this. Wong Kim ark and plyler v doe.

 

Huh? It doesn't apply to foreigners, aka aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats...which is exactly what the guy said.

It doesn't say, "foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors." It says, "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors." Foreigner and alien are synonyms and if he meant to include all foreigners then mentioning families of ambassadors makes no sense since they would already obviously be included under the title foreigner/alien. Remember that you are reading a transcript of spoken word. Read the sentence again as if you were giving a speech and the actual meaning should become clear to you if you have the intellectual integrity to allow it.

It would be like if I said, "Does not include minors, people under the age of 18, who belong to registered clubs." That means that minors, aka people under 18, who also belong to registered clubs are excluded. That statement does NOT list and exclude three separate classes (minors, people under 18, and club members). It excludes one class of people only.

 

The rewrite was when the USSC included the 'illegal' Chinese in an amendment pertaining to blacks and Indians legally in the country.

It is nothing complicated at all once you take into account the proper context and intent of the 14th Amendment. 'Subject to their jurisdiction' simply means legal citizens of another country. It doesn't mean that if they come here they do not have to follow our laws.

Even diplomatic immunity is a misunderstood concept with individuals who wish to complicate the issue. There are always exceptions and/or restrictions to any and all laws/rights. Criminals are not rewarded for their criminal acts in this country, technically, and this idiocy of rewarding citizenship because of a criminal act needs to be nipped in the bud.

Deliberately misinterpreting is coming from the bleeding hearts who don't care about the damage being caused and have a need to exploit these people for their own greedy agenda, not the best interest of the nation as a whole.

 

No, Plyler says that if an illegal is within a state he is subject to that states laws and also equally protected under that states laws. Jurisdiction in this instance is merely civil law. Again from the AG in 1868

Neither WKA nor Plyler has changed that.

Exactly right, but this has nothing to do with what I said, what I stated , what I claimed, nor does it answer any question I posed to you.

Being subject to civil law does not make one subject to the jurisdiction in the sense of the US govt having authority over them. Think draft dodgers that went to Canada, they could not join in the Canadian military but were subject to Canadian civil law. They were eventually sent back to the US.

Jurisdiction is explained in the Schooner Exchange, which WKA references. Plyler refers strictly to the jurisdiction of an individual state, nothing more.

 

But it didn't include American Indians born off reservation and in American cities now did it? Are you making the argument that American Indians aren't a "class of persons?" American Indians were not included because they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or they did not owe loyalty to the United States. That is history after all, do you refute it?

 

And the courts have found the 14th to be nothing more than declaratory of existing law, i.e. the 1866 CRA. Change the CRA and change the law. Very simple.

 

but irrelevant, the constitution supersedes and the 1866cra was rewritten after passage of the 14th

 

Nope. If you are subject to state law, you are subject to U.S. Law. Every person inside US borders is subject to U.S. Jurisdiction, as he court held. Excepting diplomats and invading armies.

Lol

 

What does that have to do with Howard's statement? I was referring to the actual language of what the senator himself said, not how the Amendment was treated by later courts. His sentence only excluded one class of people, foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors... Yet, in your OP, you claimed that the sentence is referring to three completely different classes of people. Are you now conceding that point?

As an aside though, if you want to use how the courts have treated the 14th Amendment to make your argument then you've already lost the debate since we all know what the current state of the law is. Remember? That's what has gotten you and your brethren's feathers ruffled to begin with.

So, back to the sentence that you thought important enough to bold and underline in your OP; It very clearly is referring to one type of person, namely foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats. You do see that now, right? If not, please explain your interpretation to the best of your ability.

 

Being subject to civil law does not make one "and subject to the jurisdiction of the US". Every person within the US is subject to US Civil Law. Again the AG states

Funny how even Gray in WKA cites this, don't you think?

- - - Updated - - -

You are confusing the law with nothing more than the policy that the admin has put in place. Policy is easily changed. The law is the 1866 CRA to which the 14th is merely declaratory of, again per WKA.

 

No, I'm not. You should read my post again because I don't think you understood what I was saying.

 

Makes you subject to U.S. Jurisdiction, as the Wong court and plyler court held.

 

the sentence quoted was the following: "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..."

There is no grammatical need for the comma between the words "aliens" and "who," and as such the comma must be a transcription mistake. A mid sentence pause can be portrayed in a transcript as a "-" i.e persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens - who belong to the families... A comma is used to divide a sentence. The sentence is by definition exclusionary as it specifically states "This will not, of course, include..." then goes on to state what the proclamation EXCLUDES, those who are "foreigners," and "aliens" both of which pretty much have EXACTLY the same definition. The children of forging diplomats are excluded by this statement as well, again because they don't owe loyalty to the United States. But what is being excluded or prohibited? The sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is below and describes birth citizenship, or what is to be excluded under certain circumstances.

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

 

NO, any foreign person, in the US is subject to American Law, whether or not they understand what the laws are. Jurisdiction of the Mother, is to the Country she is from and the laws of that country. Since the child born is as her, the inherent jurisdiction is that of the mother.

As for SCOTUS, any decision made, with few exceptions, then usually Amendments, are subject to reversal. I doubt your 1985 (9-0) decision, would stand today, even probably be unanimously decided in the reverse.

 

Nope, you just don't like what it actually says so now you're making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Notice that there is no "and" in that sentence. If the person in question does not "belong to the families..." then that sentence DOES NOT pertain to them.

I don't expect you to suddenly concede the point. I'm sure you'll claim that the sentence says what you want it to say til the day you die...but that doesn't change the actual meaning of the sentence. Sorry, but you aren't entitled to your own grammatical rules. You have to make do with the same rules everyone else uses.

 

Look, the sentence starts out with "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners..." As I have pointed out the comma between "aliens" and "who" is a grammatically mistake in transcription. Do you refute that? Are you arguing the legitimacy of a mistake, and DEMAND the US policy act on that MISTAKE. I believe your position to be pathetic ....

 

Being on US soil makes you subject to US Jurisdiction.. It doesn't matter if you are a tourist, businessman, visitor, student here on a visa or an illegal in the US without a visa.. you are subject to US jurisdiction.

I noticed that some of you think jurisdiction equals allegiance.. Time to get out a dictionary.

 

Being on US soil makes anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the Laws of the State. That's right, it doesn't matter if you are a tourist, businessman, visitor, student here on a visa or an illegal in the US without a visa. That however doesn't mean your child born will be a recognized US citizen by birth.

http://latinalista.com/causes/justice/federal_officials_deny_passports_to_midw

Please get out that dictionary and show the many different definitions to the word "Jurisdiction", maybe then you people will comprehend the context of the word and its varied usage, but somehow I doubt it, since now you are even denying the very definition you already gave of jurisdiction.

 

I suggest you get a dictionary.. Jurisdiction means authority. On US soil everyone is under US authority. You don't have a clue how wrong you are.. Perhaps you should contact your nearest law school.

 

That's right jurisdiction means authority in the first sentence of the 14th amendment, so does the US have the authority to conscript an illegal? What....the US doesn't, well then that simply means they are only subject to civil law and have no political rights, i.e. they have no rights granted to them via the USC, they have only few protections granted by the USC, namely the 5th and 6th Due Process Clauses if charged with an infamous crime and the 14th Equal Protection Clause of the state in which they are in.

My nearest Law School simply laughed at your responses, and when I told them you are nothing but a paralegal they about fell out of their chairs.

 

The 14th amendment does exactly that; http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lessons-for-trump-from-a-14-yr-old-girl-509101635878