Birthright Citizenship For Illegals Is Not In The Constitution

An amendment, indeed, kazenatsu, can remove birthright citizenship, yes

 

Birthright Citizenship is not in the Constitution. Even Senator Jacob Howard, who was the main author of the 14th Amendment, affirmed that it was not intended for aliens to this country. It has been misinterpreted and abused by the courts ever since the 1965 immigration act. Here is a little reading on the intent of the 14th Amendment:

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

 

Does not matter, onalandline. Birthright citizenship is here and will remain the law of the land.

 

WRONG!!!!!

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.

 

if Conservatives can reinterpret the 14th Amendment to only apply to children of citizens, then Liberals can reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to allow for govt regulations for guns.

 

They can still deport the baby until the baby is old enough to make a choice for itself.
The baby should go to be raised by the parents, if possible.

And Conservatives can reinterpret the 14th Amendment to apply to unborn human beings in the womb.

 

of course, he is a "nationalist"

 

considering it only applies to persons who are BORN, i would not be surprised if they did just that.

LOL!!!!

 

Read the second and third parts of the second sentence. There's no requirement that they have to be born to enjoy "equal protection".

 

You can read it yourself in the 14th Amendment.

Trump would need to repeal the 14th.

Pelosi won't allow it.

She now has a tight grip on Trump's balls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

 

hahaha!!!!

unborn fetuses are neither persons nor citizens.

therefore the 14th Amendment does not protect them

 

Logical fallacy with all three of those things you just said.

1. They could still be citizens even if their citizenship isn't granted through the 14th Amendment
2. They would still be protected by the 14th Amendment even if they weren't citizens
3. As for that "unborn fetuses are not persons", that's extremely ironic that you would try to use that argument here, since that's the same type of reasoning used in the Dred Scott case to take away the rights of Negroes, and subsequently the whole reason the 14th Amendment was passed in the first place.

 

14th Amendment only protects citizens and persons.

under Federal law, fetuses are neither.

and comparing a 1-month old fetus to an adult black person, is intellectually dishonest and a tad racist

 

No, Ronstar, stop insulting our intelligence.

Maybe you're forgetting about Title 18 USC section 1841. ​

 

unConstitutional.

only born persons have rights, under our Supreme Law of the Land.

 

prove me wrong.

where does the Constitution EVER mention rights for "unborn aliens or citizens"?

 

My mistake, I seem to remember you claiming that 14th Amendment only gives protections to citizens, but perhaps I was misunderstanding you (either that or you've gone back and re-edited some of your posts to correct your mistake).

The last clause of Section 1 reads: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

So just to clarify so there's no confusion, there are some protections for both persons and citizens, and one doesn't have to be both a person and a citizen together to have some protections under the 14th Amendment.

I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere.

Here's the parallel:
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that Negroes could not be considered citizens, and therefore had no rights.
116 years later, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the unborn could not be considered people, and therefore had no rights.

The Roe v. Wade ruling completely bypasses the protections in the 14th Amendment that were meant to rectify the Dred Scott ruling.

If the 14th Amendment had been around at the time of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, I think it's very likely the court would have ruled that Negroes were not persons, to deny their Constitutional rights.​

 

Here's something else to consider:
If the 14th Amendment grants "equal protection of the laws" to persons, who may not be citizens, if they meet the qualification of "being under the jurisdiction of the U.S.", and we know that this was not intended to apply non-citizens, then we would have to interpret that jurisdiction requirement in the same way.

"No state shall … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …"

If you try to make the argument that birth confers automatic citizenship, then for your argument to be consistent you would also have to argue that illegal immigrants, who were not born in the country, have the right to "equal protection of the laws".

If you don't believe this clause was meant to refer to illegal aliens, then you shouldn't believe the 14th Amendment necessitates automatic birthright citizenship.

 

Of course not,just put them on a plane and bring them back home.
Their mothers are involved in a crime for being here and conspiring to illegally anchor citizenship.
This law was not made for the women of the world to come here and put down anchors it was only made for the blacks and those America brought in not criminals using a child to steal citizenship.

 

to change the law requires a constitutional amendment

 

It not changing anything it is just upholding the law.
I just vent anyway knowing this nation is gone so why worry about something I can't change?
The people gave it away when they allowed their streets to be packed with millions of foreigners flying their foreign flags and demanding a takeover and free everything.
We are basically run like all the other drug cartel controlled nations to our south. Our leaders don't want it to stop or it would have been stopped before it began.
funny how the news can find all the drug tunnel's and crossings but none of our LEO can other than a token few.

 

14th Amendment specifically only protects persons and citizens.

under the law, the unborn are NOT "persons" or "citizens".

 

republicans put us in debt with their two 10+ year wars and their huge tax cuts for the rich

along with allowing corps to outsource our jobs overseas

 

Was it the dems who started NAFTA AND KAFTA?
Also the Clintons and Obama started wars right off and killed off many of our special forces.
The Balkans, Libya and Arab Spring that failed, thank goodness. They still managed to set up ISIS in Libya though and hand over much of Balkans to radicals too.

 

if a 1 month old fetus is a child, then work life insurance that covers family life insurance of all children, so if that 1month old fetus miscarried, I should be able to collect the life insurance correct? obviously the answer is no, cause the 1 month old fetus never became a baby and was never born