Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Already debunked, check the following post.

 

I sympathize - I don't think that using military coercion to force ratification of an amendment is an especially pleasant way to run a country, but this is all pretty beside the point. The state establishment has determined it to be law, and they have the thugs with guns to back it up. The constitution itself is subject to the same disputes over ratification: several of the states ratified after it was already put into effect, changing the question from "do you support this constitution" to "do you want to be a part of the US?".

So I suppose the relevant fact is that they have the ability to enforce it as law, and all these points are academic at best. Of course I don't support this, but it's the reality we face. They have the guns, that's the risk you run when you monopolize power in a coercive central institution.

 

Doesn't change the fact that it was ratified.

 

Nope. All that is required to be subject to our jurisdiction is physical presence inside our borders.

Plyler v doe.

 

Is a 9 year old subject to U.S. Jurisdiction? Can that same 9 year old be conscripted?

Conscription has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Physical presence is all that is required. Plyler v doe.

 

I don't think there was any serious question about McCain being a natural born US citizen.. Shouldn't have taken more than 15 minutes to verify.. Both his parents were US citizens.

 

Cartels fit that bill.

 

The Republicans? The Democrat Senate passed a resolution affirming that he quite clearly was a natural born citizen as he certainly is. Both of his parents clearly were citizens of in allegiance to and in fact were in the service of, this Great Nation. You want the children of those in service to our great nation, who are born out of country, to have to naturalize?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

supreme court may have already ruled on this issue.

 

Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling and had to do with immigrant children brought here by their parents, not birthright citizenship. It dealt with the equal protection clause, not the citizenship clause.

 

Nope. It dealt with jurisdiction as it pertains to the 14th amendment. The court ruled that all that is required to be subject to U.S. Jurisdiction is physical presence inside US borders.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...en-carson-on-helicopter-tour-of-cartel-sites/

Seems these Illegals are an invading force.....

 

the vast majority are not.

- - - Updated - - -

"Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state." "

 

Nope, Plyler was directed at the states and their jurisdiction, i.e. they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the individual state.

Sorry armchair lawyer, you fail as usual. Better hurry and get that BS degree raised.

 

If the age limit were lowered to that of 9 yo, then yes the 9 yo citizen could be conscripted. Physical presence in Plyler is merely for being within an individual state and the state having to grant the equal protection of its laws to the individual. Why else do you think those children in Plyler got to go to school, even when Brennan stated they too could be deported? Your armchair lawyer degree isn't worth the paper its not printed on.

 

Sorry but the argument you keep making is clearly and patently ridiculous. Once again, the courts can't change the meaning of the Constitution by judicial review. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is as follows in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." If as you say, and you do, that only "physical presence inside US borders" is all that matters the Amendment would only read "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States" and leave out the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" entirely. We even have the transcript from the person who wrote the Amendment stating what it meant.

This all reminds me of the music artist Billy Joel. He no longer writes new music. He recently stated that people make too much about the meaning of his lyrics. They are all interpreting deep meanings to his words. He stated they are just good lyrics with no real societal meaning. Any interpretation of any great message is simply wrong!

Any "interpretation" that disagrees with historical fact is wrong. We have the word of the writer of the Fourteenth Amendment that disagrees with your argument, invalidating your argument yet you persist. You should be asking how and why the court screwed up. Also, the Supreme Court reverses themselves all the time historically.

 

For k-12 funding and the equal protection clause, not the citizenship clause. The problem with the word "Jurisdiction" as SCOTUS has noted, is that it simply has too many meanings in the Constitution, to be settled by picking up a dictionary. For the meaning of the Framers you have to go to the Framers and the Framers of the 14th are quite clear, this concerns allegiance, it simply does not apply to citizens of another country.

But I understand we are unlikely to agree on this, I thank you for posting your views it gives me an opportunity study the issue further and I certainly benefit from that while of course recognising that others may look at the same set of facts and come to a different though perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Further, is the anchor baby the problem, or is the real problem that benefits that accrue to the relatives of an anchor baby?

Now I realize some might argue 14th amendment protections to the anchor baby, but no one argues that those the anchor baby anchors, enjoy 14th amendment protections.

So, all our spineless Congress needs to do now is pass laws making it clear that relatives of anchor babies will derive no benefits from their relationship to the anchor babies, a simple change in our immigration policies that only needs a President with guts to sign it, which of course, will have to wait at least until 2017.

 

If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they can't be arrested.

And why did you insert an extra "or" into the quote? You changed the meaning. He clearly says that it doesn't apply to foreigners who belong to the families of diplomats or ambassadors. Which makes sense since they have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to US jurisdiction. But aliens who are not diplomats have no such immunity.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. There was no such thing as illegal immigration then, so it seems rather ridiculous to claim that the 14th Amendment didn't include the children of foreigners who had chosen to reside in the US and were not diplomats/ambassadors.

 

Your are confused. They can be arrested if they are "subjectED" to the jurisdiction of the United States. "SubjectED" of cause would be used as an adjective. The word "subject" as used in context is a noun, or a PERSON, place or thing... A (noun, or person) subject to a jurisdiction owes loyalty to a country or area of land. There is no question about the historical meaning since the writer of the amendment explained it, and that transcript has been produced.

 

So are you saying that the descendants of all former slaves are not really US citizens? I'll be darned!

 

"Jurisdiction" only has one meaning... it means that US law applies in the US to ALL within her borders with the only exception being foreign diplomats.

- - - Updated - - -

"Jurisdiction" only has one meaning... it means that US law applies in the US to ALL within her borders with the only exception being foreign diplomats.

- - - Updated - - -

"Jurisdiction" only has one meaning... it means that US law applies in the US to ALL within her borders with the only exception being foreign diplomats.

 

Isn't it tragic that even after these amendments, we still had to have a Civil Rights movement 100 years later?

 

American education must be really in the crapper........

 

No. "Subject to" is not a noun. It is an adjective. You should take an English class.

 

They are diversions, same as Hamas using human shields.