The Difference Between Obama and Trump.

The amendment is written in plain English. If you want to remove birthright citizenship you need an amendment. Sorry.

 

No there is no wording stipulating slaves. Ergo the 14th must be fixed. We do not owe any noncitizens a citizenship right merely for being born here. We in fact do not give citizenship to children of diplomats of other countries either.

 

Uh dude English has changed a good bit over time and continues to do so.

 

Do you favor diplomats children born here to be citizens? What would you suggest be the change to the 14th to cure this problem?

 

fine. But you need an amendment to do this.

and the 14th amendment states why they are not given citizenship.

 

Even reading old newspaper articles as I have recently been doing shows the vast change in our English language. In fact in one old newspaper it did not stick to one spelling of a number of words.

 

So what do you think “all persons” used to mean? How and when did that change to what it means now?

 

they are not citizens, as the 14th outlines.

It’s already in the amendment. It isn’t a problem. Children of diplomats are not citizens.

 

Here is what you earlier told me.

rahl said: ↑
entirely irrelevant to US law.


There is no mention of slaves in the 14th amendment. It quite specifically says all persons.

Made it in red to help you recall your own words.

 

Is there a question in your post somewhere? I’m not sure what your pint is?

 

You flipped flopped from all persons to merely some of them. But don't you wonder why the 14th needs fixing?

 

Where is that wording? Quote it please.

 

Wrong phrase.

 

All persons referring to your comment about slaves. Children of diplomats are covered by “subject to the jurisdiction”. Diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction which is why their children are not citizens.

 

“Subject to the jurisdiction of”

 

How is it wrong? It’s written in plain English in the very first sentence of the amendment.

 

That does not cut it with me.

Besides, look what this Judge ruled.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/7797...rn-woman-who-joined-isis-is-not-a-u-s-citizen

A federal judge has ruled that a U.S.-born woman who traveled to Syria and joined ISIS is not an American citizen, even though the State Department had issued her a passport when she was a child and later renewed it.

Hoda Muthana, 25, was a student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham when she traveled to Syria. She is currently being held at a detention camp in northern Syria with her young son.

In February, the State Department declared that Muthana "is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States." The statement from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that "she does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States."

The next day, her father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, filed a federal lawsuit.


MIDDLE EAST
Father Of Alabama Woman Who Joined ISIS Sues Trump Administration For Her Return
Hoda Muthana's citizenship was in dispute because her father was living in the U.S. and working as a diplomat for his home country, Yemen, prior to her birth. For families of diplomats, citizenship isn't automatically conferred on babies born in the U.S. because of diplomatic immunity.

The central question in this case was when Ahmed Ali Muthana's diplomatic immunity ended.

 

So you did not find the word diplomat or slave as you early on pointed out.

 

Which has no bearing on US law and Supreme Court rulings.

This confirms my point.

 

There are limiters following it.

 

So?

 

I showed you the part which precludes children of diplomats from citizenship.

 

“Subject to the jurisdiction”. Which means physical presence inside US borders, that’s it. plyler vs doe.

 

And there is where the devil in the details lie...

 

Not really, as it’s settled law. See Plyler v Doe.