Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

No, he's not. It didn't apply to Indians either.

 

Which is simply a fiction of the Biden administration. So, you assert, wrongly, that they are here legally. Demonstrate the legislation that defines this in the way you have written it.

 

They are people who can be here without papers.

 

It predates the Biden administration. You are pretending that refugee status did not exist until then. Your assertion is pure fiction. You have yet to demonstrate ANY legislation that backs up your position, despite being asked several times.

 

Ok. So, the court precedent that has defined the citizenship has consistently held that 'under the jurisdiction of the United States" is a definable term which had been done in the two cases cited earlier. And it wasn't until Brennan added a footnote to a case that things changed. It is time to challenge the legitimacy of the horror that Brennan shoveled on this nation, and return to a sanity about this. Folks who aren't citizens who have a child here shouldn't assume that their offspring are citizens of this nation. They are children of foreign nationals. period. You cite the cases, and yet you don't seem willing to see the limitation of their rulings. Typical.

 

Wrong. You didn't even read the case. I have. I actually linked it here.

There is no court ruling giving the offspring of illegal aliens automatic citizenship. It is the duty of the Executive Branch to enforce the Constitution. And that can be done with an EO.

Get over it.

 

Ever read 8 USC 1156 and the subsequent regulations and procedural manuals? I would beg to differ. Even USCIS has been stating this even in the Trump era. However, once the alien passes through the port of entry and provides prima facie evidence of their asylum or refugee claim, then they are legal, technically. Their case is still being adjudicated, but they are legal. This is the case with any type of status or immigration visa filed in the US while the alien is here in the US.

Once the immigrant becomes a US citizen, most do not even vote. My spouse, who is a naturalized citizen and went through the immigration process still does not vote. But that is her choice. And those who are immigrants or children of immigrants do not necessarily vote Democrat. Ask Nikki Haley and Camela Harris. Both have one thing in common, they are children of immigrants. One has voted for Republican and the other Democrat. So that proves your theory about "immigrants are voting democrat" into the false belief system. As for abuse, I can give you Hershey and their involvement with J1 visa holders. That can be abuse.

 

I think that's essentially what I said.

 

Both cases you are citing still have them as Citizens. The question with Brennan had not to do with citizenship but the jurisdiction thereof in that case. If I recall, that person was Native American and that was in 1894 in which Native Americans were still not considered US Citizens at all if they lived on an Indian Reservation. the key to both cases is the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" and not the legal immigrant status therein.

 

Now you’re just making things up. But feel free to point to something authoritative that backs your claim.

 

I might have misread what you wrote. It was "Anybody within US borders is subject to US jurisdiction." Not per the 14th amendment they aren't.

 

I have read the case and the background of that case. Why do you think he was denied entry into the US when he left to go visit family? He was born in the US prior to the law which made Chinese persons as "inadmissible aliens" based on their national origin alone. And the reason why they denied him originally was that he was of Chinese descent and that made him inadmissible per the law. Wo Kim Ark also worked for immigration, at Angel Island, the second most famous island in San Francisco Harbor, the Pacific Version of Ellis Island. But he was born in the United States and the jus soli doctrine was verified under the 14th amendment by SCOTUS Ruling. The Elk v Watkins ruling had more to do with if persons born on Indian Reservations were under the jurisdiction thereof in the United States. And originally, the US Constitution denied jurisdition to two groups of people, Native Americans, and Blacks. Since then, we have amended the US Constitution through the 14th amendment, certain laws that were passed by Congress, and other Supreme Court rulings.

 

Those cases actually don't call illegal aliens citizens. it defines who are and who are not. Not even close to being accurate analysis by you here. I understand that if you admit that you're wrong that you lose cool points with the squad, but not my circus...

 

OK, I'm interested.

I pointed out that there are exceptions. One exception is the land in America that is considered an extension of other countries - embassies are places in America where those present aren't subject to US law. Also, ambassadors and their families owe allegiance to a foreign power and are also not subject to US law, regardless of where they happen to be. They may be expelled, but can't be tried.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here.

One doesn't have to be a citizen to be subject to US jurisdiction.

The 14th clearly calls out that one is a US citizen if born in the US and under US jurisdiction (such as, not being in a foreign embassy).

It doesn't stipulate that the parents are required to have valid papers authorizing ones presence in the US.

 

I suspect this is all correct, but it is near missing the point. For instance if that diplomat living in the embassy gives birth to a son or daughter in St. David's hospital 2 miles down the road, that baby is not an automatic citizen.

Getting to your point, the wife of the diplomat or most of his assistants do not have diplomatic immunity and can be arrested and tried for a crime -- except they cannot be arrested while in the premise of the embassy which is considered sovereign soil to the foreign country.

 

As noted, the author of the amendment doesn't agree with you. Does it even matter to you, or just your ability to be contrarian here?

 

is "everyone who supports trump" a member of his " rabid and irrational base?"

there may be some good reasons to support trump, or oppose the dems.

 

Yes, there certainly are more edge conditions.

I think these don't invalidate the central theme of citizenship by birth, though.

 

This amendment has been before the SC on various occasions.

I don't see agreement with the SC as being contrarian.

The real question is why the right wing continues with its attacks on this aspect of our constitution.

 

Well you actually have to apply for asylum, so yes, there are papers, but again, it has nothing to do with this topic. I'm puzzled by this constant desire to pull away from the topic to discuss something totally different.

 

I agree that all these issues of who is qualified for citizenship by birth are red herrings.

We know that there are circumstances where the 14th excludes citizenship by birth.

We know that is not what the issue is.

The bottom line is that the SC has long supported the 14th amendment.

 

If you have a point, in the context of your other out of topic posts, I'm not seeing it.

 

Let's recognize that the SC has LONG supported the 14th amendment citizenship clause.

And, I don't see value in the attempts to claim that various circumstances should significantly reduce its applicability beyond how it is interpreted by the SC.

That's why I commented that possession of papers, etc., is a red herring. These aren't new issues and they appear to be fully addressed by the 14th amendment.

 

OK I'm not familiar with the long history of the Supreme Court recognizing the children of illegals as citizens. There are two big cases that I'm aware of and none of them affirm that to my memory. All I'm sure of is that people who are lefty want children of illegals to be citizens regardless of the Constitution, the intent, or the law, so does it really matter to you? I don't think so. Lefty law seems to be that the heart wants what the heart wants.