Trump Is Right About Birth Citizenship
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
.No its dummie, you mealy mouth faggot fuck 
It's no use piezoe. Not you, nor Arnie's and Jem's links or even Trump, make the Constitution say something it doesn't.
The 14th affirms that all people born in the USA are American citizens.
You mean I should pay them properly?!:eek:
The question is about stopping/restricting/returning illegal aliens. It is a political question. One that politicians and lawmakers could deal with anytime, within the law, if they so wished.
You and they won't succeed though by trying to justify any argument against illegals and so called 'anchor babies' with the 14th.
All Arnie's and Jem's links and the Trumps of this world are achieving is the whipping up of some attention seeking cheap empty rhetoric. The 14th clearly confers citizenship to all babies born here, irrespective of the parents' status.
The kids that were born here on US soil are legal US citizens. End of!
If you don't want that to happen, tighten the borders that let their mothers in.
If you don't want their "entire hundred strong extended family here to go on welfare" which AAA is getting all wound up about, then use the law to rule on residency of extended families.
Or simply just remove their parents and extended relatives as illegal aliens, like many already are.
As it ever was, there's nothing much different here. It's really all about the numbers vote seeking lobbied politicians are prepared to win/lose one way or another.
Last edited:
Stu, you can repeat it all you want, but you are not quoting the full provision. Links were provided showing that national allegiance of the parents was considered a vital element, not just birth place.
I do see plenty of logistical difficulties, even if the interpretation were changed. What about situations where one parent is a citizen and the other isn't? Or situations where we don't know for sure? Still, we can deal with that. The immediate need however is to stop the anchor baby scam, where they use a baby to bring in the entire extended family under the guise of family reunification. They want to be together, they can do it in mexico.
The other desperately needed change is to bar illegals from any public welfare programs. California tried it and a dirtbag federal judge blocked it, then the state refused to appeal.
I do see plenty of logistical difficulties, even if the interpretation were changed. What about situations where one parent is a citizen and the other isn't? Or situations where we don't know for sure? Still, we can deal with that. The immediate need however is to stop the anchor baby scam, where they use a baby to bring in the entire extended family under the guise of family reunification. They want to be together, they can do it in mexico.
The other desperately needed change is to bar illegals from any public welfare programs. California tried it and a dirtbag federal judge blocked it, then the state refused to appeal.
Stu, if the 14th citizenship text is adjudicated -- but it appears, for several reasons, that it wouldn't be -- the Court (meaning the 5 judge majority) would almost certainly fall back on original intent, as they have often in the past. As Beltway has inferred, the drafter of the amendment was clear on the intended meaning of "jurisdiction" as used in the 14th. There is more than ample text for the Court to fall back on for guidance.
No go piezoe. The clause is too straightforward. Unless the drafter was speaking Martian, where all words mean exactly the opposite to what they do here on Earth, then there is no room to interpret 'jurisdiction' into anything else but what it means.
Sorry dude, black does not mean white.
Last edited:
I'm only repeating because you are repeatedly missing the same point.
AAA, because internet links say something, that doesn't mean it's true! I know you will understand that much. Neither does it mean what they say is legally or even logically true.
It's really obvious in this case they are neither. You need one hell of a good reason to interpret the Constitution in a way it can't sensibly be interpreted into. None of those links even begin to do that.
Quoting the full provision does not alter the issue one jot.
What about those situations? That has nothing to do with their child. If their child was born in the US, it is a legal US citizen, 100% in line with the 14th.
You cannot do that with the 14th. That's all I'm saying. To insist or even infer you can, is simple baloney.
Statute is the proper remedy. Quoting the Constitution where it does not support the argument, as in this case, is just a political hot air.
Last edited:
Stu, I would suggest reading Heller v District of Columbia. This is one of the very best, recent examples of the Court falling back on original intent as opposed to following what is actually written in letter of the law. It's a beautiful example of the Court falling back on 'Originalism'. But let me say compared to Heller, the 14th Citizenship clause is a very easy call.
The ACA was challenged only months ago of the basis of what was actually written versus how the act was being implemented. There was a conflict between what was written and what was implemented. Again, the Court relied on intent.
But the 14th is an even clearer case because we have the drafter's very words as to intent with regard to the word 'jurisdiction'. He left no wiggle room, on that one point at least.
You and I, not being lawyers, can be forgiven for not fully understanding the phrase 'under the jurisdiction'. Rest assured, however, the Court will understand it.
Last edited:
Another article on birth citizenship. http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ip-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment
He draws a distinction between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. A visitor is not subject to political jurisdiction when they are the subject, ie citizen, of another country.
He notes also: "Moreover, contrary to Professor Yoo’s contention, the text elsewhere in the 14th Amendment supports this distinction. Unlike the Citizenship Clause, which uses the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” the Equal Protection Clause bars a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.) The phrase “within its jurisdiction” is territorial, whereas the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” is political.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ip-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment
He draws a distinction between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. A visitor is not subject to political jurisdiction when they are the subject, ie citizen, of another country.
He notes also: "Moreover, contrary to Professor Yoo’s contention, the text elsewhere in the 14th Amendment supports this distinction. Unlike the Citizenship Clause, which uses the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” the Equal Protection Clause bars a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.) The phrase “within its jurisdiction” is territorial, whereas the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” is political.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ip-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment