Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

the 14th Amendment does indeed give birthright citizenship to all born in the USA and under our legal jurisdiction.

 

Lawrence using the Lynch case? Maybe he should try reading WKA in regards to Lynch.

 

That's all you got? Are you so inept that you cannot counter a case from a fourteen year old?

 

The lynch cases parents were legal temporary immigrants. Here is the actual court document link to Lynch. http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

Sorry, but Lawrence is an idiot, plain and simple. Lawrence is citing from Lynch the portion of the opinion discussing the laws of the US prior to the the signing of the USC.

 

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

 

No, he's saying that prior to the signing, that the wording was carried over to the USC signing as well. You can dodge all you like but the only idiots in the room are those who failed to listen to not only what he was saying, but how the amendment is written. Why do you think Lawrence showed Trump back pedaling about looking into whether it was Constitutional to end birthright citizenship or not? Trump boxed himself in by promising one thing, then telling everyone we'll have to see. He's just a bull (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

No...Slaves were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.....Which is why their children were considered citizens (14th amendment). Those who come here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from. They are not slaves. Because they are under the jurisdiction of the country they came from, when caught, they are deported.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

Here, from Lynch explaining things in the US after the USC and prior to the 14th

So her parents were legal temporary sojourners, not illegal immigrants.

 

Lawrence is a moron, read the lynch case, Lawrence isn't even discussing the holding of the case. Lynch doesn't discuss the 14th, and Lawrence attempting to use Lynch to justify the 14th is moronic. The 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, i.e. the 1866 CRA per Justice Gray in the WKA opinion.

Provide a case that shows illegals are to attain citizenship by birth and you may have a winner, but unfortunately their is no such case in existence, every case is discussing situations that involve parents that are/were here legally.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-you-should-know-about-birthright-citizenship The legal scholars agree with the current jurisprudence as it pertains to the 14th amendment, that undocumented children born in the U.S. are American citizens. And that is not just "merely" a declaratory of existing law. That is the law. That's the bottom line. Telling me O'donnell is a moron isn't going to change the facts and the interpretations of the fourteenth. And telling me O'donnell is a moron just proves you have nothing left to argue about. And by the way, reading the Lynch case isn't going to change that reality either. Get over it. It is what it is.

 

Wasn't that reflective of Native people's status as citizens of what were still seen by many, (including many of them) as foreign nations within the US?

The overlying principle is jus soli "right of the soil" And again, in a nation of Immigrants you can't have any other because it threatens everyone's citizenship. What if I want to say that all the blacks were not citizens some generations back and therefore their children weren't either, right down to the present day, and the same can apply to anybody as NOBODY was a citizen of the USA before 1776 and most of us are descended from people who were not citizens at the time.

Note that most nations of the Western Hemisphere, which have been predominantly populated within the last 500 years, are jus soli, most of the much older populations of the Eastern Hemisphere, have jus sanguinis, the "right of blood"

You don't want to just put an additional regulation onto the 14th amendment, you want to wipe it out. In effect you want to say that we still have the 14th amendment but it no longer applies to certain groups for arbitrary reasons. Sorry, doesn't work. You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to do this and I don't see that happening.

 

What's the difference? They had passports?

 

Your link doesn't have any legal scholars in it, it is an opinion piece from NPR. It has an opinion from the CRS in 2010. It then goes on to opine

but then he throws his asinine assumption into the mix

when in reality it actually doesn't. Current jurisprudence has never decided on the situation. Why is it that you don't think or want this to go to court to be determined? are you afraid, that the way people like you think, you could be WRONG?

Showing you Lawrence is a moron was easier, did you not read the Lynch case? If you haven't then you have no business claiming anything about Lawrence. So you have refused to read the Lynch case because your afraid it will point out the stupidity of O'donnell.

How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pathetic.

 

lmao...no, you don't get to just cut the sentence off wherever you like to change the meaning.

The full sentence reads, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The bold part is referring to one and only one type of people. Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Another way of saying that would be, 'foreigners, also know as aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc.' However, you want it to mean, 'foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc.' It does NOT say that and to come to that interpretation requires one to ignore the rules of English grammar and invent an entirely new rulebook where anything goes.

There is no "mistake" there. The man simply did not say what you'd like for him to have. It is plain, easily understood English. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the language, sans the emotional bias that you exhibit, can easily ascertain such.

Furthermore, if you read the entire exchange from all senators involved, as well as other speeches on the topic from Sen. Howard himself, it becomes very clear that your contention is misguided to say the least.

 

Not that they had passports but that they entered and were inspected via ships logs and port entry, they acquired a domicile and residence here via the law. They had to register with the local courts to declare their status and receive residency permits. Look to the INA's of early America.

 

What do you make of this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...plomat-children-super-U-S-citizen-status.html Birthright loophole grants diplomat children born in U.S. 'super citizen' status

 

The legal status of the parents is irrelevant since, according to that very case that you are citing, it is the law of the United States, that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents. Children of ambassadors do not fall within the rule. That has been the situation both before and after the 14th Amendment was ratified.

 

Ah, who is talking about jurisdiction? I'm talking about the NOUN usage of the word "SUBJECT" which means the following:

subject

noun
8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection:
four subjects of Sweden.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject?s=t​

A person must be subjectED to the jurisdiction to get arrested or the like which would be using the word "SUBJECT" as an adjective... It's all in the dictionary, ah linked above.

 

Then whey did it not make American Indians citizens if they were born in American cities? Perhaps that Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof clause thingy had something to do with it. I guess we can't ask MSNBC why their report did not cover all the bases now can we? You cited it, and proclaimed expertise by citing the lacking work of others, so I am asking you. Why weren't American Indians born in American cities NOT covered under the Fourteenth Amendment?

 

Reading the lynch case does not change the fact she was born here. It serves no purpose as it relates to the facts. And you already pointed out those key facts, of which you choose to ignore and dismiss. "Most legal scholars agree do not exclude the children of illegal immigrants from receiving automatic citizenship". " Then to be clear, it means that current jurisprudence indicates the U.S. - born children of undocumented immigrants are given citizenship from receiving automatic citizenship". And so this is where you make the disconnect. Jurisprudence has been decided by scholars and you and I know why. It's like having your pancakes without your syrup. Scholars know this is a purely moral issue that punishes the children. It's inhumane to decide otherwise. Scholars know it, we know it, everyone knows it! That's why from the beginning, and the Lynch case, that to end birthright citizenship is going to take more than a simple vote. A vote against it, is a vote against morality. And why at this point in time if the sky were to fall and Trump would become president, even though he won't, would he call for a vote to end it? What's the big reason? The U.S. of course. We created our own Frankenstein monster; http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/

So, while you believe in your mind scholars are still debating the issue, the issue is really about morality. Remember,"legal scholars agree do not exclude the children". If you plan on stopping that, you'll need a Gestapo type regime to do so. That's what you'd really be going to court about. Are we or are we not going to be a Gestapo nation kicking unwanted children out of this country who were born here? Lol! I can never get enough of those American Christian values. We take over these countries, destroy their economic opportunities, take away their voices, and the only thing they can cling to for hope, is to try and come here for a better life, while we in the meantime kick them in the stomach once again contemplating whether their children are citizens or not.

I guess if there is one thing good about all this, is the fact our legal scholars have not yet lost there way to side with those who have no moral compass.

 

Ah, the very propose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give former slaves US citizenship, not to give citizenship to the children of women who sneak across the boarder just in time to give birth! I have no interest in changeling the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who want to use it for that which it was never intended want to change the fourteenth Amendment.

 

The judge state they were temporary sojourners even though they lived here for 4 years. The condition of the parents is relevant since Lynch's parents entered via the law and registered via the law, as is in every case known about citizenship by birth, even WKA parents entered legally under Treaty. The parents were denied the ability to naturalize via the Treaty. The political condition or allegiance doesn't matter, never has, yet the parents legal entry status always has.

 

American Indians and aborigines are covered in the statute. I posted the exact wording yesterday.

 

Reading the Lynch case goes through the citizenship laws up to that point in time and explains that her parents entered here legally and were not here as ambassadors.

To claim reading Lynch serves no purpose as it relates to the facts is shear stupidity on your part, the Judge goes over the facts, one of them being her parents came here legally and were temporary sojourners. But we wont let the facts get in the way.

From your link, I agree it doesn't exclude the children of illegal immigrants from receiving automatic citizenship, nor does it grant it to them, its all n the interpretation of the existing laws. The next admin can change the policy (interpretation of the law) and guess what, deny the DoS from recognizing them as citizens. Then what?

Jurisprudence has not been decided no matter how poorly you try to claim it has, there is no known case that goes to the point of granting citizenship to children born to illegals, not even Lynch does it as moron O'Donnell tries to claim.

So your only issue is that you think it immoral to deny them, no wonder you don't know the laws.

The legal scholars are actually divided on this issue, for every legal scholar you claim says one thing I can show another that claims the opposite.

 

Which also means once again Billo { O'Reilly } stuck his big yapper right in it.
Probably based more on advice from such Fox regulars as Charles Krauthammer.
Krauthammer and buddy George Will both loathe Donald Trump.Probably because
Trump doesn't run around singing their praises like most Neocons or soft cookie
jews like David Brooks.
O'Reilly rarely corrects himself.He suffers the sin of pride.
Billo O'reilly is a very proud man.It oozes from his pores most nights.
One reason he calls ALL his guests { with few exceptions like Juan Williams }
by their last name.Which means he's basically a Politically Correct coward.
Which is why he wouldn't touch any Birther talk.Why he started insisting he's
an Independent NOT a Republican.