9 Things to Know About Birthright Citizenship

I understand the pain exhibited by a post like this, blameless victim whining flame baiting stemming from past defeats.

 

The author of the amendment made it clear that foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, the like, and their families and children, are not subject to jus solis because they, even while in the US, are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation. It is the basis of diplomatic immunity that those people are not subject to the laws of the US, though they may be prosecuted in their home or sending nations for violating them, and they may lose immunity if their actions are particularly egregious.

Then why not state that?

 

I'm fairly certain that they would have thought it insane to believe that a baby born to a woman who simply broke the law to get here for that reason, would be considered American citizens, therefore subverting immigration law.

Do you really believe that's proper, or that in drafting amendments to address newly freed slaves, immediately after the civil war, was intended to undermine immigration law like that? Really?

 

The illegals/foreigners are not technically under US jurisdiction as they are foreign nationals, and the US only rarely accepts dual citizenship. Since they are a citizen of another country, and are even less legally permitted to be in the country than someone on a tourist visa, than they are not under US jurisdiction. This will be confirmed IMO by the supreme court.

The bottom line is that defending this is one of the most egregious, despicable acts by the democratic party, and their position on this subject has cost them my vote and many millions of other people's votes forever.

Those sc-mbags think they can overcome that by importing millions of poor illegals who they will shower with goodies my tax dollars will pay for - a double win for the dems, they get voters and get to steal money from producers like me - but this will lead to a second civil war, I'm sure of it and it will be ugly. A lot of people from latin and central america are going to be mass deported in a short amount of time.

 

The right of people to eat food is not stipulated in the constitution, only alluded to by saying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Many things are not specifically stated in it, so do you have a point, or are you arguing something most rational people agree on quite readily?

ALL of europe got rid of jus soli, so what exactly is there to defend this moronic policy?

 

What makes me so angry about the dem party's defense of this is the lies they use to do so, under the guise of "helping the poor", "humanitarian grounds", "helping the poor children from war zones", etc..

It is all absolute vile garbage using their facile lies to defend a policy to import massive numbers of indebted poor wholly dependent upon government handouts - which the dems are the ones to control the levers for, of course through their big government programs - while impoverishing the country and wasting my tax dollars.

Every day that I sit in massive traffic because the billions that would have built more bridges, tunnels and widened highways, every nickel for a kids' public school bake sale, every shortfall by the military such as not having sufficient VA funds for PTSD, etc infuriates me that much more - because I know that the billions of dollars pissed away so the f-ck awful democrats can buy more voters.

These b-stards have no platform other than govt handouts, and their inability to obtain a majority of white male voters for a presidential candidate since Harry Truman is no accident - it means their policies suck. Ted kennedy, who I hope is burning in hell right now, intentionally pushed through the 1965 immigration act for this reason; public employee unions weren't enough, so the dems decided to import replacement voters as well.

Every action by the dems appears a criminal one solely to increase their identity-based voters, which is why I so despise the party and pray for its abolishment.

If you truly want to understand what the dems have done on this issue for decades, read Ann Coulter's brilliant "Adios America".

Hate her or not, this book is the absolute bible of factual proof of how the dem party and its media patsies have worked in alignment with certain corporate interests to sustain this mass invasion for a very long time.

 

The bottom line is that this country is screwed. Trillions in debt, always at war or on the verge of war, corrupted government, collapsing education system generating poorly educated citizens that can hardly compete with and are falling behind those of less developed nations.

This country's days are numbered. The only question is, when is the expiration date?

 

Google is your friend. Use it = https://www.google.com/search?clien...y+states+were+there+in+1861&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

The 14th Amendment citizenship clause as written did not apply to kids born in the Confederate States while they were out of the Union.

 

So they weren't foreign states then.

Not before, during, or after the war.

Got it.

 

You got it? That is doubtful. The Union and the Confederate States were two different countries. The Confederate States ceased being part of America when they seceded and did not become American again until their particular States were readmitted to the Union. If they were always part of America the dummies would not have needed to be readmitted. Now , do you have it? They could have stayed independent, either as a group or as individual States.