Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

I'm referring to all the cases on all topics the US Supreme Court has heard since the 14th was ratified.

So don't worry about me tossing some ruling.

 

If the authors had intended this crap they would have said so. The authors pretty much limited the vote to land owning, white MEN.

 

The context I've described is correct.
Moreover: Congress at ratification discussed the meaning of the clause and came to a different conclusion. Mostly because the plain language is clear. Particularly when you add the context that they'd worded it differently the year prior in a naturalization act. IE they knew how to word it to get what you want, and they intentionally did the opposite. This was pointed out to them at ratification and they said, essentially, yes we know and passed it.

Further: The Ark case discussed in detail what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. Its clear from that discussion that the only excluded persons are active agents of a foreign power (like invading soldiers) and diplos and their families here with permission.

 

That's the context for our entire society.

It's been a long road and in certainly isn't over.

But, the citizenship clause has nothing to do with that particular problem, does it?

 

Well I guess I'll never know if the context is correct since you refuse to provide more than those sliced and diced excerpts. I only have your word on it.

 

Exactly. You should investigate the 14th amendment rather than relying on what posters say.

 

While we're waiting on another slice, maybe he'll review the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (26 years after the ARK case) that granted citizenship to Indians. Or we'll just have to believe all the Indians were foreign diplomats.

You can't have honest discussions with lefties that want the border wide ass open to achieve their wacky ideals.

 

The discussion here is about the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.

Opinions about the border are irrelevant.

The citizenship clause can be discussed with total honesty.

 

When should we expect you to start?

 

You could try reading the Cato link. Its all laid out quite clearly.

The plain text counts just fine, unless you're a fringed flagger.

So you're not aware that the reservations are a different nation at that point in history eh? Maybe YOU need to review some things before speaking on this subject billy? That citizens of the res were considered active agents of a foreign power because of the whole we were at war with them and stuck them in camps thing?

 

I stand by everything I've said on this topic.

 

You need to be more specific.

I haven't commented on the issue with our original population other than to point out that they have been victims of US atrocity throughout American history to today.

 

I've been specific for about a dozen pages now over several days.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate

Try reading it this time.

 

I've read it from when it was first posted.

It states:

I don't know why those who oppose birthright citizenship quote this article in CATO.

 

I don't oppose birthright citizenship you potato based AI.

 

Great! Clearly I missed your point of view. I've gone back to read your posts again, and I think I just didn't study them the first time.

Sorry about the confusion!

 

I have, which is why I have the conclusions I have.

 

They don't seem to be interested in honest discussions, merely the ends justifying the means.

 

I did read the Cato link, which ONLY had the excerpts you put in this thread, so if Cato is all you've got, I think we're done here.

 

No we all have the actual constitution.

The CATO piece showed that there hasn't been some confusion since the 14th was written.

And, the citizenship clause is short and to the point.

There isn't any argument against it.

In fact, Trump didn't dispute it. He just proclaims that he can do whatever he wants regardless of the constitution. And, that is certainly NOT news - it is how he operates in all circumstances.

 

So your stance is that they DIDN'T word the prior year's naturalization act in a different way, and that when they did that it had a different effect?

You're saying despite that being cited to, it doesn't exist?

 

So your argument isn't that Cato article, it's simply that this is what you think the 14th Amendment says; case closed.

You should have lead with that instead of trying to pretend you cared about any sort of evidence.

 

No I'm saying the other poster offered a quote (he now seems to have disavowed any need for evidence) that did not say what he said it says about birthright citizenship. If you have a full quote, not the sliced excerpt he other poster copied form his Cato article, lay it on me.

 

I did! So did others.

I think you have to start with the constitution.

From there, you can try to find a way around it or whatever.

 

Been there done that, in this very thread. Are you simply going to rehash the same things over and over? What's the point of that?