Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

I don't understand. Where is the homeland of a child born here to a Costa Rican mother and Cuban father?

 

I'll have to dig up the notes, but I remember that they specifically asked whether this Amendment would grant citizenship to the child of Romani or Chinese parents: the answer was yes. I agree that the letter of the law is what matters, but the intent is on the side of birthright citizenship as well. The idea that it wasn't intended to cover the children of immigrants is more of a conspiracy theory than an "interpretation."

I'm actually not so sure about that one. If you were to go back in time and ask the 1868 Congress about the children of illegal aliens, they'd probably ask what the hell an illegal alien is. Immigration policies back then were much more permissive. If you wanted to move to the U.S., and you had the financial means to do so, you pretty much just moved here. There was no paperwork necessary to be a permanent resident. Residency was a given for the 1868 Congress; the conflict was over citizenship, which wasn't necessary to reside here. Personally, I think that's a much more reasonable policy than the labyrinthine visa policy we have today.

Yeah, anyone living here who wasn't a foreign diplomat (or the family of a foreign diplomat) was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. What you are hearing from these guys is just more of the conspiracy theory.

 

Either one or the other....whichever the parents prefer....not rocket science pal.

 

The United States and Canada are the only developed nations with the utterly stupid practice of Birthright Citizenship....perhaps all the other nations know something we do not.

Actually, we know it...as in 65% of the electorate has indicated they want to put an end to it...........a few diehard liberals along with a moronic and fraudulent president keeps it going...........that will no longer be the case when The Donald takes over.....hallejuhah.

The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)

 

You seem to have forgotten about the Native Americans...whas up wid dat? Apparantly you have no clue....not suprising. Wize up...tune in The Donald.

 

The Utter Stupidity of Birthright Citizenship>>>>http://www.newsradio1067.com/2015/08/18/defenders-of-birthright-citizenship-are-getting-it-wrong-on-purpose/

 

lol, yes, I forgot about the Native Americans. No, that doesn't change the validity of anything else I just said. One slip is not grounds for "[tuning] in" to a sideshow and conspiracy theories.

 

You must watch too much mainstream media. This has never been addressed by SCOTUS and its time has come as this is far from settles law as some claim.
The 14th does not give the children of illegal aliens citizenship since there was no such thing at the time of its adoption. Our Immigration laws started in 1875. Its clear that congress has the power of immigration and naturalization. Its demonstrated when they made the Indians citizens or did they amend the constitution to do so?

 

At least we are all on the same page: our immigration policy is in desperate need of change and all of this talk about "we should do X because X is the current law" is a non-starter.

 

What if the parents are dead or unlocatable. Just flip a coin?

 

What about the Native Americans? They were not subject to US jurisdiction, and they were part of the reason that phrase is in the 14th

 

What do you mean Congress made them citizens? I don't think so. They asked natives if they wanted to become citizens. They didn't make them because they were members of a separate nation. Sounds like an agreement between 2 nations to me, and nothing like what trump is proposing.

 

They were not citizens under the 14th until congress decided they should be. They were considered citizens of a separate nation and thus not owing allegiance to the US just like Mexicans visiting here.

 

Are you sure it was only Congress that made them citizens? It sounds like a deal to me. Each individual native had the option of becoming a citizen. Congress didn't have the power to make them citizens, and im guessing many natives still aren't citizens.

 

"It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.

But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked."
...

"irth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law."
- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (189

 

Where did congress get the power to make this deal when the 14th said Indians were exempt? Someone had to have the power.

 

Because the parents were legal residents. They did not sneak in here. If two Mexican parents can establish a legal residence here and have a child then that child will be a US citizen. If they sneak across the border to have a child it is not. To establish a legal residence they must first be here legally. Even this is questionable as I and others believe they would have to renounce their Chinese citizenship for this to be so and that once again SCOTUS got it wrong

 

You are inserting your own opinion about how the law should work and ignoring how it actually works. The way the law is actually written and actually works, it doesn't matter if your parents are here legally or not. You are not to blame for their actions. Ark's family came here the exact same way most undocumented Mexican immigrants came here: they wanted to live here, so they moved here. There was no visa necessary in Ark's time. Your "SCOTUS got it wrong" argument is based on nothing more than how you wish the law worked. It has no bearing on or grounding in actual U.S. law.

 

Conscription is not relevant.

Except I have done so.

 

You cannot profit from your parents illegal actions that's the law. It does matter if their legally here as you have been repeatedly shown . That's how they come under our jurisdiction not by sneaking in here without permission

 

What has been "repeatedly shown" is nothing but sophistry to try to support a conspiracy theory. Such "interpretations" have no bearing on our actual laws. They are the wishful thinking of the anti-immigration crowd. And citizenship isn't criminal profit, even if your parents are here illegally. The anti-immigration crowd needs to make up their mind: half of you are saying that the Congress that composed the Amendment had no way of anticipating illegal immigration, and the other half are saying that they did anticipate it and included "jurisdiction" language to shore against it. Some of you are trying to say both. Which is it?

 

^ what he said.

 

Sorry but 2 Supreme Court rulings have been cited showing their legality is irrelevant to jurisdiction.

 

You can't even keep your own arguments straight from one post to the other.

 

Whether the anticipated illegal immigration matters not. it is the intention of the law that matters and that is clear. It is clear congress has the power on immigration and naturalization or do you deny this? It is clear the intention was to make citizens of slaves and their children

- - - Updated - - -

There is no contradiction there

- - - Updated - - -

Your using the opinion of 1 judge to make this claim. I will take the word of the author over that as that's why congress voted as they did.