Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

You've produced nothing supporting your conspiracy theory -- only ad hominem attacks and links to opinion-driven blog posts without any additional commentary or opinion of your own. The 14th Amendment applies to all people born and naturalized in the U.S., except for those specified. That isn't my "personal opinion", that's the letter, documented intent and jurisprudence of the law, and it is the way that the law is currently enforced. This is a debate and discussion forum. If you would like to debate or discuss anything I've just said, I am open to a debate or a discussion.

 

lol. Mark Levin. The man high-pitches daily like his nuts are in a vice. If he has any. lol

He's a joke.

 

You are not qualified to debate as you apparantly lack the basic analytical skills to properly understand the 14th amendement...even going so far as to leave out the most controversial phrase in the amendment in the above post...such disqualifies you...sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has authored five books, and contributes commentary to various media outlets such as National Review Online.

Now what is it that you do or have ever done that compares?

 

"Subject to a foreign power " while within the borders of the US only applies to diplomats, possibly soldiers, and other narrow exceptions (Olympic athletes maybe?). Otherwise why would extradition treaties be needed? Why would a nation holding power over someone need to request that power?

 

Ann Coulter: FOX NEWS Anchored In Stupidity On 14th Amendment

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwjL-97st9THAhWO4oAKHS63AKU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2Fcolumns%2F2015-08-19.html&ei=E97kVYumCY7FgwSu7oKoCg&usg=AFQjCNEk-hnfCvQIDq8X2IA8geqxQQ2gGA&sig2=PCsst1W8aT7SJ650kS0xVw

 

I never said that the children of legal immigrants did not qualify. So you also claim it was not intended to make the slaves and their children citizens but to make citizens of a class of people they never even contemplated. Ridiculous.

 

Bottom Line:

President Trump, or any GOP President could simply change the policy of birthright citizenship by presidential decree. If President Obama can unilaterally change immigration policy, so can any other president.

People who support Birthright Citizenship essentially either want America to be a 3rd world nation or they fail to understand that is what will happen if we do not get rid of the current policy of birthright citizenship.

The FOLLOWING ARE ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

United States
Canada
That's right, every other modern Developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies.

 

Please define for us Developed.

You know this is an ambiguous term, no?

Google it.

Then get back to us - and explain how one metric matters over another. IMF? CIA? EOCD? IUS? World Bank?

In how you think it matters, anyhow.

"advanced country", "industrialized country", "'more developed country" (MDC), "more economically developed country" (MEDC), "first world country", "post-industrial country"...

United Nations Statistics Division: There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system.

 

I'm simply stating what the Chief Justice stated in the WKA opinion. The 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, and it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment. and The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.

If you are a naturalized citizen you would have a certificate stating you are a naturalized citizen.

Exactly

I'm not changing the subject. Simply answered a question that was posed.

You didn't clarify anything, you did nothing more then claim there is a lot more to it than that , now you do it with a consular office in their home country. The only difference is that the location was moved out of country. They still have to provide documents and proof of their intentions.

My whole point was they were similar.

I never stated Chinese were excluded. The 1875 CEA had no bearing on citizenship at birth, it was nothing more then one of the govt's arguments against granting WKA citizenship. Which is why I referred to the 1870 Treaty in WKA, known as the Burlingame Treaty, and why Congress, when discussing the 14th Amendment, stated it included the Chinese (mongol race) based on the Treaty of Tientsin of 1858.

 

Birthright Nation Map>>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=birthright+citizenship+map&client=opera&hs=Htb&channel=suggest&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCcQsARqFQoTCPH7mrTP1McCFQOfgAodUiEMtg

 

Common Law stated only whites could be citizens prior to 1868. Not even English Common Law made that stupid of a claim as to state "all persons".

A child born to permanent domiciled and legal resident Chinese emigrants. Otherwise known as "aliens in amity" since they were here under the 1870 Treaty between the US and China.

 

Your version of the original intent was far more narrow than the actual original intent. You said the intent was to make citizens of former slaves and their children, which is only a portion of the story.

Yes, it's easy to make someone's claims look "ridiculous" when you simply rewrite them. I never said "it was not intended to make the slaves and their children citizens." What I said was that "it wasn't JUST about slaves and their children." The rest I've covered multiple times already.

 

And I'm simply stating what the Constitution states about itself. I'm not sure why you disagree.

See above. All I'm saying is that the Constitution, which includes its Amendments, is the law of the land.

Exactly. Passports are not necessary to establish citizenship.

And my point is that there are far more restrictions than that. No one with experience in the immigration process can honestly claim that this is "the only difference." Additional differences include heavy visitation restrictions (including restrictions on attending family funerals outside the U.S.), country-of-origin quotes, workforce quotas, etc.

And my whole point is that there are very important ways in which they were different. They were more permissive, by several orders of magnitude.

 

By "properly understand" you apparently mean "agree with my conspiracy theory." In a similar way, I must not properly understand the lunar landing since I believe it happened.

This manufactured "controversy" has already been dealt with extensively. And I've already mentioned the phrase before. And I eluded to it in my previous post when I mentioned exceptions.

And all of that proves he's not a partisan hack how?

 

I understand that. Why don't you?

No it doesn't, because diplomats are subject to US jurisdiction, as they can be declared persona non grata at any time.

Actually, by 3 out of 4 definitions of the term in Webster's Dictionary of 1828, there are no exceptions.

So it's your opinion the US can seize the children of illegal aliens "for whatever reason"?

So the distinction between state jurisdiction and US jurisdiction escapes you.

No, common sense says the US doesn't owe a damn thing to anyone born within its borders against its will.

I don't suppose it occurs to you that legislators often state their intentions before the fact.

Which means, of course, that the only thing that matters is the intent of those who screech the loudest.

 

You are still barking up the wrong tree. Why, I don't know. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Dissent_Fuller Fuller's dissent was, that by birth, based on Common Law and the Constitution all persons were citizens. The case with Wong Kim Ark was that he was Chinese. Was he considered white? Were Mexicans considered white back then? Do you know? If Wong won his case he must have been considered white. And if that is the case, why can't a Mexican be considered the same? Bottom line, I never caught that part you were talking about that said Common Law established who was white, and who wasn't. And it's obvious no one caught it in the WKA case either, since Wong was Chinese, but obviously was viewed white.

And was used in the dissenting opinion by Fuller by referencing Common Law that won the case.

 

Jesus, I'm debating with someone who doesn't even know what the SSS is for. Selective Service registration isn't "used for" those benefits you mentioned earlier. If it was then single mothers, old widows, etc. would be required to register as well. The only purpose of Selective Service registration is to keep an inventory of able-bodied men for possible future conscription. It literally IS just for the draft. That failing to register, as required by law, disqualifies an individual from receiving certain benefits does not mean that those benefits are the purpose of registration. I shouldn't have had to even explain that very simple and obvious fact.

 

This is all anyone needs to know about Trump and those who parrot him. They'll trample on the Constitution to get their way. Thank goodness they have a snowball's chance of getting the White House.

...And I thought Bush/Obama and their cronies were scary, these Trumpistas take the cake.

 

The 14thbamendment grants them citizenship.

 

And his opinion is meaningless. Scotus disagrees.

 

Partisan? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Like you nor anyone else isn't. Again....your sort of 'thinking' does not meet even the minimum requirements for a intelligent conversation.

Some logic is required to understand the l4th amendment....though not all that much--but at least enough to understand if the amendment had meant that 'all people born in the U.S. are citizens' --no other language would have been needed or inserted in the amendment.....aka 'under the jurisdiction'--if this was meant as some of you claim to refer only to diplomats and their families then that is what would have been said---obviously it meant more than that....just simple logic.

Anyone who cannot understand that disqualifies themselves for a intelligent conversation to say the least-- regarding this topic.

Time to end this thread...all relevant positions have been discussed and to continue this back and forth repetetion only wastes board space. Case Closed.

 

The president has no such power. Only an amendment can remove BRC.

 

We've been over this. Legally domiciled isn't the determining factor. And aliens in amity simply means from a friendly nation. It has nothing to do with the individual.

 

Under the jurisdiction means physical presence inside the borders.

 

No...that is just your opinion and of course you are entitled to it....even though it has been refuted time and again....no sense going over this again---time to end this.