Ok Constitutionalists: What Is The 'Original Intent' Of The 14Th Amendment?

Except it's settled law, and is settled in both Supreme Court cases I referenced. Unless you can provide a court ruling which overturned the case cited, you lose.

 

Nope. You're confusing a convention adopted by some nation-states concerning citizenship with natural law. Some countries don't even have a classification known as "citizen," and it would require legislation to make anyone inside that country a "citizen." Natural law has nothing to do with citizenship. Simply preceding a clause with the word "naturally" does not make that thing a natural law...naturally.

 

Poor choice of screen names. Barak's father was in the US on a student visa and as such was under US jurisdiction.

 

If you are on US soil, the US has jurisdiction.. Its really as simple as that... Who's laws do you think would have jurisdiction??? France, Germany, Tibet?

 

I said IF you had a country and IF you had citizens

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to those who wrote it or SCOTUS. Read what I posted.

 

I see. So, in that exact same vein, Congress would only need to pass a law clarifying that the "arms" in the 2nd Amendment refers to non-mechanical instruments only, include language limiting Judicial Review, and your legal-right to keep and bear arms disappears as a result of a simple majority vote in Congress.

You'd be okay with that, right?

 

As far as limiting Judicial Review they would first have to make an amendment giving SCOTUS that power

Congress has the power to make immigration laws it does not have the right to restrict our rights under the 2nd amendment although you could have fooled me.

 

I have read it and I have years and years of experience reading law.. You are just wrong.. The US has jurisdiction over anyone on US soil.. legal, illegal, tourist, student, businessman...

 

if the 14th amendment gives citizenship to the child what law on the books says the parents can stay here?

 

So do I and i disagree. Now if you had years practicing law you may have a point. I showed what the authors said. Even if your a lawyer that means squat as the idiots in SCOTUS are also lawyers who rarely agree on anything. There is no doubt the author of the amendment did not want to make the children of people here illegally citizens unless your dense or dont understand English. That lawyers try to play games with the english language is the only thing beyond dispute.

 

*throws flag*

We're going to need a ruling on this.

I'm almost certain that attempting to insult someone's intelligence while using atrocious grammar is grounds for instant disqualification from a debate.

Honestly, it is not that hard to insult people so I don't understand why some people can't put just a little more effort into it.

 

Wrong thread

 

From one of the folk who wrote the 14th

1866, Senator Jacob Howard

 

Im sorry but its clearly written

I can find no other excuse for claiming they did not address this in the debates. Im not trying to insult you but understand where your coming from, Seems you and rahl are in the same boat.

 

"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."​

That sentence is speaking of one class of people. It is not speaking of all foreigners, as you and your friends so dearly wish.

Allow me to illustrate. Consider the following sentence where I simply replace, "foreigners," and, "aliens," with the words, "carnies," and, "carnival workers," respectively:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are carnies, carnival workers, 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.​

Do you think my example sentence is speaking of one class of people (carnies who belong to the families of ambassadors...), or do you think it is speaking of three entirely separate classes?

 

English is such a messed up language that in your example it could be either but not in mine if taken in context.

 

Nope. English is actually a very straightforward language with specific and unambiguous rules. In both examples, only one class of people is being referred to. To read either of them as anything other than that, is to ignore basic rules of grammar. To see three classes of people in the sentence also requires a leap of logic and the sentence becomes a jumbled mess since, "alien," is synonymous with, "foreigner," and, "people who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," would have already fallen under the category of, "foreigners," and there would have been no reason to mention them if the author meant to exclude all, "foreigners."

So, either the sentence that you and your friends have invested so much in says something different than what you claim...or it is a nonsensical mish-mash of words spoken by a dullard, in which case it would be folly for you to use it as supporting evidence.

 

My take is that the child is a U.S. citizen but the parents are not. See Solution for Problem of "14th Amendment" Birthright or Anchor Babies. My out-of-the-box thought for solving the problem of "anchor" or "birthright" babies is to pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.