Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Howard specifically wrote that the 14th Amendment:
“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.”
Yeah, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the actual text of the Amendment, does it?
The language that was in the version that passed is the language that applies. It doesn't matter what he intended, this was the version that was voted on and approved. So, yes - the 14th Amendment does allow anchor babies. Your thread title is incorrect.
It doesn't matter what some people thought the wording meant or wanted it to mean back then, the wording in Section 1 is quite clear. Anyone born here is a citizen.
Nope! There's that little qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Parents here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction/allegiance and neither are their offspring born on our soil.
Nope! There's that little qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Parents here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction/allegiance and neither are their offspring born on our soil.
All people in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the US except for certain foreign diplomats (that whole diplomatic immunity thing that gets abused in so many Hollywood action movies). Even illegal aliens have to abide by US laws and when they break them they go to US prisons and possibly deported after they have served their sentence.
The Supreme Court solidified this interpretation of that statement back in 1898. Congress has had 118 years to amend that amendment if they disagreed with that interpretation.
The restrictions on women were corrected by the 19th amendment.
Short and sweet:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Nope! There's that little qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Parents here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction/allegiance and neither are their offspring born on our soil.
That's ridiculous. Of course they're subject to our jurisdiction - everyone who sets foot on American soil is subject to American law. The fact that they are breaking it does not mean they are not bound to abide by it - it just means that they are breaking it. That's like saying that you can't arrest armed robbers because since they are already breaking the law anyway, they're no longer subject to it.
Nope! There's that little qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Parents here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction/allegiance and neither are their offspring born on our soil.
What has the SCOTUS said about your post? Your argument, or anyone else's doesn't matter in the end. You can argue until the moon turns blue, but the SCOTUS did not agree with you
What has the SCOTUS said about your post? Your argument, or anyone else's doesn't matter in the end. You can argue until the moon turns blue, but the SCOTUS did not agree with you
The SCOTUS has never ruled on birthright citizenship. No case has ever been tried. It has merely been a PC policy to deem the offspring of illegal aliens as birthright citizens.
That's ridiculous. Of course they're subject to our jurisdiction - everyone who sets foot on American soil is subject to American law. The fact that they are breaking it does not mean they are not bound to abide by it - it just means that they are breaking it. That's like saying that you can't arrest armed robbers because since they are already breaking the law anyway, they're no longer subject to it.
They are only subject to our laws. They aren't subject to our full jurisdiction. Your analogy fails.
The SCOTUS has never ruled on birthright citizenship. No case has ever been tried. It has merely been a PC policy to deem the offspring of illegal aliens as birthright citizens.
Actually, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark disagrees with you, and the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it stands TODAY, is based on this case's ruling
They are only subject to our laws. They aren't subject to our full jurisdiction. Your analogy fails.
Well, then how are you defining "jurisdiction?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
