U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2016, 10:55 PM
 
17,022 posts, read 9,066,807 times
Reputation: 5685

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker53 View Post
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.


"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" precludes it from being "anyone".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2016, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
6,704 posts, read 4,165,907 times
Reputation: 14935
You guys are hilarious.

You do realize, don't you, that not every single law in the United States is found in the Constitution? You do get that, right... or... mmm... do you?

Actually, I don't think you really do. So let me explain.

There are millions of pages of local, state, and federal laws (statutory, regulatory, and common law (including case law)) which govern the day to day goings-on of private citizens, businesses, non-profits, and government agencies. Millions of pages of laws.

The Constitution is only 4 pages long. So, given that, it probably shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that not every single law by which Americans must abide is found in the Constitution. In fact, very few of them are. Only a couple dozen at most.

Millions of pages of laws in the United States. Millions of pages, but only 4 pages of Constitution. Almost every single thing that is either legal or not legal in the United States is never mentioned at all in the Constitution, much less explicitly spelled out. The role of the Constitution, for the most part, is to provide a framework of broad guidelines that define what other laws can and cannot allow or prohibit. Local, state, and federal legislators write laws, and then the courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) determine whether those laws are compatible with the Constitution.

That's how our legal system works. And so far, the American court system has found that this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the Constitution. That's it. Period. Y'all can jump up and down and hold your breath and clench yer little fists and shout "nuh-uh nuh-uh nuh-uh!!!!" all you want, the courts and almost every legal expert in the country all say that you don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

Turn. Off. Those stupid. Radios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 01:30 PM
 
13,477 posts, read 9,597,589 times
Reputation: 17430
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
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.”
And here's where the grammar gets sticky. He says "foreigners, aliens, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers." Meaning one category of person. Those born to diplomats.

Now if he had said " those born to foreigners, aliens OR who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers"... We'd have a legal leg to stand on, wouldn't we? Because that would mean something entirely different.

They are going to have to amend the constitution if they want to fix this. And they better pay closer attention to their verbiage this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,189 posts, read 14,062,995 times
Reputation: 18141
No amendment needed.

14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens | US News Opinion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 03:49 PM
 
1,166 posts, read 504,152 times
Reputation: 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post

LOL, that is an opinion piece from someone at the Heritage Foundation. I guess in your world that carries more weight than federal court decisions up to and including the US Supreme Court.


If you want to get rid of birthright citizenship, it will take a constitutional amendment. Any argument to the contrary is just wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 04:11 PM
 
Location: the Sticks
6,730 posts, read 1,897,245 times
Reputation: 3419
Im sure that when the 14th Amend. was passed that it was never intended to allow anchor babies. Im pretty sure it was intended to ensure the rights of former slaves and their descendants. As with many laws the lawyers found loopholes and found ways to manipulate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 04:47 PM
 
11,677 posts, read 3,253,090 times
Reputation: 3578
Progressive judges and bureaucrats just reinterpret the constitution to mean or not mean whatever they want it to regardless of how it had always been interpreted. The 14th amendment is 150 years old and progressives are today claiming it means novel rights applied to everything. They shredded the constitution since to a progressive the constitution is the main obstacle for them being dictators. That was the whole point of a constitution to limit and narrowly define government power and actions. Progressives are enemies of the constitution and should be treated as the traitors they are. Progressive judges should not only be removed they probably should be tried for treason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 04:54 PM
 
11,677 posts, read 3,253,090 times
Reputation: 3578
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962 View Post
Im sure that when the 14th Amend. was passed that it was never intended to allow anchor babies. Im pretty sure it was intended to ensure the rights of former slaves and their descendants. As with many laws the lawyers found loopholes and found ways to manipulate.
Absolutely, just like the 1st amendment didn't/doesn't intend that the US is obligated to accept muslim immigration etc. Progressives just fabricated these new interpretations after 100-200 years of long standing interpretation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2016, 12:45 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,538,974 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker53 View Post
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.



not true. my grandmother was born here when her mother and father were touring the USA in 1898 and my grandmother was born in Delaware. my grandmother never gained citizenship until she legally immigrated here in the early 1900's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2016, 09:49 PM
 
11,677 posts, read 3,253,090 times
Reputation: 3578
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
And here's where the grammar gets sticky. He says "foreigners, aliens, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers." Meaning one category of person. Those born to diplomats.

Now if he had said " those born to foreigners, aliens OR who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers"... We'd have a legal leg to stand on, wouldn't we? Because that would mean something entirely different.

They are going to have to amend the constitution if they want to fix this. And they better pay closer attention to their verbiage this time.
Writing " will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens , who.." the comma can be interpreted as "or" not just "and". So " not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens or who belong to ambassadors or foreign members ministers".

It makes no sense to say only the children born in the US to ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens that are ineligible for birthright citizenship, but children born to all illegal aliens of foreign citizenship in the US are all birthright citizens and not born foreigners or aliens. It makes no sense at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top