*****CNN GOP Presidential Debate 8:30 PM EST*****

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

And this includes conferring citizenship on a baby they happen to have if they are illegally? I don't think so.

Yes, actually it does:

The court has reiterated this view in subsequent decisions. In Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the majority concluded, and the dissent agreed, that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment extends to anyone "who is subject to the laws of a state," including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. And in INS vs. Rios-Pineda (1985), a unanimous court agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.

The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous. If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State.

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

hmm second place winner of the debate is paul. Hmmm very interesting. :-) But hey who needs polling. After all he is like 3% nationally. Was almost in the 2nd tier debate but who needs Paul. See ya in IOWA.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Yes, actually it does:

The court has reiterated this view in subsequent decisions. In Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the majority concluded, and the dissent agreed, that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment extends to anyone "who is subject to the laws of a state," including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.

Wrong.

All the court said was that children born here to illegal aliens could not be denied a public education.

And in INS vs. Rios-Pineda (1985), a unanimous court agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.

Nope.

I just finished reading the decision.

It doesn't say that at all.

The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous. If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State.

That's his opinion.

And it is wrong, for the reasons I have already given in this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly stated that children born in this country to citizens of foreign countries who were LEGALLY in the U.S. (e.g., diplomats) were NOT to be considered automatic U.S. citizens.

The same would OBVIOUSLY apply to children born in this country to citizens of foreign countries who are here ILLEGALLY.