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.
That makes no sense. Illegal aliens come from all over the world, and are of all races/ethnicites.
And we wouldn't be having a huge and costly illegal alien problem in the U.S. if the 14th Amendment were actually implemented as written and intended. I've already explained all of this in detail, including posting a link to EXACTLY how the Senator framers of the citizenship clause defined the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requirement: not subject to a foreign power.
One of them even clarified it further... If the U.S. makes treaties with your foreign country/sovereign/etc., you are not under U.S. jurisdiction, you're subject to a foreign power. Nearly all anchor babies are born with their parent's nationality via their country's jus sanguinus law. They're subject to a foreign power.
Furthermore, the specific problems associated with mass uncontrollable immigration from various parts of the world was also clearly discussed in that Congressional document. The 14th Amendment was written and intended to prevent that.
Learn some history. It's SHOCKING how little people know.
What's shocking is how one can be so confident in their ignorance. People present in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be brought before a US court for criminal or civil proceedings. They are responsible for compliance with US law. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. What matters for the 14th is US law, not foreign law. From the perspective of US law, unlawful immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction. Otherwise they could not be detained by INS and subjected to removal proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
They were never supposed to have 14th Amendment birthright citizenship to begin with. This has all been explained in detail.
14th offers birthright citizenship. That's precisely what the Amendment itself says. If it did not do so, it would not have accomplished its primary objective: to make freed slaves citizens. The parents of freed slaves were not US citizens at law when those children were born. Your "interpretation" is a farce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Eliminating birthright citizenship would require one of three things 1) legislation clarifying the intent of the 14th amendment 2)an amendment to the constitution 3) getting a case to the Supreme Court that would require them to consider reinterpreting the 14th.
Just because you think you know what it means does not add much to this discussion.
#1 won't do it because legislation can't change the Constitution. #3 won't happen because the 14th is correctly interpreted to provide birthright citizenship.
I've explained to you before why the US relationship to Indians is a special case. You don't understand that relationship due to ignorance of our history.
You don't understand what they wrote, even though I have explained it to you in the past. When you link to SoS letters, your link is full of confirmation of birthright citizenship. Even the letters you point to recognize birthright citizenship.
Yes, you are. The 14th is very clear. Born in US + subj. to jxd = citizen. Undocumented immigrants are subject to US jxd under US law. This case is closed and it's not even close.
The US has seen waves of immigration from many countries around the world--including many countries that don't speak English. It's never been a threat before and it's not a threat now.
They are subject to our full jurisdiction. The US has never exempted undocumented immigrants from our law and US jxd clearly extends throughout the 50 States.
Subject to jurisdiction exempts diplomats & high officers of invading powers. Indians live on Indian lands. There is a long history of Indian/US relations, and the US eventually decided to let Indians (who were foreign powers to the United States) become citizens. You do realize that the US dealt (and still does deal) with Indians as foreign nations, right? And treaties with the tribes govern US authority over Indian lands?
They aren't undocumented immigrants they are illegal aliens according to our immigration law terminology.
Waves of "immigrants" is one thing but waves of illegal aliens is quite another. Apparently you don't know the difference. The latter is neither lawful or natural.
No, illegal aliens are not subject tor our full jurisdiction they are citizens of another country and not here legally.
They aren't undocumented immigrants they are illegal aliens according to our immigration law terminology.
Waves of "immigrants" is one thing but waves of illegal aliens is quite another. Apparently you don't know the difference. The latter is neither lawful or natural.
No, illegal aliens are not subject tor our full jurisdiction they are citizens of another country and not here legally.
You prefer the term "illegal aliens," though it is not the typical terminology of our law. Alien is the general legal term for a foreigner. People who came to the United States, whether through lawful or unlawful means, are all aliens. All aliens in the United States are subject to US jurisdiction. You can call people "illegal aliens," and I can call them "undocumented immigrants." In either case, they are subject to US jurisdiction.
Using your terms, "immigrants," would also not be subject to our jurisdiction because they are citizens of another country. That interpretation is wrong.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,605 posts, read 16,662,916 times
Reputation: 29753
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
There is no "problem" with such babies. The problem is with the bigots who don't like immigrants, and cling to their biases while rejecting the Constitution.
I have no problem with the babies. I have a real problem with freeloaders who come here with no intention or ability to work and wind up having a right to benefits.
I have no problem with the babies. I have a real problem with freeloaders who come here with no intention or ability to work and wind up having a right to benefits.
They generally have no right to benefits...but the babies do.
That makes no sense. Illegal aliens come from all over the world, and are of all races/ethnicites.
No, they don't. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are Latinos, especially from Mexico, and the anti-immigrant sentiment used by Trump is clearly designed to get the nativist/bigot vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And we wouldn't be having a huge and costly illegal alien problem in the U.S. if the 14th Amendment were actually implemented as written and intended.
A. We don't have a "huge and costly illegal alien problem"; that's a fabricated claim by Trump and his racist supporters.
B. I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court understands the Constitution better than you. There is no "issue" with birthright in the U.S.
I'm in the basket of deplorables because I simply cannot vote for Hillary, so what I post is probably meaningless to some, but I feel both Democrats and Republicans are divided into two groups.
White racism, I believe, exists mostly on the far right. Conservatives often relate more to the Republican party because they're conservative about spending for social causes, but the ones I know also have a problem sinking trillions into meddling in other countries affairs and wars. Those on the far right are war hawks. Many conservatives have no problem with a woman choosing abortion, while those on the far right want to make abortion illegal. I don't know any conservative who is racist, but they feel there is a right way to enter the country lawfully, and they don't want further drain on our economy with illegal entry or anchor babies. They're okay with some domestic social causes, but want to be conservative about where their money goes. Those on the far right would tell Mexican Americans or Muslim Americans to "go home", because they're too ignorant to realize America IS their home.
The same kind of division occurs with Democrats. There's a difference between those who relate more to the Democratic party because they believe in social issues, and those who want to dismantle all things traditional and want to strip all mention of God and religion from everything. The liberals I know want to help those who are American or those who have already made it to our country, but would like more of their tax dollars going to domestic social causes, with some going to foreign causes. Those on the far left will argue that we should take in everyone who wants to be here, and would suggest those who feel differently have no heart.
The problem that exists is, we view the entire party we don't affiliate with based on the positions of those leaning as far to the right or left as possible. Most Americans are in neither camp.
The conservatives I know would like to see anchor babies done away with and the money going toward that, spent on something else, often a social cause. That's hardly racist, that's helping your own.
If we sunk even half the money we spend funding illegals and paying for anchor babies, into communities that would benefit from after school programs, teaching adults a trade or skill so they would be employable, it would make a big difference in the lives of Americans throughout the country. If we took some of that money and put it toward the care of our veterans, it would make a huge difference in the lives of families throughout our country.
Sorry, but I don't see how that attitude is racist or deplorable.
Clinton back peddled but I won't!! The deplorables she was calling out, and the deplorables we all know exist, are the ones on the far right that support bigotry, confederate flags and are anti-multicultural..
We see these types every day. Every time an unarmed black man is killed by police they make up an excuse. When the Voting Rights Act was under attack, they were in line to see it fall. When Obama was elected they claimed he wasn't legitimate with their racist birtherism. When the symbol of hate that is the Confederate flag was removed from state ground, they were up in arms....
We know that all conservatives "aren't" deplorables and we also know which ones are through their actions...
I have no problem with the babies. I have a real problem with freeloaders who come here with no intention or ability to work and wind up having a right to benefits.
That has nothing to do with immigration, though. Freeloaders are bad, of course but immigrants are generally not freeloaders. They have higher workforce participation, lower crime, and much greater entrepreneurship than Americans at large. Almost every economist agrees that immigrants are a net economic positive for the country, and limiting immigration (whether legal or illegal) would harm the U.S. economically.
Undocumented immigrants are probably even a bigger net economic positive, as they pay taxes, but are generally ineligible for most benefits. They're paying into social security and most benefit programs, but cannot access such programs. And undocumented immigrants have lower rates of crime than even legal immigrants (which makes sense, as you would be pretty stupid to commit a crime when you know it will likely destroy your family's life and get you deported).
What's shocking is how one can be so confident in their ignorance.
Well, it's your choice to remain ignorant. /shrug
You're just flat out wrong. Read the full discussion in the Congressional Globe, in the discussion of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, under Reconstruction. It's all there:
No, illegal aliens are not subject tor our full jurisdiction they are citizens of another country and not here legally.
Exactly, and so are their children; they're foreign nationals via their parents' country's jus sanguinis law, therefore subject to foreign jurisdiction.
This is all covered in the Congressional Globe document (I posted the link) documenting Congress' discussion of the proposed 14th Amendment.
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.
