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.
we really should just use a separate "birthright citizenship" topic. Has nada to do with progress on building the wall.
and OG can get TX to create a law ending ALL benefits to children of illegals within the borders of TX - except education definitely, and probably healthcare - and let it run up through the court. Took 7 years last time. Of course, it appears the majority DID specifically say the illegals were indeed subject to the jurisdiction. But what do SC Justices know about the law and Constitution compared to our resident scholar?
First off I'm not from Texas nor do I live there. Just who are these SC Justices that determined that the children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens?
Majority Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence Marshall
Concurrence Blackmun
Concurrence Powell
Dissent Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
Quote:
Texas officials had argued that undocumented immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."
doesn't mean a new court, considering the combined aspects of citizenship and jurisdiction, wouldn't find precedent. Just means right now, the precedent on both issues is in favor of the children
Majority Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence Marshall
Concurrence Blackmun
Concurrence Powell
Dissent Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
doesn't mean a new court, considering the combined aspects of citizenship and jurisdiction, wouldn't find precedent. Just means right now, the precedent on both issues is in favor of the children
That was about providing all children within our borders with an education, not birthright citizenship. It was about kids brought here illegally to our country not anchor babies. Try again.
Clearly you and some others don't want to acknowledge the discussions on birthright citizenship and the actual wording of the 14th Amendment at the time it was written and ratified.
Sure we do. The wording was written to be interpreted. It is being interpreted everyday... in a consistent manner, in fact.
Sure we do. The wording was written to be interpreted. It is being interpreted everyday... in a consistent manner, in fact.
It's not being interpreted correctly according to the discussions about it at the time. The ones who wrote it interpreted it for us it's just been ignored for PC purposes and has been misinterpreted. People can interpret anything they want their way but that doesn't make it the correct way.
It's not being interpreted correctly according to the discussions about it at the time. The ones who wrote it interpreted it for us it's just been ignored for PC purposes and has been misinterpreted. People can interpret anything they want their way but that doesn't make it the correct way.
"Correctly" is determined by those who are interpreting it. That's how the US government was set up by our founders... all laws are to be interpreted by the justice system and society and not by those who write them. So they are being interpreted correctly. Anyone who disagrees with the interpretation can push a case to the Supreme Court. Until then, precedent will define the interpretation.
I suggest you look up information about the formation of the US government to learn more.
I believe the poster was just giving you the benefit of the doubt for not being familiar with America. We have a lot of people that come here from outside the US and they are typically the ones not familiar with our country... so I can see how they made a mistake. But, you're right, they shouldn't have assumed you were a foreigner based on your lack of understanding of the country and the concept of interpretation by courts and checks and balances.
I have no lack of understanding of our country, it's laws nor our Constitution. So WTH are you talking about?
I don't want to arbitrarily jump to the defense of the other poster, but we can only go by what you have posted on these forums. You have demonstrated such in this very thread.
Assuming you were a foreigner was wrong by the previous poster. But I can see how he/she was giving you the benefit of the doubt as we are generally taught how our government and laws work in school in the US. It's possible that you didn't have access to education while being raised, and that's true of a lot of people in America. We must reach far to understand our nation and help others understand it (whether they are foreign or deprived of knowledge).
Last edited by Oldgorilla; 06-06-2020 at 01:26 PM..
"Correctly" is determined by those who are interpreting it. That's how the US government was set up by our founders... all laws are to be interpreted by the justice system and society and not by those who write them. So they are being interpreted correctly. Anyone who disagrees with the interpretation can push a case to the Supreme Court. Until then, precedent will define the interpretation.
I suggest you look up information about the formation of the US government to learn more.
It was meant to be interpreted at the time it was written not a hundred years later. The Supreme Court never ruled on it, period. Many politicians have tried to get it to the Supreme Court but they know there would be lawsuits and objection from mostly the Democrats in congress. The wording is very clear on birthright citizenship. It was not intended to give birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.
I suggest you stop assuming that I'm a newcomer to this country that doesn't know anything. I am a third generation American who attended our schools from kindergarten through college and if you think I'm the only American that thinks the 14th is being misinterpreted then you haven't read the posts of the numerous posters in here who agree with me and have provided many links backing this up.
It was meant to be interpreted at the time it was written not a hundred years later. The Supreme Court never ruled on it, period. Many politicians have tried to get it to the Supreme Court but they know there would be lawsuits and objection from mostly the Democrats in congress. The wording is very clear on birthright citizenship. It was not intended to give birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.
The wording is actually not very clear and that it is why people are interpreting differently. The current precedent in place is to provide them with citizenship. The precedent sits until it is overturned by a federal court. It doesn't have to be the supreme court, btw... but it will likely be challenged at any lower court and end up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I suggest you stop assuming that I'm a newcomer to this country that doesn't know anything. I am a third generation American who attended our schools from kindergarten through college and if you think I'm the only American that thinks the 14th is being misinterpreted then you haven't read the posts of the numerous posters in here who agree with me and have provided many links backing this up.
I never said you were from a different country, that was another poster. That poster seemed to just be giving you the benefit of the doubt. There's lots of reasons why someone would not know about the US and how it works.
The wording is actually not very clear and that it is why people are interpreting differently. The current precedent in place is to provide them with citizenship. The precedent sits until it is overturned by a federal court. It doesn't have to be the supreme court, btw... but it will likely be challenged at any lower court and end up there.
I never said you were from a different country, that was another poster. That poster seemed to just be giving you the benefit of the doubt. There's lots of reasons why someone would not know about the US and how it works.
The wording and the discussions at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified was very clear. No, it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to stop this nonsense.
I know how the U.S. works and many times it is based on the action and inaction of our corrupted, elected officials.
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.
