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.
Yeah, that makes sense. He would deny children born from "aliens" instant citizenship but that didn't mean children born from illegal aliens. Makes perfect sense if you have no common sense or logic.
Since he did not deny children born from aliens instant citizenship, your conundrum is neatly resolved.
Since he did not deny children born from aliens instant citizenship, your conundrum is neatly resolved.
Really? During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanLyman Trumbull.[
Really? During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanLyman Trumbull.[
It astounds me that you keep posting this same quotation and make no effort to understand it.
1. It never mentions either "children of" foreigners, or "children of" aliens.
2. It mentions children who are themselves "foreigners" and "aliens."
3. It then defines them as belonging "to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
There is no other interpretation of the statement that makes sense in context.
It certainly should since the writer of the 14th was clear that birthright citizenship was not intended for children of illegal aliens.
If the "writer" meant that, then that language should have been added to the amendment. Since he clearly left it out,[or the legislators left it out] then the court has allowed the wording now to be the law of the land. It no longer maters what the writer of the amendment intended, it maters what the wording the states voted on. The current language is all that maters now.
It astounds me that you keep posting this same quotation and make no effort to understand it.
1. It never mentions either "children of" foreigners, or "children of" aliens.
2. It mentions children who are themselves "foreigners" and "aliens."
3. It then defines them as belonging "to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
There is no other interpretation of the statement that makes sense in context.
None.
What part of this don't you get?
"excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons BORN in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
How could he be talking about children as if they are the parents? Children don't give birth!
If the "writer" meant that, then that language should have been added to the amendment. Since he clearly left it out,[or the legislators left it out] then the court has allowed the wording now to be the law of the land. It no longer maters what the writer of the amendment intended, it maters what the wording the states voted on. The current language is all that maters now.
You cant go back and do over...
wrong
laws can be changd
jim crow died
anchor baby law
wil die to
It astounds me that you keep posting this same quotation and make no effort to understand it.
1. It never mentions either "children of" foreigners, or "children of" aliens.
2. It mentions children who are themselves "foreigners" and "aliens."
3. It then defines them as belonging "to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
There is no other interpretation of the statement that makes sense in context.
None.
Again, you are missing the most vital point of the whole quote: PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES...
It works like this...
woman gets pregnant
THEN woman gives BIRTH to a brand-new baby in THIS country (this BABY is the PERSON BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to (whomever)
If mother and father are foreigners OR aliens OR families of ambassadors or foreign ministers then ANY babies born to them are NOT to be given citizenship.
THAT is what it really says.
"excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons BORN in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
I get it completely.
Foreigners = aliens = who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
It's been explained to you several times now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
How could he be talking about children as if they are the parents? Children don't give birth!
He is not "talking about children as if they are the parents." I keep pointing that out to you.
The only parents he mentions are "ambassadors or foreign ministers."
And their children are the foreigners/aliens he mentions previously.
After all... under the 14th Amendment, children of aliens (born here) are citizens, not aliens themselves. So he can't be talking about them when he says "foreigners, aliens."
There is no other interpretation of the sentence that makes sense in context.
None.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 06-04-2010 at 07:40 AM..
Again, you are missing the most vital point of the whole quote: PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES...
Apparently the only part I am missing is the fake part you keep trying to insert.
For that I have a very good excuse. It's fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
If mother and father are foreigners OR aliens OR families of ambassadors or foreign ministers then ANY babies born to them are NOT to be given citizenship.
The parts of your paraphrase that I highlighted in red are lies. There are no "ors" in the statement, there are only commas. This means that these are not three different things. They are the same thing, three different synonyms offered.
The entire purpose of the statement is to define who is excluded by the qualification "subject to the jurisdiction of." And he is offering a single class of person.
THAT is what it really says.
If it meant what you claim it does, you would have no need to keep making fraudulent insertions into the statement.
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.
