Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

I can't wait for you to pretend that you can actually back up your "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" definition. And read what they actually said about aliens at the time. Read the whole thing. And ask yourself why no court in the US has ever agreed with you.

 

If you aren't going to add to the conversation, why join it? Since I actually did offer the actual citation and source for anchor kids, perhaps you can offer a rebuttal? No? I don't expect that you will. So why are you trying to change the subject in the first place? Can't win on the merits? There's the winner.... LMAO...

 

The US has never agreed with your stance. At any point in our history. So, no, there are no merits here.

 

You asserted absent any evidence. Try using your own standards, prove your assertion with a citation. i did, which rebuts your assertion. Next?

 

So now you are claiming that you have evidence. Which you have failed to actually provide. Next?

 

Read the thread. asked and provided. Unlike you, who have yet to cite anything on any specific quality of the law that you assert you know.

 

It hasn't been provided. At no point in our history has being the child of an illegal immigrant automatically made you illegal as well. Never happened.

 

Hmm... So, here it is, from the horses mouth; The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This 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." So, yes, quite literally, it did happen. Sorry you were so bleakly unaware.. Further, SCOTUS decision: In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. There are those pesky little words, "Subject to the jurisdiction"... I know you are ignorant of this, For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then Brennan wrote a footnote: out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Your posting then is both misinformed, and egregiously ignorant of the law. And instead of actually trying to educate yourself, you're more interested in slinging adhoms and attacking folks for the fantasy you hold in your own mind. It's tiring. laughable, but ultimately, in this instance you are so far off base. In this case, your ego cannot overcome history and actual legal precedent.

 

Wait. What? Does a foreigner on vacation within the USA not fall under US jurisdiction? The local laws don't apply to them? Maybe an official ambassador would have diplomatic immunity, but a typical visitor? If an "illegal immigrant" doesn't fall under US jurisdiction, then they aren't "illegal"....

 

I am surprised that this thread goes on and on about what the law currently is and that few are arguing what it should be.

 

When, specifically, in the entirety of US history, has anyone been denied birthright citizenship solely because one of their parents was illegal. And this is your daily reminder that "illegal immigration" wasn't even a concept until fairly recently. We had open borders for most of our history.

 

Well we probably won't agree with that either.

 

You were provided the answers. Your continued antagonism isn't a sign you understood the material.

 

I advocate for the recision of the Brennan footnote. Folks who are illegal are not and should not be able to anchor a baby in this country. They remain citizens of other nations and so do their children/offspring.

 

You have not provided an answer to my question. Your inability to answer does not equate to "antagonism" from my part. I'll ask you again. You will run away and hide again: When, specifically, in the entirety of US history, has anyone been denied birthright citizenship solely because one of their parents was illegal? And this is your daily reminder that "illegal immigration" wasn't even a concept until fairly recently. We had open borders for most of our history.

 

He's not, just like all these others that can't understand the amendment's meaning is as written in 1866, which controls, may seem different to the non-legal minded.

 

You pretty much cited a source that confirms the argument against your point.

We know people with diplomatic immunity aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

So Ellis Island and all those other ports of legal entrance were all just bullshit? No sir. We've had an open border problem for the last 40 years, that's it. And thanks to democrats, it's now a full blown invasion.

 

The people crossing the border illegally today and applying for Asylum are being subjected to more vetting than anyone who immigrated through ELIS Island.

 

Did you miss "foreigners and aliens"? It seems so.

No matter how you spin it, the 14th Amendment didn't and doesn't apply to illegal aliens.

 

LOL... The arrogance of this.. So let me end this. You asked a question that isn't relevant. Why should anyone then waste their time answering you given your willingness to engage in endless school yard antics?

 

My ASS.

 

Asylum from what? Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim economic asylum at a time when record numbers of US citizens are flooding back into those same nations as expat retirees?

 

There is no "and" in there. He is talking about people born to diplomats and foreign officials. Grammar matters.

 

There asylum will be denied in most cases, that's not the point.

Someone who just applies for Asylum today is subjected to far more vetting than anyone who came in through ELIS Island and was granted legal status.