Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

Yes, that is why neo-Nazis and White supremacists say they are endorsing him - especially because they get wee wee'd up about his pipe dream of deporting 11-12 million folks.

Did you think it was because they thought his hair attractive?

 

I can careless about his endorsements.

Trumps position is Trumps position, white nationalists endorsing him, let alone any other politician is nothing new.

Your belief that Trump should change his position because white nationalists agree with it is, well (*)(*)(*)(*)ing

- - - Updated - - -

Go race bait elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

And where there is an exception, there certainly can be found more.

 

SMFH nothing you have posted makes John Yoo an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar. All he is is a lawyer with a bs in history.

 

Then why do you get in such a tizzy over them?

When Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists endorse The Great Flatu, you should just pretend that you have no idea why they find him so attractive.

I'm afraid that articles such as the above from USNews will continue to appear, because having a presidential candidate endorsed by these extremists is news.

 

And exception as CREATED BY THE CONGRESS and legislated into US Code as to who and who is not a citizen, just as it could do with the children of illegal aliens. Just as it had done with the native Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorta like the Black Supremist and Black racist and criminals who endorsed Obama, they in bed together too?

 

Wow that reeks of desperation. An honest person would just acknowledge that "subject to the jurisdiction" is defined by law.

 

Nope as they are specifically designated as not being under it no need to add that clause when it says that diplomats and there children are exempt already. If you read the debates it means under the total jurisdiction of the US in other words owning allegiance only to the US. It also states this does not include foreigners and aliens. But that's only what the guy who wrote it says. What does he know?

 

And that definition means physical presence inside the borders.

- - - Updated - - -

It states the families of foreign alien ambassadors. Not foreigners and aliens.

This is settled law. Won't Kim ark and plyler v doe. Everyone inside US borders is subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. The only 2 exceptions are diplomats and invading armies.

 

Not according to the notes on the 14th amendment. It means totally under US jurisdiction that being owing allegiance to the US and only the US

- - - Updated - - -

Nope sorry it says Foreigners and aliens do not get this right . That is if you believe the guy who wrote it.

 

Which is meaningless. The Supreme Court ruled anyone on US soil is subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. Except diplomats and invading armies.

Nope, it says families of foreign alien ambassadors. Not foreigners and aliens.

 

Well they certainly could be considered an invading army besides those things were already specifically listed so why add and under the jurisdiction there of unless there are other exceptions not listed. The purpose of the notes is so people in the future can see the intention of the law. You suggest we ignore it.

The notes say foreigners and Aliens are not allowed to claim this right not the amendment as it was clarified in the notes as to what under the jurisdiction there of means. You simply choose to ignore the notes.

 

It's meaning was to qualify the "born in the United States" part. It's not just fluff.

- - - Updated - - -

A diplomat still has allegiance to their home country, not the U.S.

 

I stand corrected. It doesn't really matter however.

The SCOTUS can be wrong. There are two qualifiers for being a citizen in the 14th.

 

Thank you for that acknowledgment,. It does, however, matter.

Kid born on the soil of the US = US Citizen.

Way it is.

Qualified.

Deal.

 

Obviously. That is why the child of such a diplomat would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, an exception to being a citizen by reason of birth in the US under the 14th Amendment.

Doing away with birthright citizenship would mean changing the 14th Amendment which gives all persons born on U.S. soil (with the noted exception) automatic citizenship.

That would require a demanding process that is not practicable.

Pretending that Amendment is easily changed is a political ploy to attract the support of nativists (which it is succeeding in doing) but is not realistic.

 

There were no other exceptions.

I suggest no such thing. I agree with the Supreme Court.

The notes say families of,foreign alien ambassadors.

- - - Updated - - -

And it means anyone born on US soil.

 

If there were no other exceptions why add under the jurisdiction there of after they listed the only exceptions? There are no redundant words in the constitution.

No you don't you agree with the opinion of one of the judges

Heres what he said

Lets continue

Seems you missed the OR in there

 

Nope, since there is no OR there. You inserted it.

 

QUOTE=rahl;1065322270]Nope, since there is no OR there. You inserted it.[/QUOTE]
Or or not it still means the same, That foreigners aliens and their children are not given this right. Its plain English

 

No,it doesn't. It's called grammar. Please learn it.

No it doesn't. Again, basic English grammar.

 

Exactly a comma means it is separate learn it. It says Aliens, Foreigners, children of who? Foreigners and or aliens are not entitled. Again after listing the exemptions why add under the jurisdiction there of?

 

Basic grammar. Learn it.

 

That's hilarious.

You (and that National review writer) - inserted the word [OR] there -- and then remark it was missed.



How rich.

 

You really might want to go back and read the thread from the beginning if you think that. However I'm perfectly willing to pass a law and let it go to the courts and see what happens.

 

Whether they inserted it or not it makes no difference. You simply have bad grammar
Lets break it down
Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners
So they are out

Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are aliens so they are out,


Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

So they are also out