Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Senator Edgar Cowan opposed the 14th Amendment because it would confer citizenship on non-citizen immigrants. His opposition disproves your claims that the amendment wasn't meant to apply to foreigners. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and it is depressing to see so many fall for the lies of those who wish to trash the Constitution.

 

I still don't know what you meant there so it was not obvious in the least.

No you are simply dodging the fact that they never ruled there or anywhere else that the children of illegals born here are citizens.

 

How do you not know what I meant? You made a statement that was incorrect. I corrected it.

Again, from the ruling........

 

Going off of wiki? Hell, I quoted directly from the WKA Justice Gray Opinion itself. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Having read through the debates, your claim as to what they state verse what I read seems to be 2 very different things. Maybe you can be a little clearer as to exactly what portion of the debates you are referring so as the proper context to them may be applied.

 

It is clear from the ignorance of response that you did not even read the congressional debate surrounding the citizenship clause. The term foreigners and aliens were meant as interlopers not permanently domiciled in the U.S. If you would of bothered to read the debate you would not have made that mistake. They clearly meant that children of immigrants that permanently domiciled in the U.S. be U.S. Citizens. There language was clear and unambiguous. As was their intent that confirmation of citizenship come with all the rights granted under the Federal Constitution and to remove the ability of the legislature to either undermine those rights by specific legislation or undermine those rights by legislation abridging their citizenship status.

 

And again your link states "but were predicable of aliens in amity", do you know what amity means yet?

You claim your quote to mean something it doesn't and when you are shown it doesn't mean what you are claiming you insistently repeat the same tiring BS over and over.

 

If you are going to stick to the ruling then you need to interpret it correctly, not claim it means something it clearly doesn't. Do you know what amity means yet? Another point, your quote claims people must be born within the Kings allegiance and subject to his protection.

And since you like Plyler so much, Brennan refers to Bouve (1912 - arguing for citizenship for birth to children born to illegals arguing WKA) in footnote 10 that claims that the illegals should have a temporary allegiance simply by being here. If they had any allegiance to the US they could be conscripted, and WKA would have granted their children citizenship at birth. So your quote, yet again shows you to be WRONG per usual and that it doesn't mean what you claim it to mean.

So, if you really knew anything about the history of citizenship in the US you wouldn't look so inept with each and every comment you make.

 

I clearly have and that was addressed. You cant be legally domiciled here if your illegal.

 

Lets go to Lynch and use "temporary sojourners", which at the time were still, even if temporarily, domiciled here and resident. Do you know what it tales to either make your domicil permanent or temporary? Do you know what it takes to be considered officially resident in a state and or the federal govt?

Now lets goto WKA and rahls quote of his using the phrase "predicable of aliens in amity" which means aliens in friendship (temporary sojourners) to the king via an agreement between 2 countries, i.e. treaty.

 

The quote directly refutes your argument. Numerous people have shown why you are incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

{Mod Edit - Rule 2 Insult}

 

Spamming this link only shows your utter ignorance. Your quoted portion makes light that children who were born within the allegiance were born citizens

and that children born to aliens in amity were also born citizens.

{Mod Edit - Rule 3}

And he went on to explain that Indians, unknown to the common law, are recognized exceptions, making 3. There is also a 4th, but you are to inept to know what it is.

As I have shown numerous times, none of you have disproven anything, let alone my claims, nor have any of you answered the very basics of the questions I posed. DO YOU KNOW WHAT AMITY MEANS YET? I mean you quoted it, therefor you should be able to answer that very simple question. And since this is now the 4th or 5th topic I have asked you this very question in, and you still haven't answered, we can only assume you haven't a clue, but we all already knew that.

My reference to Minor was taken directly from Justice Gray's opinion in WKA

How the hell is that not relevant?

The court in your own link doesn't use Minor to emphasize the use of English Common Law.

It emphasizes "in light of common law" which is that of the common law from the USC to 1868.

Do you not understand that there is a paragraph brake at that point which then creates a different response to the arguments of the lawyers.

Do you not know what the Roman numeral II. means?

{Mod Edit - Rule 3}

 

It isn't spamming to repost the same refutation to your debunked arguments you keep repeating over and over and over and over again. They were debunked the very first time you made them 3 threads ago.

 

Yes, as in many more than just myself have shown why you are wrong.

yes, moronic. Conscription is meaningless. As a 9'year old girl is not able to be conscripted, and is still subject to US jurisdiction. Just like every single other person inside US borders as the Supreme Court has held. Except diplomats and invading armies.

 

Plus American Indians and any others the congress should deem so although they changed the part about Indians. Now this gets as bit confusing to me. Are Indian reservations under US law or their own? Is it their land or ours?

 

It's there land until the US says it's not!

 

That decision of anchor babies was put to rest years ago through the Wong Kim Ark decision; https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr It has also been put to rest at least for the time being by the Congressional Research Service; http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf There conclusions basically say you will need a Constitutional amendment to change it.

 

'The 14h Amendment’s citizenship clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants after the Civil War. Those who challenge birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and so neither are their American-born children; these children, they argue, cannot therefore automatically become citizens. Since there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant at the time of the amendment’s adoption — immigration was not restricted or regulated back then — opponents also contend that the amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/s...ed-for-us-born-children-of-illegal-immigrants'

Once again Trump is correct.

 

Exactly! I talked to a whole tribe a while back. They said they have the Right to use the land until the government decides they need it for mineral rights or some other use. They really own nothing at all. They are forgotten people who are slowly dying out like the South American Indians. And they put them on lands where water isn't even accessible; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk8Rm9EsET4 One could certainly conclude this has all been done by design to totally eliminate an entire population, while we squabble about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, as if the Founders were Gods and knew everything. And it was all at a time when we were systematically eliminating the Indian populations, through mass murder. The irony of such a twisted maze of moral high ground trying to come up with Amendments that considers every possible right and wrong for the well being of a country, while engaging in mass murder all at the same time period, can make a person want to puke.

 

Exactly! sort of... I do greatly regret the treatment of the "American Indians." I don't like the term "Indian" at all as it is historically inaccurate. "Indians" are sort of like "Europeans" or people that belong to a nation of a certain land mass. However I can see how the "white man" would have to vanquish the "Indian" as the "Indian" culture rejected property rights and land ownership; capitalism and "progress." As such a war was inevitable, and the "Indian" culture lost. Good? Bad? I dunno. I do know that had the "Indian" culture won our existence would have been very different. All that being said, I believe that the US government should have honored each and every treaty legally struck with each and every "Indian" nation.

BTW, If any one has a good name for "Indians" that would reflect one who belongs to any of one nations (like Europeans) I would really like that term...

 

That is of course a ridiculous argument. Once the illegal enters the U.S. he or she automatically is subjected to our jurisdiction. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

Which is also a ridiculous argument because the times have changed. That is why the WKA case cleared that nonsense up.

Actually, he is not. The courts ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Trump would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to change birthright citizenship.

 

What portion of the WKA case is it you think put anything to rest for children born to illegals? Please give the paragraph you think makes that claim. If a Constitutional Amendment were needed, then why did Gray state the following @ 704?

Si if we place illegals into an INA and deny their children citizenship at birth in the US, are we not doing what Gray states Congress has authority to do?

As for the CRS link discusses aliens in general on visas, different types of visas. and only has the words illegal alien in the footnotes.

Epic Fail.

 

To all who vehemently argue the "rights" of Citizenship at Birth regardless... I believe "thou protest too much!" Why is it SO important that my little "spur of the moment, throwaway thread" merits over 41 pages of debate? Why is it SO important children of illegal aliens be AWARDED US citizenship if their mothers run across the boarder during labor? It's not an argument of Constitutional Purity as the Constitution as written pretty much OUTLAWS LEFTIST Progressives, yet they continue!!! It is said that the "Americans" vote for Republicans. The Democrats NEED the "foreign" vote to survive. I don't know, but I've been told... Tell me y'a all, why do you care if you are not interested in foreign votes to perpetuate the Democrat party? As I stated, I believe "thou protest too much!"

 

Do you not read your own link? They are entitled to the protections of the 5th and 6th Amendments Due Process clauses if charged with an infamous crime, and the 14th Equal Protection Clause for the individual state in which they are in.

WKA never cleared it up, if it did then Bouve (1912), whom Brennan in Plyler refers (footnote 10), would never have had to write a treatise on law arguing for children born of illegals to be born citizens.

Then why does Gray state in WKA

Its a simple question that none of you have been able to answer, why is that?

 

By virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment, all person's born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Okay, this means more than you think, and is equally applied to illegals now. The phrase simply means according to SCOTUS, that it requires them to obey U.S. law based on the interpretation of the 14th. That is what is meant by "jurisdiction thereof". Not really that complicated actually. The 1924 Indian Act that followed later, seeing that we were at war with them, followed suit with the same requirements, after our differences were settled. Then came amnesty through Reagan and Bush with illegals from Mexico and other countries. Along with the Congressional Research Service, it was universally understood that it would be inhumane not to grant citizenship to those born here while their parents were illegal, and that the interpretation of the 14th would not be complete without it. And to this day, that policy has not been challenged. Why? Take a wild guess. If Reagan and Bush had an amnesty program, how could you address the fourteenth any other way? It wouldn't make sense to even think about challenging it. And, it is so true.

The problem people like you and others in the U.S. have, is a basic failure to see forest for tree. We want them to come trim bushes and pick our fruit and vegetables, then we want to throw them back in the trash barrel from where they came after we are through with them. It doesn't work that way.

And your obsession with running this argument in circles with the 14th, and trying to make out what happened in later years more complicated is not necessary. Everyone knows the 14th had to evolve, which it did, much like the Second needs to evolve when the framers never addressed AK47's back in the 1700's, and how they are legal for folks to walk into McDonald's with them today. The second hasn't evolved one bit. But give credit because of the changing times, that the 14th has. Think about it; we've had court cases, we've had acts, we've gone through countless years of research, we've gone through an amnesty program, we've taken over their governments, their economies, and you and others are trying to wiggle around a few words to try and change what the 14th means? Hogwash! People know what it really means. Our own history has taught us what it means. We came to this country, invaded these people's space, burned them out, murdered them, stole their resources, stole their politics, stole their identity, and placed others on lands not fit for human habitation. And you think they aren't entitled by sheer inheritance alone a right to be citizens? Give me a frickin break.

 

And?

Different time period, different case! It seems impossible for you to keep up with how things transpired throughout our history. Humans suffer quite often with short term memory loss and need a reminder every now and then as to what their past actually looks like. I see this as nothing more than that.

I've read Gray's opinion and fail to see what's complicated to answer, or, what warrants a question.