Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream
Then by all means supply the context that shows that Madison doesn't ACTUALLY think place is the primary criterion for allegiance at birth, despite him saying so directly.

The term "established maxim" means that it is a custom or a principle, not that it is an enacted law. In this assertion Madison is correct. English Common law is the default authority in cases where there is no State statute which addresses an issue, but you are trying to turn it into positive law which it is not.

Your two links, including the Ann Coulter article, are not applicable to what you are decrying. They are out of context - and I will supply the context.

My links are out of context? Really? Was there enough information in the links so as to imply some sort of context with which they could be out of? The links merely connect to the entire article. You are spouting nonsense.

The Brennan (sp?) footnote that Coulter was against said that the 14th applied to people ILLEGALLY in the USA, as well as to people legally here. The 14th applies to children born of visitors or residents of the USA who are here legally.

The entire point of the article is that ANCHOR BABIES are not legitimate citizens. Here, let me show you an "out of context" quote from the Ann Coulter article.

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Yeah, that's pretty misrepresented all right. Obviously Ann is trying to say the exact opposite of that quote.

Pull the other one.

20 posted on 04/12/2013 10:17:26 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” Madison

IT IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES. It is not a law, nor did I imply it was, but it is a window into what one of the most influential founders intended as to citizenship at birth.

You claim it was out of context, so please by all means supply the context whereby Madison doesn’t think place is what applies, or what should apply, in the United States. Where is the context that reverses the meaning such that Madison wouldn’t intend those born in the United States to be citizens?

25 posted on 04/12/2013 10:43:46 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson