Posted on 07/19/2015 3:07:00 PM PDT by artichokegrower
I served jury duty on a wetback’s civil “judicial lottery” case several years ago. We gave her nothing. Her lawyer struck any Spanish speaking juror from the pool. She should NOT have even had standing to sue being a non citizen! Her immigration status played a part in the verdict.
Then let the damned Feds issue a birth certificate! Time for the states to regain their rightful power as sovereign entities!!
Well then that's how they should have worded the amendment
I read the piece and the author does a poor job of supporting his argument. He quotes Sen. Howard who states:
"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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
He's saying ambassadors aren't subject to US jurisdiction so their children born here wouldn't automatically be citizens.
No one disputes that.
The author tries to extend that restriction to any non-citizen parent, but was unable to provide any support for that contention.
Nobody said it did. The point is that when such a person has a child within that jurisdiction, that child is a citizen. Not the visitor.
No doubt about something, but nothing we've discussed on this thread.
The meaning of that word isn't in dispute.
"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 "wherein they reside" portion pertains to the state citizenship. They are citizens of this state or that state, depending on where they reside. It does not pertain to the United States portion.
Because you are a citizen of the United States, if you live in Texas you are a citizen of Texas. If you move to New York you become a citizen of New York.
Go rob your local CVS and come back and tell me how we don't have laws.
I'll bet you find out different real quick.
Even a home-schooler could figure it out.
Derp.
I will not respond to the content of your posts. If you continue to post to me, some may conclude that you are a stalker.
Jurisdiction in this case does not just mean subject to the laws, or where one resides, it also means allegiance. It means that the child (via the parents) shall have no allegiance to another country (in this case, Mexico). The Fourteenth has been misinterpreted in this manner for far too long. It's been around for more than 100 years, but it's only been within the last couple of generations where an anchor baby has been granted citizenship.
Yes, you had mentioned that before.
If you continue to post to me, some may conclude that you are a stalker.
That would be deeply troubling.
How could it be otherwise?
Sorry, but that's a novel interpretation of "jurisdiction" and not one that the courts have ever agreed with. I don't see why we should accept it just in this case when it happens to support what we want.
As to intent, the quotes from the legislators in the link you provided don't support the author's contention at all. They are about children of ambassadors and children born into Indian tribes which have some degree of national sovereignty - both special cases.
Finally, it's very risky to selectively pick some legislator's comment made during debate and then claim that it determines the intent of the legislation (or amendment). I'm certain that with some research I could find comments made by other legislators at the time that would contradict.
That's why we have to rely on what's written, and like it or not the 14th is pretty clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.