Posted on 08/17/2015 1:46:45 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
Nappy is wrong. Anchor babies are dual citizens. Ship them back with mamma and poppy.
LOL. I guess an asshat...is an asshat.
No it is NOT. It is prohibited by the Democrats’ perversion of the 14th Amendment. Eddie Munster should know the Supreme Court ruling in the 1890s was NEVER about illegal Mexicans sneaking over our non existent border. Democrat KKKlansmen trying to steal liberty from the great grandparents of their current day stupid supporters forced the Court to make it’s ruling to ward them off.
Using Eddie Munster’s reasoning the 3/5th rule still holds.
” Anyone within the US and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’, which illegals by definition are not, are to become a citizen upon birth.”
So if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US how can the US deport them?
I was hoping someone would bring that up.
Better to try and fail that never to have tried at all. Also Obama used EO’s from Amnesty, Trump can use it to.
“...The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen...”
Nope. Not true.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1: 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. No state shall make or enforce and law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
1. The 14th Amendment NEVER SAYS NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!
1. “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” If the parents are illegal aliens in the U.S. they are living here outside the law. If they are Mexican, their children are automatically citizens of Mexico. The children are deported with their parents.
Judge Napolitano is not interpreting the Constitution correctly.
Illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This has been one of my primary arguments when discussing this issue over the years.
Jus Soli is stupid. It allows non-citizens to gift something they don't own to someone else without the voluntary consent of the people who do own it. US Citizens.
Immigration is like adoption. You get to be a member of a family if the family consents to adopt you, not because you happen to be born in their house.
Jus Soli is stupid. It serves the Interests of an Island King throwing servitude on anyone he can, but it does not suit the Interest of a prosperous Free Republic.
■committed fraud or misrepresented a material fact for purposes of seeking entry to the United States;
■falsely claimed U.S. citizenship; or
■is not in possession of a valid visa or other required documentation.
The judge is saying birthright citizenship can’t be rescinded retroactively. ... .
***********
If we were to appoint justices who did not think they were a running Constitutional convention, they would find that Constitutional, as distinguished from statutory, birthright citizenship was never in effect in the first place and that, thus, there would be no “retroactive” change.
Ok, that explains a lot, thanks!
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US how can they be allowed to stay?
Your libertine libertarian skirt is showing Nap. Conflation of the meaning of 14th Amendment is unbecoming.
“Expert: Up to 400K Children Born To Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Annually, One In 10 Births”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3325804/posts
Research the meaning of “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
You can “deport” an invader in your home, yet not have “jurisdiction” over them.
Guess, according to the judge, America must just go ahead and commit national suicide.
Exactly. The question goes to the INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT. I believe Scalia would agree.
No, it does not, Judge.
Thanks for playing.
Thats how silly the 14th amendment absolutist argument is.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of” meant that they had renounced their former citizenship either expressly and impliedly and stated an intent to submit to the laws of the United States as citizens. So said the Wong Sun Ark decision cited elsewhere in this post.
It is subject to interpretation whether a person who has entered the united states illegally through their parents can make that claim, an interpretation not yet handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
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.