Posted on 08/22/2015 7:31:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
True, but then I wonder why those who wrote this didn’t just use plain, ordinary language such as - no person born in the U.S. of a foreigner or alien is to be granted citizenship. Instead, they had to add fancy words like subject to the jurisdiction thereof. See how this would have been a much better approach? Legalese can be so elitist.
On Citizenship, the ‘Birthers’ Are Right
well..this headline works for me.
the article...not so much..
Under the 14th amendment, American Indians were not considered citizens of the United States, although they were born in the United States. They were considered to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal nation. It took a special act of Congress to grant them citizenship, about 50 years later. As Mark Levin’s expert noted, the second clause of the amendment would not be necessary if birthright citizenship was meant. The 14th amendment prohibits birthright citizenship. I assume that Mark Levin will rip this idiot on his show Monday. Mark Levin use to write for National Review.
Plain BS
UC Berkeley - what a shock.
The Ruling Class desperately wants their slave labor - what a shock.
National Review comes out for big liberal causes again - what a shock.
But of course, if they were subject to our jurisdiction they’d be following our immigration laws.
Since they insist they’re not under our laws, that negates the whole argument.
The 14th Amendment applied to freed slaves - who weren’t considered citizens by most states after the Civil War.
It never applied to tourists, ambassadors or Native Americans.
But you Ruling Classers desperately want your nickel an hour employees, so the Constitution will be your bitch and you’ll screw it like one.
The only thing I agree with is that this won’t hold up in court - I’m sure some activist, left wing, Obama appointed judge who hates America will sit here and tell us that the Constitution doesn’t matter because racism.
Funny how letting them ignore the law because they’re brown and requiring me to follow the law because I’m white isn’t racist against me, but I didn’t go to Berkeley...
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.
Here is the same language but with the bold text removed:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The Libs tell us that both versions are the same. They are nuts if they believe that. The fellow who wrote those words didn't think so and neither do I.
John Yoo? Cant wait for Laura Ingraham to slice and dice him...he’s been on her show
Suppose you are correct about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of”? (I don’t think you are right, but for the moment, stipulate that you are).
How do you see this playing out so that citizenship can be denied to anchor babies?
I mean, the courts won’t agree, Congress will not enact legislation and if they do, it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Don’t you think it would be simpler, easier, and more effective to amend the Constitution? It is the interests of the States and the People that are at issue here, the ruling elites are all in for illegal immigration.
“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.” (BOLD emphasis added)
Why is the AND so hard to understand? Not every person whose mother sticks herself over a border to give birth is automatically due citizenship and the eternal protection of the US government.
+1
Another illegal loving RINO article from NR. No surprise here. That site is worthless. I’m not sure why Freepers even dignify it with a click.
Levin did what to it?
Mark Levin makes a very good argument, but he's not on the Supreme Court (yet).
The powers that be in Washington are not going to give this up, it does not matter how good the arguments are (and we usually argue on the side of "plain meaning of the text").
If change is to happen, it has to be forced by the States, who are being ruined, and ruined on purpose.
Go **** a burro, John.
Have it your way, Yoo. As this country falls from the sky by its own hubris like Icarus, perhaps what eventually grows out of the fallen corpse will not be so ignorant of history and economics as to consider birthright citizenship.
I think I heard someone (Levin) suggest that the 14th amendment just be “removed” as it no longer applies to anyone. (Was for slaves only)
keep forgetting about that and part
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
So you send the parents back anyway. They take the kid with them or not.
The founding fathers document could be seen as saying that bu ta lot of other people say it does not. We care about this document unlike the other side. But, we can surely go with the side that needs to go in order to defend this country and this document and say that it does not support this. As far as tradition to hell with that. defend this country and be done with it.
RE: They take the kid with them or not.
Let’s say they don’t take the kid, what then?
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.