Posted on 11/23/2016 9:26:57 AM PST by GuavaCheesePuff
The problem lies not with the language, or even with its interpretation, but with the political will to let the Law of the Land speak for itself.
As with the Second Amendment, this is neither vague or ambiguous, and the context within the document, supported by histories, commentaries and analyses in the early history of the nation make it clear what a Natural-Born Citizen is, but both sides of the so-called aisle are both specifically and generally loathe to uphold the Constitution on any issue, especially this one.
Specifically, they want illegals to be citizens for votes (Democrats) or jobs (Republicans); generally, they want to avoid the unseemly precedent of actually having to adhere to the actual wording of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold - that could get messy on any issue where they want to ignore it.
Children of illegal aliens are not even citizens, that is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that must be corrected.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right or wrong, it’s the way the law stands right now. If it didn’t, there would be no anchor babies.
Until it’s corrected, George P. is just as valid as Obama, or even moreso if Obama was born in Kenya (which was the story before he was considered a POTUS candidate).
Citizen is not the same as natural born citizen.
Children of foreign nationals are not natural born citizens.
two things kept running through my mind as I watched this. “Jane you ignorant slut” and Roseann Roseann Adanna.
you can think of him as an anchor baby.
Not if his father is a US citizen. He's a citizen.
his mother was still a Mexican national when he was born.
Then he's a Mexican citizen as well. A "natural born citizen" can have no other nationality.
Anchor babies are citizens
That's debatable. Not according to the author of the language of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan.
The only purpose was for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. It didn't even apply to American Indians.
In 1866, Howard wrote:
>> Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United 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. <<
deportation “breaking up families”, because the babies unfortunately have a right to be here when Mommy and Daddy don’t.
Though that's been the practice, not so sure that they do. Congress needs to write clarifying legislation.
More RAT-BS. Nobody's forcing the children to stay here, they can go back to Mexico with their parents.
That's just a scam to dilute the real US citizens' birthright and give free stuff (that we have to pay for) to criminal invaders.
Not if his father is a US citizen. He’s a citizen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was taking the premise of the argumentative opponent as true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only purpose was for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. It didn’t even apply to American Indians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only mention of the Indians is in section 2:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s debatable. Not according to the author of the language of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan.
The only purpose was for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. It didn’t even apply to American Indians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Intentions are intentions, they were not in writing. The author should have put language in that made it more clear if what you say is true (though I have no idea if it is or isn’t and don’t really care).
I do know that what you said about African slaves is true; it was a Reconstruction amendment, after all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Though that’s been the practice, not so sure that they do. Congress needs to write clarifying legislation.
More RAT-BS. Nobody’s forcing the children to stay here, they can go back to Mexico with their parents.
That’s just a scam to dilute the real US citizens’ birthright and give free stuff (that we have to pay for) to criminal invaders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point exactly.
I don’t know why somebody here wanted to derail a Trump thread with this garbage of natural-born citizen, non-natural born citizen, naturalized citizen, bork bork bork citizen, or whatever. I suspect it was something to do with the autism spectrum.
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.