The great Princeton Debater.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to declare anchor babies non-citizens. Allow anchor babies to become US citizens is insane.
It does not seem to me that he actually changed his position at all. He did NOT say that birthright citizenship was not in the 14th Amendment. He said that the POLICY no longer makes sense. He then went on to offer two ways of making the LAW conform with what he thinks makes sense for POLICY - a Constitutional Amendment or a law by Congress clarifying what is meant by “jurisdiction”. It is not inconsistent to say yeah the law says this, it doesn’t make sense, here is how I would change it. Here’s the video link for full context. Totally disagree with your premise.
Ted has no obligation to answer loaded questions.
Just as with “life of the mother” or “rape and incest” when it comes to abortion, these are bogus excuses to justify the unbridled practice.
If you Build the Wall, control entry, use E-Verify, and actively return those entering illegally, Deport the criminals, stop taxpayer funded benefits, then the incentives stop, and large numbers self-deport.
This all will take time, but after 3 or 4 years there will be millions fewer to consider for deportation.
That clause in the 14th is far less clear than the clause you quote from the 2nd.
Mainly because people read it wrong and assume that 'United States' is a geographical idea. It is not. It is jurisdictional.
Here are the words of the man who wrote that clause in the 14th, Senator Jacob Howard. He explained the actual intent of the 14th Amendment. He said:
“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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Good luck with your smarmy thread.......
*fingers crossed behind back*
Thanks for posting your own blog... not.
Did you ever hear Carly praising that bitch hitlary. Glen beck played it on his show.
He didn’t have one of Cruz praising her.
Not every one saw it your way. M. Kelly is in fact a leftie and a bimbo who has no desire to see a conservative win
But since this writer is withdrawing his support from Ted Cruz I have no option but to abandon Ted Cruz as well.I can't wait to find out who he is going to support so I can too.
You want to invade the world and make it safe for a free market?
Propaganda. You never supported Cruz.
To clear the air re me: I’m for Trump and Ted Cruz as his vp.
Donald and Ted are willing to discuss the biggest problem we have in America and Europe, illegal immigrants.
Trying to discuss this mess on tv with someone like MK is like being asked to walk through a mine field blind folded.
I’m sure that if 100 Freepers against illegals were in the same room and a discussion re illegals was held, in a few minutes, Freepers would be screaming at each other.
Then, the screaming would escalate into fist fights or worse . Because each of us has a different bias/outlook re our personal interactions with the illegals in our lives, friends’s lives and relatives’s lives.
We need these discussions re how to handle the illegal problem, and Trump has set the stage and started the discussion. Ted will add to these discussions. Hopefully, every candidate will get into these discussions.
Then, after the elections, congress will be forced to discuss this national disgrace/problem and start a positive change to end illegals coming into America.
Last but not least, a personal suggestion to you. Never be a troll for any candidate. Many Freepers have super Troll sniffing abilities. Your vile comments re Ted were classic Troll verbage.
Cruz should know that the 14th Amendment has a codicil that, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Those articles making up The Bill Of Rights do not.
Though he seems to have conveniently forgotten that. Not that this Congress would ever do anything that would require actual work and fortitude.
The late David Lawrence--Editor & Publisher of U.S. News & World Report--one of the few great journalists of the middle of the last century, repeatedly tried to draw attention to the scandalous history of the "Amendment" as the illegal & destructive thing that it was.
Your attack on Cruz is unwarranted. He is simply trying to avoid an issue that will be misunderstood--greatly misunderstood, if simply raised in a discussion with a show-boating, Miss Kelly.
Had you said,”Ted Cruz is just another politician” I would say Perhaps in some ways.
Smarmy, i don’t think so.
Graham is smarmy.
Birth right citizenship to every child born inside the US or it's territories regardless of the parents citizenship and status was clearly not the intent.
If it was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would not have been necessary.
The phrase your glossing over is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
You must interpret every part of the Constitution in a way that is reasonable, purposeful and intentional.
Had this merely meant “within,” it would have said, “within.” In fact, it would have been completely redundant. That’s not purposeful.
Perhaps you read it as “All people born or naturalized in the United States and who are presently also subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” But that would imply that citizens who left the jurisdiction of the United States were no longer citizens. That’s not reasonable.
Instead, what it means is that citizenship is granted to those who meet both of two conditions: they are born or naturalized in the United States, and they are born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the United States. While the land on which they are born is under the jurisdiction of the United States, and so the United States may enforce laws against the illegal alien, there is no legal agreement for their presence, and so they themselves are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
This may seem a very subtle point, since in most matters, the territory of jurisdiction is what matters. But the person of jurisdiction is important. Suppose someone from Elbonia marries, and then enters the Freedoma. He cannot divorce under Freedoma law, be stripped of his Elbonia citizenship, or be drafted by the Freedoma, or have Freedoma lay claim to his inheritance taxes... unless through some agreement between Elbonia and Freedoma grants that jurisdiction to Freedoma for legal residents. But if the resident isn’t legal, there can be no such grant.