“YES, you numbskull”
Eh, I really don’t see what namecalling does to advance your argument. For a self-proclaimed conservative, that’s really not good form.
“The Law does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make ANY decisions for itself whatsoever”
Then there’s no reason to assume that the child has made the decision to become a Mexican citizenship. I think it’s wrong to judge a man by the actions of their parents, something for which they had no control.
The advantage of birthright citizenship is that everyone has exactly the same status if they are born in America. We don’t have a permanent underclass.
“Wrong. That is precisely why the clause has TWO different criteria necessary for birthright citizenship : born within the U.S. AND subject to the (complete) jurisdiction thereof.”
And the second clause does not exclude the child born in America to illegal immigrants. There is no court ruling to confirm your assertion, nor is there legislation. Which is why you are trying to change the law.
“Bullshit. Slavery and involuntary servitude were specifically outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Excluding a certain class of people from citizenship is no different then slavery and fails the equal protection clause. Again, you would have us accept your understanding of the second clause, and then turn around and argue that the 14th was completely unnecessary.
That’s not a very solid argument. If, in fact the 14th is necessary, then why are both clauses there. The reason is because there were all kinds of circumstances that a person could have been born in American territory, and yet, at their birth, was not under the jurisdiction of America. Even today, anyone older than 51 in Alaska or Hawaii invokes this clause, as the territory is considered to be under the direct jurisdiction thereof.
It also includes military bases, etc. A fact you all to willingly conceded quite some time ago.
“No one is talking about excluding birthright citizenship based on race, but on immigrant status.”
Immigrant status does not apply to the child. Again. We’ve discussed this for a long time. The child is not an immigrant, because they were born in America. They know nothing else but America. Gaging a person based on their parents is no different that gaging them based on their race, or any other irrelevant exterior quality.
“Children born of illegal immigrants from England, Cananda, Ireland, Denmark, or Sweden would not be awarded U.S. citizenship, for example. So your pathetic attempt to play the race card just failed right there.”
Appealing to foreign law? Would you prefer sharia simply because other nations do it? No. So why would the fact that ‘other nations do it this way’, say that America should do it this way? This is a leftist argument, and unworthy of debate.
Yes, each nation has their own immigration standards. Why would it be beneficial to America to inflict European immigration standards on themselves?
“But we still send the children of illegals back with their parents, when the parents are deported. We even routinely do this now with the children of illegals born inside the U.S. ( the child is allowed to return to live in the U.S. after they become an adult).”
No, sorry. They are routinely deported if the illegal immigrants were all born outside of the US. And I would question ‘routinely’. Even in the case of proven status, deporting anyone is difficult.
“And although the parents are illegal immigrants, -they are still citizens of Mexico; every bit as much as citizens who still reside within that country. Therefore that child winds up with Mexican citizenship just as if they were born in Mexico.”
So if the children are Mexican because they have Mexican parents how does that make you an American? Wouldn’t you be English?
What if the parents of the Mexican citizens, the grandparents of the child were born in America? Would they still be Mexican or American?
Birthright citizenship makes this simple. Are you born in America? Then you are American, regardless of what other citizenship you may also possess. It cannot be taken away by the state. This is an important principle, because if the state decided who is and was a citizen, then it is very easy for this power to be abused, such that the state will strip political dissidents.
“The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t about birthright citizenship per se ( birthright citizenship already existed for citizens ), or about immigrants in general,- but really about American Blacks; - ex slaves and their children. And integrating them into American society in the post Civil War era.”
I agree. Removing said clause would have the same effect, in creating another underclass of not-Citizens who had no role in their not-citizenship.
I have just about had enough of your crap ...
There is no Supreme Court ruling that supports your position or mine. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
The Ark case decided ONLY that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen.
And, just because there isn't a ruling that declares children of illegals NOT TO BE citizens DOESN'T MEAN that they are. And, likewise, just because there isn't a ruling that declares children TO BE citizens DOESN'T MEAN that they aren't.
This is why we are having the discussion. On our side, we give you plenty of ACTUAL historical law as to why they aren't. You, on the other hand WHINE that because there isn't a decision that they aren't THEN they are.
BUT, you have NO historical law to back you up - just your incessant babbling. I have asked for it from you - REPEATEDLY, although I already knew the answer would be THAT YOU CAN'T since it doesn't exist. All you have is your half-baked opinion.
Your circular reasoning only goes to prove that you are a miserable, incompetant simp.