“There is no Supreme Court ruling that supports your position or mine. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.”
That is because there is an Amendment to the constitution which already has stated that those who are born in America are American citizens.
You are trying to convince me that the fact that you position lacks a supreme court ruling in support is advantageous to your position. It is not. Quite the opposite.
“The Ark case decided ONLY that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen.”
The Ark case says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants, therefore it doesn’t support your argument. The law does not work that way.
“And, just because there isn’t a ruling that declares children of illegals NOT TO BE citizens DOESN’T MEAN that they are.”
Actually, the 14th Amendment explicitly states that they are citizens. Lacking a supreme court ruling in your favour, simply states that it is your opinion alone that those who are born to illegal immigrants ought not to be citizens.
Which is fair enough. I disagree with your opinion, and I disagree that removing birthright citizenship will do much to stem the tide, when you can get all the benefits of citizenship without actually being a citizen.
“This is why we are having the discussion. On our side, we give you plenty of ACTUAL historical law”
And we cited actual historical legislation to the contrary. Which is why you are trying to change the law. It’s one thing to argue that the law ought to be changed. I personally disagree that the law ought to be changed, and I think there are some very good reasons why it should stay the same. You disagree. Fair enough.
If the American people decide that they do not wish to have birthright citizenship, then they can amend the constitution. Until then, those born in America will be considered Americans with all the associated privileges and responsibilities.
“BUT, you have NO historical law to back you up”
It is called the 14th Amendment, which explicitly says that all those who are born in America are American citizens. Now you can argue that the intent was never to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, but there is a distinct lack of jurisprudence to confirm your opinion.
“Your circular reasoning only goes to prove that you are a miserable, incompetant simp.”
I would have thought that those ‘conservatives’ arguing their position could do so without personal attacks. Apparently, I was quite wrong. These tactics are very common among liberals, and rather then being shocking or effective, simply confirms in my mind that this is not a truly conservative position on the issue.
You keep ignoring the operative phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Thats because you can't defend it. Perhaps you believe that if you ignore it, it will go away. It won't.
I admit that my position has never been settled - you, OTOH, won't admit that your position has never been settled either.
I keep saying that this is a question that the Court [or the States] have to decide - you say that it has been decided already. This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided. Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue? Is it because you know that there is no data to back up your position?
I started out in FR believing the same as you do - then, other posters told me to do the research. I did. Since there is no precedent, the Court has stated that it is proper to resort to English Common Law in order to reach a decision. Per Common Law, there is a plethora of evidence that indicates that such children [of illegals] are not citizens. That is because the illegal parents were considered enemies and NOT under the jurisdiction. As such, their children were NOT under the jurisdiction either. There is NO evidence [per Common Law] that indicates otherwise.
However, our system of laws and justice dictate that it is either the Court or the States [through Constitutional Amendment] to decide. I have stated that and will abide accordingly. You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.
This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.
Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!