Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack

Your posting shows exactly what the paroblem is :

The correct wording for the 14 th is Born in the U.S
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF

Liberals like to use the wording:
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION.

These two sentences have opposite meaning. In the correct meaning of the 14 th. “SUBJECT” refers to a citizen having allegiance.
Any child born in America with allegiance to America is a citizen. Children of illegals have no allegiance to the U.S.

We were deporting children of illegals until the 1980’s when the INS decided it was too expensive to deport them. At no time was it offically stated that they are Constitutionaly citizens of the U.S. This has only been a unoffical policy by the INS( now ICE)


36 posted on 05/27/2010 1:00:57 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: omegadawn
The two meanings are not opposite. The first has a compound modifier (born in the boundaries of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) while the other has a simple predicate nominative (they ... are subject). But that's not relevant.

There are three criteria for being defined as a citizen in the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment:

1) All persons ... born in the United States
2) All persons ... naturalized in the United States
3) All persons ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

The first two conditions are OR -- if one, the other, or both are met, the condition applies. Babies born in the United States, regardless of their parentage, qualify under the first condition. The second condition is an AND. It has to be met along with one or both of the previous conditions. Babies born of parents who are in this country illegally are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, babies born in the United States, regardless of parentage, are citizens of the United States. That is a syllogistic conclusion that cannot be refuted by logic.

However, it does not take into account the INTENT of the authors of the Amendment, which, arguably, did not confer citizenship on the children of people in the country illegally, or of parents who were not themselves citizens. The courts would have to decide that matter, and precedent has not looked kindly on exclusion.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you the realities. The law has little use for wishful thinking.

40 posted on 05/27/2010 3:33:03 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson