Liberty & Tyranny, pg 154: “But does the 14th Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that “all person, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States.” This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment’s purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to empower (illegal) aliens to confer American citizenship on their own babies as a result of their birth in the United States.” I highlighted what the actually law says. We're not talking judges, we”re talking the about Mark Levin's credibility when he interjects the word “illegal” into a Constitutional issue wherein the actual law only says “alien” as in all aliens. But instead, you want to divert the debate away from Mark and onto the judges because in your blind eyes, he is infallible. Sad, truly sad & the reason this nation is such a mess...Ignorant people who would rather follow blindly than lead with the truth.
Speak to the point or move
I mentioned "Judges" because in Mark Levin's "Conservative Manifesto", it would correct the problem of activist Judges.
Read it for yourself.
Mark Levin's credibility is not at question, as far as I'm concerned.
Unlike you, I can't sit at a computer all day. I have other thinks I have to do.
Hence the delay in my response.
Now after further reading, I find
this (lower forth of the linked page):
To summarize;a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States,means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth.
This does not Include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States,
and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States.
Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War
as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States,
and not subject to the laws of the United States.
But, this does Include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States
“In amity” t.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.
DiogenesLamp, if you don't mind, I'd like
your opinion to the above quote from the bottom of the linked page next to last paragraph.