On Citizenship, the ‘Birthers’ Are Right: Constitution, Tradition, favor Birthright Citizenship

National Review ^ | 08/22/2015 | John Yoo

[headstamp 2]

Nice try.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

NR being NR. No thank you.

[papertyger]

Talk about missing the point!

[G Larry]

Yoo LOSE!

“Tradition” is NOT “law”!

[ImNotLying]

Would William F. Buckley agree with this piece?

[Reaper19]

At this point I don’t care which side of the argument is right. Amend the Constitution, put an end to this nonsense, and make it so the Dems can’t just write new laws or issue new executive orders whenever they regain power in the future.

[scooby321]

I why why he didn’t right the whole clause?

[NonValueAdded]

Favor??? How touchy feely. Sorry, an illegal stepping foot over the border and plopping out an anchor baby cannot stand. It insane policy on the face of it. It needs to be changed. Period. File the freaking amendment already.

BTW, if a US citizen happens to give birth in Mexico, is that child a Mexican citizen?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Amend the Constitution, put an end to this nonsense

That is what Ted Cruz proposes.

You realize what a long, painful process this will be, without any assurance that it will be amended.

You’ll need 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to agree to have a NATIONAL REFERENDUM, and 38 states have to be in favor of the change.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> First, the constitutional text. Section One of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The constitutional text flatly states that children born in the U.S. are citizens, without reference to whether their parents are aliens or not.

Boom! Levin disseminated that thoroughly. This guy must have slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Gaffer]

Mr Yoo states the literal verbatim words of citizenship in the context of just that bit, but then totally ridicules the same language when it speaks of “under the jurisdiction.”

Like those words he literally clings to when it fits his illegal alien anchor baby birthright, he ignores words that speak of “jurisdiction” - normality, documentation, recognized actions for citizens, etc.

As archaic as those words might be, they mean that illegals are not normal citizens under the jurisdiction of our system of laws except as interlopers of no standing. If anything they are outside that jurisdiction until caught and then summarily expelled.

Take the BCs away and throw them out.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Would William F. Buckley agree with this piece?

Knowing Buckely, even if he disagreed, he would not write a snarky response, much less a one liner.

He would write a long, analytical, thoughtful piece showing point by point why the author is wrong.

[ImNotLying]

“I wonder why he didn’t write the whole clause?”

Because it would have negated the whole 10,000 page diatribe.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Law and tradition require that ICE be allowed to do its job and that the Federal Government cooperate with the States in defending them against invasion by immigration. How’d that work out in Arizona?

[P-Marlowe]

Yoo are an idiot.

[aposiopetic]

Why does it not surprise us that the author of this piece worked for a Bush?

[TTFlyer]

Re: “Anchor Babies”

Either we have a country or we don’t. Your choice....

[Reaper19]

Good things always take hard work.

[SCHROLL]

Hey Yoo read the author of the citizenship clause’s own words and get back to me. His defination of scope to it’s intent flies in the face of the crap both you and the courts are selling.