and the RATS take another one in the.........HA ha!!!
Posted on 01/11/2023 4:16:06 AM PST by RoosterRedux
No, it does not. Or to be specific, not only. Under the Constitution, all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and their state.
It is also established by law that the children of American citizens are citizens. Either condition makes you a citizen. It most cases both conditions apply. But all it take is one.
Incorrect.
Being born in the US is not the only requirement. You must be born in the US of parents who are under the jurisdiction of the US (ie: can be called for service).
This was discussed by the author of the 14th amendment. specifically, they didn’t want citizenship tourism where a pregnant couple could fly over, squat out a kid, dub it American and fly home.
the parents had to be under the jurisdiction of the US. this covers US citizens as well as foreign nationals that are emigrating to the US LEGALLY, thereby placing themselves under the jurisdiction of the country.
As illegals are not emigrating legally, they are still under the jurisdiction of their home country. Therefore, their child born at 1600 Pennsylvania ave... does not have American citizenship but retains the citizenship of the parents.
a subtle difference most Americans never have to think about.
Unless I’m mistaken the US Federal courts disagree with you.
The amendment means what it says in the text.
All persons means all persons.
Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the jurisdiction.
A person born in the US is a citizen, unless they are the child of a diplomat.
The Constitution means what it says, not what you want it to say.
citizenship tourism is not allowed per the 14th and was discussed by the authors
Then I suggest you don't vote for her if she runs.
How is this different than the child of an American citizen mobster? The girl has yet committed no crime (that I know of) and the United States is prohibited by the Constitution from corruption of blood.
Stop acting like a liberal and rewriting the plain text of the Constitution to fit your preferences.
I’m talking about the courts...the *Federal* courts...today.
Senator Howard was wrong. The plain meaning of text of the amendment controls, not what an individual Senator says in debate.
i’m talking about the law... not that democrats concern themselves with following it these days
The law is, plain vanilla Americans only to run for or hold the office of POTUS.
Those beset to one extent or another with exotic foreign spice (Cubamericanadian Ted, for example) have nearly every other job in the federal government open to them. Is it really such an imposition to ask them not to pollute the White House (or Blair House)?
However,I have studied citizenship law a bit since I discovered,some years ago,that I'm entitled to Irish citizenship. It's my understanding that not all that long ago many civilized,advanced countries had an "automatic citizenship at birth" policy. However,one by one most of those civilized countries did away with it (including Ireland) and now the US and Canada are the only two left. Of course there are still a number of uncivilized countries that have it...but they don't count.
Life is hard, it is even harder when you are stupid and you are VERY stupid.
The US government a couple of decades ago decided that I was dead. If this is the afterlife I want a refund!
Well, how I’ve related it was how it was written and intended by those that wrote and discussed it at length.
Since the 70s, dems have chosen to ignore laws they don’t like or make up their own interpretation, sometimes disregarding much of the written parts of the law, as is the case here.
As for other countries, I believe the ‘automatic’ citizen conveys thru the citizenship of the parents, and which country can claim jurisdiction over them. If you’re saying that’s no longer the case, it’d be news to me. (Might be part of the progressive attacks on the concept of nations)
Absolutely nobody ever questions the citizenship status of individuals born in U.S. states to parents who are themselves U.S. citizens.
Na
Tu
Ral!
read what i wrote.
it’s not about the child’s citizenship if both parents are US citizens.
It’s not even about a child of foreign nationals that are IMMIGRATING to the US.
the issue is the child of foreign nationals that are NOT immigrating.
just like the child of tourists, the child’s citizenship is linked to the parents citizenship which is the country that has jurisdiction over them... their home country, NOT the US.
therefore, anchor babies are not US citizens.
BTW... as for NATURAL born citizens... these are people who, at birth, only had ONE option for citizenship.
therefore, they are citizens NATURALLY as there is no alternative.
Concur. Naturally.
Was concurring before too. But perhaps too cryptically.
Very well put thx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.