Posted on 08/19/2015 6:44:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
That would disqualify even children born from those who come here as green card holders.
Those who legally apply for permanent residency do so with the INTENT of becoming American citizens.
Rubio’s parents, Jindal’s parents and Cruz’s father all went through this process.
You don’t come to the US and become a citizen overnight. You live here for at least 5 years before you qualify to apply for citizenship.
In the meantime they are technically “not in exclusive political allegiance” to the USA, no matter how much they desire to BE Americans.
So, a strict interpretation of “ exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.” would make Rubio a Cuban at birth and Jindal and Indian at birth.
any person within its jurisdiction
___________________________________
again with the “jurisdiction” phrase...
The writers of the Constitution never envisioned future people to be ignorant of plain speaking..
coupled with the previous part where the 14th Amendment mentions “jurisdiction”, the whole thing is self explanatory...its one long thought...its all connected..
those subject to the jurisdiction of are citizens and have certain unamiable rights..
IOW illegal aliens do not have the rights that citizens have..
When you know that the authors of the Constitution based their ideas on the Greeks and Romans and English Law, and were greatly influenced by the French Huguenots, you know that only those who are citizens can claim the Constitution as their own..
consider Roman law...when Paul who wrote much of the New Testament was being persecuted and arrested by the Roman soldiers, he protested telling them he was born in Tarsus, a Roman city and he had rights as a Roman citizen, and so they immediately left him alone, that Roman citizenship meant something..he had certain rights under the Roman version of the US Constitution..the Roman soldiers would have been executed for touching him..
but as a Jew, a non-Roman he would not have had any rights and if he had just claimed those rights the soldiers would have laughed at him and continued to arrest him..
as a citizen Paul had rights ..without that Roman citizenship he had none..
citizenship brings with it a difference or it means nothing..
the right to vote..does the Constitution give all the right to vote ??? No you have to be a citizen and over the age of 18..
Government jobs..you have to be a citizen to work for the government..
Perverting the meaning of an Amendment to satisfy an end does not mean that unconstitutional practice will be grandfathered in..
American citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, and so can illegal aliens be stripped of a citizenship that was given by fraud and deceit..the illegal aliens were not entitled to receive the status of citizen in the first place..what law allows them to keep something they never qualified for ???
Hasn’t all the Obamacare litigation taught us that the Constitution is now whatever 5 members of SCOTUS say it is?
That may be so, but couldn't it be interpreted also as the children's allegiance is determined by their parents' allegiance and thus citizenship passes to them when their parents become U. S. citizens?
Of course, then the issue of natural born citizen would likely come into play (I'm getting a headache..)
His opponents tried to say he was born in Ireland, then Canada but were unable to prove it. Are you saying Cruz is not eligible to be President?
No, I was saying in #12 “as for the other points, the child of green card holders is a citizen but not an NBC.”
I not depicting trump that way. I know people who are. Would just like to have good response
Trump is very good I think
I didn’t read that article primarily because it’s politico
GO CRUZ!!!
If the child needed to be naturalized I could see your point. The child is born in the US and is a citizen of the US. Would the child of legal immigrants, who haven't yet been naturalized, be a NBC?
OK, here’s my view: It is vital to undo “birthright citizenship”. Any statute or EO which attempts to do so will be declared unconstitutional, probably 9-0.
The task of amending the Constitution, although difficult, is less difficult that replacing five USSC justices in hopes of reversing their decision on the meaning of “jurisdiction”.
Therefore, it is a waste of time to attempt to undo birthright citizenship by any means other than a Constitutional amendment.
If Trump cannot get any new interpretation of this, or get a single favorable new law passed to deal with immigration he can still make a huge difference if he can secure the border and enforce the laws we already have. The naysayers act as though nothing can be done so we must allow illegals to pour in and we must give them handouts and a free pass on crime. The truth is securing the border and enforcing laws already in place is possible, and would make a huge dent in the problem.
My exact thought back in the day.
The people choosing to make citizens of their children are the illegal aliens themselves. What kind of club - or nation - allows non-members to decide who the members of the club will be?
It's an absurdity on its face.
I believe the citizenship of the parents has to be the determining factor as it is in most countries. I would say if one parent is a citizen then the child should be a citizen. If neither parent is a citizen then the child’s citizenship should be that of one or both parents.
If someone is here LEGALLY, has children, and later becomes a citizen they should be able to petition for citizenship for their children at that time, not at birth.
We are in agreement here.
I also believe that because those who applied here and wait their turn to be permanent residents, and eventually get it ( i.e. the green card ), are mostly those who have the intent of becoming Americans after living here for the required 5 years.
If they have a child during the 5 year interim before they are legally allowed to apply for citizenship, the child becomes a PERMANENT RESIDENT like them ( not a citizen ).
The child can then apply for citizenship when he becomes of legal age ( which means he can’t vote if he does not apply for citizenship ).
A partial solution would be no benefits on any type for the family or the child for 5 years. That would weed out the “bennie babies”
Levin stated it well.
OUTSTANDING ping, HiJinx. Thanks. Great article, great thread. Great post, SeekandFInd. Thanks.
HOORAY Edward J. Erler.
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.