Posted on 08/19/2015 11:44:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
US citizenship rules should be the height of simplicity.
1. A person born and one or both parents are US citizens. The only birthright citizenship.
2. A legal entrant to the US who goes through the naturalization process.
Someone might think of an odd exception, but those two conditions would cover 99% plus situations. And that’s probably what was intended until a misinterpretation here and a judicial activist there confused matters.
I don’t watch Rino Rove Fox ‘news’......have any of the idiot talking heads like Judge Nappy and Yosemite Sam issued a retraction yet?
It is ABUNDANTLY clear that they do. Levin is flat wrong. I’ve done my share of SCOTUS and 4th Cir and E Dist arguments on Constitutional issues. The language is plain as day.
Do I like it? Not at all. But there it is.
Not any kind of citizen at all apparently.
Actually legal jurisdiction in this case probably means no other overriding jurisdiction. As in, not the citizen of any other nation.
It’s up to Congress to naturalize them.....not the farking courts.
Get it? Good.
Don’t fall for the La Raza nonsense. Illegal are no “slaves.”
Thank God for The Great One.
I was always under the impression that the legal jurisdiction phrase was meant to exclude foreign nationals such as ambassadors and staff who reside here for diplomatic purposes but are under the jurisdiction of their home country.
All the big radio hosts are railing against it.
Savage just read Senator Howard’s word’s verbatim written in the Congressional record about the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment.
The Establishment will not be able to obscure this issue with nonsense like have in the past and other related issues.
I’d say it’s arguable that the issuance of the immigrant visa is a conditional acceptance of the individual into the US jurisdiction.
Jeff Sessions Backs Trump On Birthright Citizenship: ‘Absolutely Not An Extreme Position’ [VIDEO]
Bookmarking this thread. Man this is good stuff.
I think you would get different answers from different people. However, we have the practice of illegal aliens as well as legal non-citizens giving birth in America and these children have citizenship. I would be fine with a law, not a constitutional amendment, that clearly defines citizenship. We already have a law that excludes certain classes of people born in the US from citizenship. As for the natural born part of your question, there needs to be better definition of that from the courts or a constitutional amendment that clarifies the definition.
Even if you hate Levin it is worthwhile to download and listen to at least the first hour of his podcast from 8-18 There, you will learn even the actual intent of the guys that wrote the amendment
Of course, we should all realize that one of the implications of Levin’s argument is that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and, therefore, not eligible to hold office.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898)
The case above is the SCOTUS case on point about “immigrant” children.
There are a number of conditional “factors.”
Why don't you call up Levin and debate him?
I heard what Levin said yesterday. I agree with Levin.
Yep. The tragedy is that most of measures outlined in the 14th amendment to overcome slavery— especially the “due process” clause— have been used as a knife with which to gut the rest of the Constitution and substitute whatever lame-brained idiocy pleases a 5 seat majority on the SCOTUS.
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.