[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Then there is the case that Bill O'Reilly referred to - SCOTUS (1985) - which he used later after debating Trump to show that children born to illegals aliens in the U.S. possess birthright citizenship. Court cases thus both before and after the 14th Amendment.

Few people want an open border, and I certainly do not want this, nor do I like it that there are anchor babies. Sealing the border, putting even more border patrol people and so on than Trump is calling for and ending birthright citizenship from here on is one thing (and may be possible), but saying that it is a fantasy that anyone ever born to illegals in the U.S. doesn't possess citizenship is to say that the citizenship they would now possess (be it even 30-40-50 years old) is null and void? That is the fantasy.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Just seal the border once and for all and put tons of people guarding it, basically what Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly have proposed. It may be possible to end birthright citizenship, though there is a long and lengthy precedent provided by Common Law even before 1788 that does not bode well for Trump.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Case law is moot in this argument.

All that matters are the words of the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan.

He expressly said:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

There, you will find the true meaning and intent of the citizenship clause of 14th.

[thackney]

Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and probably others.

Leaving aside the birth certificate issue, which is unique to Obama’s case... Obama is the only one who had a parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth, his mother)

- - - - -

When he begins with a false claim, it is difficult to bother reading on.

[Mach9]

Rios-Pineda established only that the U. S. born child of an immigrant who had spent 7 years+ dealing with the authorities at the time (as the result of both legal and illegal suspensions) had the right to citizenship. But that citizenship was based not on the child’s birth in the USA but the time (7 years, the magic number for de facto citizenship in those days) the child had already spent in the USA. This has absolutely nothing to do with birthright citizenship. See: INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985), No. 83-2032, Argued: March 20, 1985 Decided: May 13, 1985. [See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/444.html#sthash.8HG5TMl9.dpuf]).

[kabar]

Mark Levin on 14th amendment

No one is suggesting retroactive application should a bill pass Congress. Steve King's current bill on eliminating birthright citizenship, HR 140 says:

The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

[usurper]

but saying that it is a fantasy that anyone ever born to illegals in the U.S. doesn't possess citizenship is to say that the citizenship they would now possess (be it even 30-40-50 years old) is null and void? That is the fantasy.

That is not what is being proposed. No one is suggesting we strip citizenship from those that already have it. The proposed law change would change the requirements going forward.

[DiogenesLamp]

The New York Court of Chancery case Lynch v. Clarke (and Lynch) (Bernard Lynch v. John Clarke and Julia Lynch) from 1844 is one of the most prescient and important cases dealing with the matter .

Why on earth would we be discussing a state court case as regards Federal citizenship? Apart from that, the Legislature of New York overturned that verdict by passing new law which rendered that decision moot.

Lynch v Clarke is an interesting footnote in history, but it has no bearing on the salient point. The US Federal citizenship did not utilize English Common law. How could it? By English common law, rejecting your status as a subject of the king was strictly forbidden.

[amihow]

All the rhetoric from the author re:Joseph Storey et. al. are subject to the intention of the drafters ofvthe Fourteenth Amendment and articulation of the fact by the same that
the Amendment eas intended to specifically exclude foreigners from citizenship.

The fact that judges messed up decisions on the matter is not surprising or unusual.

We can fix this idiocy.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Here we continue on with this:

Those born to parents on U.S. soil long ago (parents who even showed no inclination in becoming U.S. citizens (and those born 90 years ago or even 1 minute ago as of this writing) to illegal aliens cannot have their citizenship taken away.

And yet some yesterday acted as if their citizenship could be taken away, or that they never had it in the first place. Fantasy on their part...

Oh, how I went round and round with them yesterday on this point, which was my point of contention.

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[Paradox]

I am for closing this “loophole”, but I dont expect, nor do I think its necessarily correct, to be able to apply this retroactively. Those people would be grandfathered in.

[ConservativeInPA]

Completely agree. I think the route to preventing children born to foreign nationals, here illegally and/or legally, in becoming citizens is technically straightforward. Whether is it politically feasible is another story. Additionally, the composition of the SCOTUS may be a barrier. There is little constitutional consistency from liberal and moderate justices.

[zzwhale]

well the lynch case involves people who were here LEGALLY to start with and had a daughter BORN HERE..

ILLEGALS DONT HAVE THOSE RIGHTS AND SOMEONE BORN TO ILLEGALS IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN UNLESS THEY GO THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS AND BECOME ONE

libtard pols want it the opposite because as crazy joe biden said
“illegals are the future of the democratic party”
meaning votes
same as the abomination LBJ foisted on America ... to buy votes from blacks