Another illegal loving RINO article from NR. No surprise here. That site is worthless. I’m not sure why Freepers even dignify it with a click.
Go **** a burro, John.
Have it your way, Yoo. As this country falls from the sky by its own hubris like Icarus, perhaps what eventually grows out of the fallen corpse will not be so ignorant of history and economics as to consider birthright citizenship.
keep forgetting about that and part
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
So you send the parents back anyway. They take the kid with them or not.
The founding fathers document could be seen as saying that bu ta lot of other people say it does not. We care about this document unlike the other side. But, we can surely go with the side that needs to go in order to defend this country and this document and say that it does not support this. As far as tradition to hell with that. defend this country and be done with it.
Riddle me this: are babies born to foreign nationals who are visiting automatically US citizens?
This is a false and ignorant statement; that is, it is an unsupported assertion. You need read no further...
This involved the child of Legal Permanent Residents, not illegal aliens. Yoo may be a lawyer but he has his facts wrong.
Why bother reading National Review anymore? Article after article is GOPe surrender trash.
I haven’t heard Trump “picking on certain ethnic or national groups” as the article suggests.
Intereesting how most of these articles are written by either Asians or Latinos. Any one else noticed that? Gee, I wonder if these were Russians or Europeans . . . or Africans . . if they’d feel the same?
But hey Professor, since when now does “plain meaning” mean “plain meaning”? You know, when “state exchanges” and “federal exchanges” somehow mean the same thing?
Is the First Amendment absolute? Then all “hate speech” “fighting words” slander, libel, defamation are all unconstitutional, right? Hey Professor, you’re silent here, speak up.
Oh yeah, and there is that little thing you liberals like to ignore when it’s not in favor, and plead for it when it is . . .”intent” So Congress wanted the post Civil War Amendments so we could continue bringing cheap labor here in the form of illegality, “birthright citizenship” “tourism citizenship” and arranged, intra-ethnicity scammed “marriages . . .
Especially following the darkest days of the Nation’s history, a civil war fought in large part or your beloved “cheap labor”
ENOUGH. . . .
The constitutional text flatly states that children born in the U.S. are citizens, without reference to whether their parents are aliens or not.
Then shall we see what the author of the amendment actually meant? From the floor speech of Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) who actually wrote the amendment:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the [United States]. 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, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.The Court read the 14th Amendment to recognize the existing American practice of granting citizenship based on birthplace. It saw no support for a new exclusion of the children of aliens. “The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark his parents were legal residents. No one is arguing against these. The question is that of those here illegally, i.e. those who are legally not residents. By law they are merely transient aliens, not residents. The precedent of the Kim case does not apply.
“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.
birthright citizenship would be
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
the debate is the clause
“, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
... whose jurisdiction do you belong to? ......see "illegal work both ways... because if your illegally you're still subject to the jurisdiction of your old country....your other country would have no say so about you....
let take the draft.... let's say both the United States and Mexico institute a draft for the military and they both try to draft the same person ...who gets them?
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.
This plainly states just the opposite of what Woo claims. If the parents are illegal aliens then the child is not subject to the jurisdiction there of. He/she also is an illegal aliens
Children of illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction that covers their illegal parents period no matter where they are born.
In the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark the Chinese parents were in San Francisco legally and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, the children would be subject to their parents jurisdiction which was the United States.
Let Congress pass a law to clarify that anchor babies are not subject to US jurisdiction because their parents are not subject thereof as they are illegally in the USA for otherwise the provisions of deportation would contradict the law. If all persons illegally in the United States were subject to its jurisdiction, orders for deportation would not exist as the very act of deportation is to purposefully place a person under the person’s proper jurisdiction. Children of such deported persons would have to follow the deportees as such children are under the jurisdiction of their parents no matter where they were born.
Let immigration lawyers take it to court and progress to the US Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS once again defies the clear interest of the People and the meanings and intents of the Constitution, let hell rain down on them via emergency Article V amendments in the form of voiding and repealing their rulings by 3/5’s States Quash and by a much needed general reference amendment that greatly limits their ability to change the meanings and intents of words, terms and phrases of the Constitution to their own versions and devices. Let President Trump move to pack the Court as FDR did. Bring it all to a head.
No matter how the issue is argued, the battle must commence knowing that it ultimately leads to limits and conditions on the US Supreme Court that prevent overreach and abuse that the American People can no longer live with as free Americans.
NR : Anti-Rule of Law
Yoo Hoo, John?
Gads, are Yoo stupid, or what?