14th Amendment Does NOT Give Citizenship to Aliens Born in the United States.

Based on Senate Hearings on proposing the 14th Amendment | 8-27-2015 | Dangus

[Mr. K]

your implying rules of law for legal aliens are somehow different than illegal aliens because of their status.

If you come into this country illegally, you should be tossed out- the fact that you drop a kid here should not give you immunity OR allow you to claim legal status for the child

[Mr. K]

How clueless are you?

LEGAL aliens have permission to be here and agree to come by the rules.

ILLEGAL aliens do not have permission to be here.

That BOTH have to obey the same laws while they are here is an idiotic argument - one of them ALREADY has not obeyed the laws

[CpnHook]

Essentially, that means U.S. sovereignty is gone for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles throughout the American southwest.

And if the state or federal government were later to claim a child born within such an area was not a citizen and could establish that lack of jurisdictional control, then the claim might have merit. Though it would make for an odd role-reversal, with the U.S. side asserting it lacked control over a portion of its territory and the other side asserting "clearly it's U.S. land."

I suspect that the number of children born out in the desert wilderness is but a minuscule fraction compared to those born in urban areas and hospitals. The effort to prove the rare exception wouldn't be cost-effective.

[CpnHook]

more tortured logic... and pretty silly, at that

And another post by you completely devoid of substance.

As far as jurisdiction goes, there isn't a meaningful, workable distinction to be drawn between legal and illegal immigrants. Both at present fall within the ambit of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

[CpnHook]

your implying rules of law for legal aliens are somehow different than illegal aliens because of their status.

Actually, I'm saying that the rule of law applies to both groups, and that such differences in which laws apply to which group are so minor that there's no way to claim that one group is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but the other group is not.

If you come into this country illegally, you should be tossed out-

And illegals are deported by the thousands.

the fact that you drop a kid here should not give you immunity

It doesn't.

OR allow you to claim legal status for the child

As it stands, that citizenship status is granted by the plain language of the Constitution. Perhaps that can be changed by Congressional action. Perhaps a change requires an amendment to the Constitution.

But to take the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and accept that it applies to legal aliens (which is understood and established by the Supreme Court), but then try to claim the same phrase means something else as to illegals, is a very weak approach.

[CpnHook]

That BOTH have to obey the same laws while they are here is an idiotic argument

Not when one understands that the issue under discussion is whether they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Once you acknowledge that illegals are subject to our laws (can be arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated) then my point is not only NOT illogical, it compels the answer. They are thereby "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

Compare foreign diplomats. They are one of the two common law exceptions to the birth-citizenship rule. Why are they excepted? Because the host country does not exercise complete jurisdiction over them. They have "diplomatic immunity." If they transgress our U.S. laws, the only sanction (absent a treaty modifying the historic rule) is expulsion. They cannot be tried and incarcerated.

To point out that illegals have already broken the law doesn't negate the fact that they are subject to our laws.

[Fantasywriter]

Here is the point, Mr. K. When foreign invaders, engaged in a hostile action they call the Reconquista, breach our borders in droves, we owe them citizenship. That is how we keep the Reconquista alive, well and ever expanding: we reward it.

What’s so unusual about that? Don’t all countries reward foreign invaders? The more of the US the Reconquista ‘reclaims,’ the more we should reward them.

Or maybe we should just give them back the land. They claim a huge chunk of the US already belongs to them. Rather than make them work so hard to re-can onquor it, let’s just gift it to them. Granted, they would just redouble their illegal invasion into the rest of the US—but at least they’d have a more convenient platform from which to do it.

[The key to all this is that if you’re ever able to capture and hold a foreign invader, he/she automatically becomes an ‘immigrant.’ You know, like magic.]

[Fantasywriter]

Re-can onquor = reconquor

(File under, adventures with touch screens.)