If your information were directly from "the law"- we wouldn't be having this conversation. The jurisdiction clause, by the way, was primarily put there to deal with the issue of Native American reservations (and preemptively foreign invaders)- though it also applies to people with diplomatic immunity. There was never any intention of precluding people who were born to undocumented immigrants.
Because, in theory, this is supposed to be a country where you don't lose rights based on who your parents are. And SCOTUS agrees:
Elk v Wilkins
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Also allow me to also re-narrate this conversation for you:
1) I pointed out that birthright citizenship is literally written into the Constitution
2) YOU then jumped in and made an inaccurate statement to disagree
3) I then corrected you
4) You then held fast to your clearly incorrect interpretation and accused me of failing to understand the situation
5) I pointed out that you were the one who misunderstood
6) You went into victim mode and called me toxic
Find a mirror. Look into it really hard.
Last edited by time4fun; 10-31-2018 at 04:39 PM.
So many exceptions carved out for this "ALL persons" argument, yet supposedly it doesn't preclude people residing in the country illegally. Weird.
Hilarious you bring this case up, the case whereupon the supreme court decided that an American Indian born on a reservation wasn't under the jurisdiction of the US and thus was not a US citizen. The supreme court has never overturned this decision by the way.Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Not to mention the quote you cited is clearly referring to LEGAL RESIDENTS of the US, which American Indians are and were at that time, it is obviously not referring to illegal aliens.
You really should stop owning yourself so hard.
Last edited by Tgo01; 10-31-2018 at 04:52 PM.
It's a PR stunt to get blood and soil racists who don't understand the law worked up before the election. From this thread, I can tell it is working pretty well on most of the usual suspects here, though Rocktar is level-headed enough to recognize this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually affecting how citizenship status is adjudicated. A court challenge is probably the only realistic remedy here which will be a huge waste of money and time, but I guess it will be good to have a crystal clear ruling on this exact question eventually.
Do any of you have a serious legal analysis you can link to that supports your interpretation of the 14th amendment?
Originally Posted by Patrick McGoohan
Ouch!
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~ Marcus Aurelius“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Great quote by Harry Reid in 1993:
But of course it's different now."If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal alien? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides - and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that 2/3 of the babies born at taxpayer expense at county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"
Last edited by Fortybox; 10-31-2018 at 09:03 PM.