In Plain Text: Anchor Baby Policy Is Unconstitutional

a reply to: Night Star
The people who drafted the 14th amendment also thought it common sense. Counter to what progressives believe, we seem to have become dumber as a nation.

Senator Jacob Howard was one of the principle writers of the 14th amendment. Here is what he had to say when asked if everyone born inside the US would be granted citizenship under his amendment:

“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.”

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Quote and commentary are from the same source I have used throughout the thread, which I included in the OP. My hope was to cut down on ignorant and specious replies...

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Night Star
My hope was to cut down on ignorant and specious replies...

Good luck with that. There are a lot of posters on this board perfectly willing to ignore common sense, and they will call you a baby-hating brown-skinned hater and Brietbart-reading racist, and / or a bigot within the next ten minutes.

Or, resort to the tried-and-true deflection and tell you to quit worrying about this insignificant problem, you should be hating on the greedy corporations causing all of our problems. Or you need to stop killing in the ME.

Or something else, anything to keep you from telling the truth.

a reply to: lakesidepark
Let them call me what they will. If there is substance to a reply I will happily respond.

In the meantime, I eagerly await a worthy opponent.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

You have unburied a wealth of information on the original intent of the 14th amendment, and for that I applaud you for your persistence in making your point.

I am sure you will do well in your future fights, grasshopper.

Makes no difference what you think the plain text meaning of the 14th is.

You want to hear that you are right? You are right.

What has changed?

a reply to: daskakik

It is change we are waiting for. People have had enough!

originally posted by: Night Star
It is change we are waiting for. People have had enough!

Same reply from years ago. Are you still waiting? Don't you think people have seen Senator Howard's words before?

Have you seen the speech he gave introducing the 14th?
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

It says this in plain text:

A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.

Is it a leftist fabrication? Could it still be a misinterpretation?

Believe what you want. Either way nothing has changed yet.

The 14th Amendment was ratified specifically to grant slaves and their children US citizenship. For 10 years after it's ratification, native americans who lived on their reservations and had not sworn allegiance to the USA were still not considered citizens of the US. It took an act of Congress (practicing their Article 1, Section 8 power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" as well as Amendment 14 Section 5, below) to specifically include the native americans.

If all that loopholing had to be done for people who had been on American soil longer than the colonists, in what reality do you figure an expecting foreign couple who have never previously set foot on US soil can come for a vacation to the US, within 2 weeks give birth, and that kid is a United States citizen?

Everyone appears to be arguing the 'the jurisdiction' language but are ignoring 'subject to'

subject (adjective) - under the power or authority of another
subject (noun) - a person under the rule of another, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler

Whether you use the term 'illegal' or 'undocumented' the end result is the same. Illegal Aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of the very means by which they entered the United States. They did not ally themselves to the government of the USA and disavow the nation they are subject to by simply walking across an imaginary line on the ground. Two German nationals cannot simply pop out an American citizen.

In United States vs. Wong Kim Ark it was determined that Ark's parents had immigrated legally to the USA to work, and had made themselves subjects to the jurisdiction of the USA.

Let us not also forget this part of the Amendment:

"Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress has never passed legislation that allows children of illegal aliens to become citizens.

a reply to: daskakik
If we go by that standard, we should all have the same medical insurance plans we had before Obamacare.

Turns out politicians can say anything; it's what gets written down that counts. It might be difficult to rectify our immigration policies, but it ks hardly impossible...unless we succumb to apathy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

Sounds more like "You may have been in America your whole lives, but you are not legal citizens."

You can't strip away what never existed in the first place.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Also, jurisdiction literally means "subject to the laws of" ... are you saying these folk are not subject to the laws of the US?

How do you justify deporting them, then?

No, jurisdiction in this case means "territory' or "range of control"

If they are illegal/undocumented, they are not 'subjects' and they are not following the laws or controls.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
It might be difficult to rectify our immigration policies, but it ks hardly impossible...unless we succumb to apathy.

It isn't just apathy, there is opposition.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
It might be difficult to rectify our immigration policies, but it ks hardly impossible...unless we succumb to apathy.

It isn't just apathy, there is opposition.

That's obvious just from the responses in these different threads just over the last two days. There is a clear opposition to upholding the laws of the U.S across this board, especially in the areas of illegal immigration.

Must be a lot of evil corporate executives infiltrating this board, with a lot of help from establishment Republicans...we all know they love them some illegal cheap labor! (Bush!!! Is that you??? Go back to Texas....oh you from Florida? you was a gubner??? You don't say!)

a reply to: lakesidepark

I meant average citizens. The plain text says something else to them.

a reply to: lakesidepark
Lakesidepark and Teikiatsu, thank you both for your incisive and learned input.

We're not getting much response at this point. Did we win?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: lakesidepark

I meant average citizens. The plain text says something else to them.

That's why education is so important. We must educate the average citizen, and our less-educated politicians, about the fallacy of 'anchor babies'. It is a cruel label to call them 'anchor babies'. Gives them a false illusion of citizenship.

As this thread makes clear, there is NO SUCH THING. The children of illegals are ILLEGAL.

So henceforth we should just refer to them as illegal babies.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Also, jurisdiction literally means "subject to the laws of" ... are you saying these folk are not subject to the laws of the US?

How do you justify deporting them, then?

No, jurisdiction in this case means "territory' or "range of control"

If they are illegal/undocumented, they are not 'subjects' and they are not following the laws or controls.

No, in fact it doesn't. I know your penchant for redefining words to suit your argument.

But really consider the word "illegal" that you just used. Does that mean "against or contrary to the laws"? What laws, one wonders?

The laws of the United States. If they weren't "subject" to the laws there would be no recourse against them.

What do Jurisdiction and Legality have in common?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

Sounds more like "You may have been in America your whole lives, but you are not legal citizens."

You can't strip away what never existed in the first place.

So you are in favor of government overreach ... When it favors your agenda.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Also, jurisdiction literally means "subject to the laws of" ... are you saying these folk are not subject to the laws of the US?

How do you justify deporting them, then?

No, jurisdiction in this case means "territory' or "range of control"

If they are illegal/undocumented, they are not 'subjects' and they are not following the laws or controls.

No, in fact it doesn't. I know your penchant for redefining words to suit your argument.

But really consider the word "illegal" that you just used. Does that mean "against or contrary to the laws"? What laws, one wonders?

The laws of the United States. If they weren't "subject" to the laws there would be no recourse against them.

What do Jurisdiction and Legality have in common?

First you have to accept the fact that many words in the English language have multiple meanings, and that meaning is defined within the context of the use of the word. The word 'jurisdiction' has three meanings, of which one of them has two different contexts of meaning.

(quoted from The Free Dictionary)
Jurisdiction
1. Law The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case.

2.
a. Authority or control: islands under US jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.
b. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.

3. The territorial range of authority or control.

As if that had not already been made abundantly clear to you in the numerous posts already within this thread. Only someone with intent to obfuscate would continue...but I digress.

There is no redefining of words, there is only understanding the context of how the word was used. In this case, identifying the extent of authority or control applied to the individual by the entity, or what country the individual had accepted the authority or control.

Legal jurisdiction and political jurisdiction are not the same. An illegal or a foreigner cannot be forced to submit to a military draft; but that same individual must submit and obey the criminal laws.

a reply to: lakesidepark

What does the word "illegal" mean?

What does the word "jurisdiction" mean?

What do they have in common?

These are not difficult questions for learned members.