The 14th Amendment & Birthright Citizenship

[tvc184]

18 hours ago, Big girl said:

The fact that you were born here. If they get rid of birthright citizenship how will we know who are citizens?

Oh yeah, my great grandparents on my mother’s side and great great great grandparents on my father’s were legal immigrants to this country and granted citizenship through naturalization.

So I was born in the United States to American citizens, therefore under the jurisdiction of the country. 

[OlDawg]

21 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Because of the Constitution.

 The term birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution.

 The Fourteenth Amendment says born in the United States AND subject to its jurisdiction.

 In the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins they ruled that even though Elk was born in US territory, the fact that he was born on a reservation, he was under the jurisdiction of his tribe. He was therefore not a US citizen just because he was born here. The subject to the jurisdiction is the problem.

 In US v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled on a person here lawfully. Wong was born on US soil to parents who were Chinese however they had been granted permanent citizenship. Since the US had granted his parents permanent status in this country, they were now under the jurisdiction of the US.

As the Fourteenth Amendment states, a person is a citizen at birth if born in the US AND subject to its jurisdiction. As ruled in Elk, being born here did not even make a Native American a US citizen. It was settled enough that the US Congress under their authority in Article I of the Constitution, passed a law giving all Native Americans born in the US citizenship.

So it literally took an act of Congress for them to be citizens. Why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled that they were not citizens merely by being born on US soil.

In my first post I said there was about a 98% of birthright citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court but more out of tradition. They are going to throw their collective hands up and say, “oh well, regardless of the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, we don’t want to change tradition”. 

How they craft the—probably—very narrow ruling either way is going to be fascinating. Agree that tradition is an easy way out. But, it only continues a problem they know has torn this country apart numerous times. I don’t know how/if that will figure into their thinking. They’ve surprised me with some rulings lately.

[UT alum]

52 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Do you think Congress, in 1866 when they created the 14th amendment, planned on the President of the United States opening the border and letting almost 7 million illegals come in? Also, with 3-7 year waits for a hearing, think of all the babies that could be born. This needs to be addressed. 

It doesn’t matter what Congress in 1866 thought about the future. Did the framers envision AR 15s on every corner when they included the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well formed militia? About the only redress would be another Amendment.

[thetragichippy]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It doesn’t matter what Congress in 1866 thought about the future. Did the framers envision AR 15s on every corner when they included the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well formed militia? About the only redress would be another Amendment.

They didn't - otherwise, they would of included tanks and fighter aircraft......

[thetragichippy]

20 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It doesn’t matter what Congress in 1866 thought about the future. Did the framers envision AR 15s on every corner when they included the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well formed militia? About the only redress would be another Amendment.

So you feel it is ok for illegals to cross the border and have children that are us citizens? 

Do you think we should enforce the current laws and separate mother and child and deport Mother? 

Do you think we should not enforce current law and let Mother and child stay?

 

[UT alum]

58 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

So you feel it is ok for illegals to cross the border and have children that are us citizens? 

Do you think we should enforce the current laws and separate mother and child and deport Mother? 

Do you think we should not enforce current law and let Mother and child stay?

 

1( Constitution says it is. I support the Constitution, so yes.

2( No

3(The current law has needed changing for decades. Congress doesn’t have the fortitude.  Child and mother should not be separated.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

They didn't - otherwise, they would have included tanks and fighter aircraft......

My point exactly. Though you can’t know what they would have included. I’ll need to check my history and see if they thought citizen artillery ownership was cool.

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

It doesn’t matter what Congress in 1866 thought about the future. Did the framers envision AR 15s on every corner when they included the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well formed militia? About the only redress would be another Amendment.

😆😆😆😆

[thetragichippy]

12 minutes ago, UT alum said:

1( Constitution says it is. I support the Constitution, so yes.

The constitution gives Congress the power to make laws concerning immigration.....currently, it is illegal to cross the border unless grated that right. So, if you support the constitution, they should not be allowed to cross in the first place. 

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

Do you ever research anything you post? It was considered a failure.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article you posted

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me

[bullets13]

21 minutes ago, UT alum said:

1( Constitution says it is. I support the Constitution, so yes.

2( No

3(The current law has needed changing for decades. Congress doesn’t have the fortitude.  Child and mother should not be separated.

So you also support "an AR-15 on every corner", right?

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Your boy Obama deported 3 million, so are we even? You keep trying to nail republicans on an issue while totally overlooking history and democratic policies. Where were the protestors when Obama deported 3 million? Did they receive due process? Of course not. You have no answer for this so I will do it for you……”Yeah right” “Whatever”

And.....I asked how do you all feel about Reagan granting amnesty to illegals? Should Trump do the same?

[bullets13]

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

The constitution gives Congress the power to make laws concerning immigration.....currently, it is illegal to cross the border unless grated that right. So, if you support the constitution, they should not be allowed to cross in the first place. 

nah, he doesn't like that part. he supports the constitution when it suits him.

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Oh yeah, my great grandparents on my mother’s side and great great great grandparents on my father’s were legal immigrants to this country and granted citizenship through naturalization.

So I was born in the United States to American citizens, therefore under the jurisdiction of the country. 

According to the Constitution, you are a citizen because YOU were born here.

[bullets13]

16 minutes ago, Big girl said:

According to the Constitution, you are a citizen because YOU were born here.

what if the law allowed for a situation where a criminal could break into your house and have a baby, and then not only would the baby be allowed to stay and live there in your house, but the mother would be allowed to as well so she could take care of the baby? As the owner of the house you'd even have to allot some of your monthly budget to help provide basic services and food for them. Sound absurd? It does to me as well. @UT alum, same question.

[OlDawg]

17 minutes ago, Big girl said:

According to the Constitution, you are a citizen because YOU were born here.

Only partially true. You conveniently left out the key part like many. He is a citizen because HE was born here, and his PARENTS were legally subject here, resided permanently here, and were presumed loyal to the U.S.

HE was underage. So, his status was carried from his parent/parents.

[baddog]

13 minutes ago, Big girl said:

And.....I asked how do you all feel about Reagan granting amnesty to illegals? Should Trump do the same?

I posted an article that said Regan’s amnesty was a failure. I don’t ever expect you to connect the dots so I even said it was a failure. So I asked about your boy Obama deporting 3 million without due process to see your reaction and this is your response? I can see why the department of education was abolished. You’re proof positive that it wasn’t working.

[thetragichippy]

32 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

what if the law allowed for a situation where a criminal could break into your house and have a baby, and then not only would the baby be allowed to stay and live there in your house, but the mother would be allowed to as well so she could take care of the baby? As the owner of the house you'd even have to allot some of your monthly budget to help provide basic services and food for them. Sound absurd? It does to me as well. @UT alum, same question.

That is one of the best analogies I have read😎

[baddog]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

From the article you posted

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me

I have never been and never will be a believer in the saying, “If it saves one life then it is worth it”. It’s simply a ‘feel good’ saying.

[Big girl]

7 hours ago, bullets13 said:

what if the law allowed for a situation where a criminal could break into your house and have a baby, and then not only would the baby be allowed to stay and live there in your house, but the mother would be allowed to as well so she could take care of the baby? As the owner of the house you'd even have to allot some of your monthly budget to help provide basic services and food for them. Sound absurd? It does to me as well. @UT alum, same question.

But the constitution says that a person born here is a citizen. It doesn't matter how absurd it is.

[5GallonBucket]

10 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

So you feel it is ok for illegals to cross the border and have children that are us citizens? 

Do you think we should enforce the current laws and separate mother and child and deport Mother? 

Do you think we should not enforce current law and let Mother and child stay?

 

What happens to citizens when they commit a crime worthy of arrest…They get separated from their child.  

y’all wasting y’all’s time

 

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

But the constitution says that a person born here is a citizen. It doesn't matter how absurd it is.

So you’re saying if my scenario was the law you wouldn’t have a problem with it. Got it. 

[OlDawg]

Upon reading the amicus briefs for the case ‘Trump vs. CASA’, and knowing that 5 of the Justices have expressed concerns about the overreach of national injunctions from District Court judges, I now believe the Administration will win on the merits of removing the injunctions. How it will be worded for equal treatment will be interesting.

I also believe the second issue—automatic birthright citizenship (so to speak)—is in serious jeopardy based on SCOTUS own precedent, historical references, and numerous case laws.

The issue would then be up to the Legislature to craft a law that dealt with children who have already been given citizenship prior to a ruling.

For any other geeks interested in this sort of stuff, the entire briefs SCOTUS is reviewing before Thursday are in the below link. Really fascinating if you’re interested in the real history and some civics of our government.

The link will also be the one that provides live feeds during the hearing. SCOTUS doesn’t allow televised hearings. So, you’ll see written feeds of questions/answers/descriptions of emotions/etc. You won’t have to rely on biased news coverage either way.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

What happens to citizens when they commit a crime worthy of arrest…They get separated from their child.  

y’all wasting y’all’s time

 

Not only that, but undocumented/illegal immigrants are not eligible for service in the U.S. military as they are not ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. So, how can their children be…?

In case of war, draft the kids against the parent’s country?

Riddle me that Batman liberals. 😁

(On a side note, I’d be curious how many illegal immigrants actually sign up for Selective Service as the law requires. If they don’t, they aren’t eligible to stay in country. It’s grounds for immediate removal. However, why they have to sign up when they can’t serve is a mystery to me. Another tracking mechanism I presume.)

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

So you’re saying if my scenario was the law you wouldn’t have a problem with it. Got it. 

Depends on whose President.