Originally Posted by
Hoppalong
You make me laugh right in your face out loud. LOL
Guess you don't care what the Contitiion says then not citizens YES THEY ARE, Unfortunately~!!!
Got to Change The Constitution First, so this can not happen. But it has not so LIVE WITH IT. Those that have been here Years and years and have not been a burden, but helping the uSA be a better country can stay, Git Rid of those bad ones that don't give a dern.
At least with Godwit the garbage replies were well-written.....
Read it and weep.... If you've got the requisite number of firing synapses to comprehend it, that is:
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
...Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
... The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe."
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
Now Hoppalong, while you're sitting there doing whatever it is you claim constitutes "thinking," try for just a moment to give one scenario, any scenario, wholly made up or from some misreading of historical facts doesn't matter, why in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was (not legitimately) ratified, legislators of the day would've seen fit to grant birthright citizenship for kids whose parents were here illegally. Just one scenario that purports to make a lick of sense as to why the American government would institute such a law.
If you can't "think" of a good reason, there is a plethora of scholarship available to you to help you understand why you can't - because there is no good reason! You don't even have to go looking for the scholarship or the Supreme Court cases or the history or the illegitimate method used by leftists within just the last 30 years to push the bullchit meme of birthright citizenship on an unsuspecting (or brain-dead, as the case may be) population. Only a small fraction of such scholarship is right here, and if you bother to read it and educate yourself, even a small fraction is adequate for that purpose. If you haven't the desire to actually know what you're talking about on this subject, it will be abundantly apparent when you next make a post about it, just like it was in the post I'm replying to now. Here ya go - inform yourself of the truth and legalities of birthright citizenship:
Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11 - Testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” - U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
Reply With Quote
