Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

[IBDaMann]

You cannot erase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' from the Constitution with your word games.

You can't alter the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by your word games.

 

[FastLane]

You ever find yourself arrested and in court, and the court finds that you are no jurisdiction, you will be released.

Illegals cannot vote and cannot serve in the military because they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Native Americans including those not born on reservations were not citizens prior to the passing of the Snyder Act in 1924. They were not citizens because the owed their allegiance to their sovereign Indian nations. Two people from Guatemalans are subjects of their country's jurisdiction not the USA. Their offspring are not citizens of the USA just like Native Americans born in the USA off the reservation prior to 1924 when Congress extended citizenship to them with the Snyder Act. As you know there is no act of Congress giving citizenship to Guatemalans or any other South American country or to Mexicans.

 

[IBDaMann]

It reads “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, not “or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Yes.

I can't help you if you can't express how you are confused... and yes, you are definitely confused.

 

[IBDaMann]

Illegals cannot vote and cannot serve in the military because they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

You have a few errors here.

Illegals cannot vote, not because they are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction but because they are not US citizens.
Illegals cannot serve in the US military only because service in the US military makes one a legal resident.

They were not citizens because the owed their allegiance to their sovereign Indian nations.

Some native Americans were citizens, for varying reasons, however yes, most native Americans were deprived of their inalienable rights just because they were native Americans.

Two people from Guatemalans are subjects of their country's jurisdiction not the USA.

Absolutely correct.

Their offspring are not citizens of the USA

He is if he is born in the US. Crimes of their parents are totally irrelevant.

As you know there is no act of Congress giving citizenship to Guatemalans or any other South American country or to Mexicans.

As you know, the 14th Amendment affirms the citizenship of all born in the US, ... and as you know, all children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[Into the Night]

Noe. The parents can take their child to their country. US Citizens can travel to other countries, even if they are young.


Correct.


Nope. The child will be allowed to travel. Besides, it is not possible to deport a US citizen from the US to the US.


Correct. I predict birthright citizenship will remain intact and predict, for some strange reason, the Trump will somehow be removing inalienable rights by fiat.

Your score is going to take a hit on this one.


Go learn what it is.


Your score is going to take a two-point deduction.

The child is NOT a citizen of the United States. It was born to an illegal alien. There is no magick anything in the Constitution that confers citizenship to any illegal alien or their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

You have a few errors here.

Illegals cannot vote, not because they are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction but because they are not US citizens.
Illegals cannot serve in the US military only because service in the US military makes one a legal resident.


Some native Americans were citizens, for varying reasons, however yes, most native Americans were deprived of their inalienable rights just because they were native Americans.


Absolutely correct.


He is if he is born in the US. Crimes of their parents are totally irrelevant.


As you know, the 14th Amendment affirms the citizenship of all born in the US, ... and as you know, all children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction.

WRONG. It affirms the citizenship of all that are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States born in the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't alter the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by your word games.

LIF. Don't be childish.

 

[Into the Night]

You have a few errors here.

Illegals cannot vote, not because they are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction but because they are not US citizens.
Illegals cannot serve in the US military only because service in the US military makes one a legal resident.


Some native Americans were citizens, for varying reasons, however yes, most native Americans were deprived of their inalienable rights just because they were native Americans.


Absolutely correct.


He is if he is born in the US. Crimes of their parents are totally irrelevant.

Not about crime. About subject of jurisdiction. The child is NOT a US citizen. It was born to subjects of another jurisdiction. When the mother is deported, the child goes with.

As you know, the 14th Amendment affirms the citizenship of all born in the US, ... and as you know, all children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction.

WRONG. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, if anything.

 

[IBDaMann]

The child is NOT a citizen of the United States.

The Constitution says otherwise. Somehow, someone convinced you that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "this amendment does not apply if someone else commits a crime." How did that happen?

It was born to an illegal alien.

"It"? "It" was born in the United States and is subject to US jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment does not impose requirements on the parents, and the 14th Amendment applies regardless of the crimes committed by others.

There is no magick anything in the Constitution that confers citizenship to any illegal alien or their offspring.

Oh yes there is. There is great and wonderful magick in our Constitution, especially in the recognition of inalienable rights that precede the Constitution. Anyone born in the US, regardless of the crimes of the parents, is a US citizen. Feel free to check the Constitution if you doubt me.

Oh, by the way, you were going to provide me a list of the crimes committed by children born in the US whose parents committed crimes. Please get that list to me at your earliest comvenience.

 

[IBDaMann]

WRONG.

Totally correct.

It affirms the citizenship of all that are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States born in the United States.

I wish you had paid more attention in English composition. All children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction. You'll notice, as I did, that you aren't providing any examples of children born in the US who are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction beyond those with diplomatic immunity. I know that you allowed yourself to become convinced that children of parents who committed crimes are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction, but you are embarrassingly WRONG (as you like to write).

Anyway, if Trump tries to deny citizenship to children born in the US, he will lose that one in grand fashion ... but, on the positive side, he will learn something that he didn't already know. Trump seems to be learning every day.

 

[IBDaMann]

LIF. Don't be childish.

Too funny.

 

[IBDaMann]

Not about crime. About subject of jurisdiction.

Look, you got this wrong. Either you misinterpreted something you read or someone you trust gave you some bogus advice. All children who are born in the US without diplomatic immunity for some other country are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't know what else I can tell you.

Perhaps if you explain to me what led you to believe that the US can somehow deprive inalienable rights on the basis of the crimes of other people, I might be able to help you see this issue more clearly.

The child is NOT a US citizen.

The child is a citizen. RQAA. You are chanting, and what you are chanting is an absurdity. Round it out by finishing with "Climate Change is real!"

It was born to subjects of another jurisdiction.

Parentage does not matter. I assure you. Read the 14th Amendment. Birth in the US is all that matters, not your wishful misinterpretation of the clause "and subject to the its jurisdiction." This is the point where you should be realizing that this is all you have, and that you were led astray. It's time to switch back to defending inalienable rights, away from government tyranny and the power of the government to strip inalienable rights by fiat.

When the mother is deported, the child goes with.

Sure, but the government hands the mother a US passport for the child to accompany its birth certificate that acts as a magick wand for the powerful magick of the Constitution.

WRONG. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, if anything.

WRONG, all children born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If the child weren't subject to US jurisdiction, the US wouldn't be able to deport him!

I did a little research on the matter, and all illegal aliens in the US are also under US jurisdiction per Plyler v. Doe (1982). I was trying to get a foothold on how you allowed yourself to be convinced that the "jurisdiction" clause somehow means crimes committed by other people somehow matter. I haven't found anything that could somehow be stretched across five States to achieve the understanding you have seemingly adopted. I can't even meet you half-way.

Anyway, you haven't offered any rationale for your strange position, so I guess we're going to have to see if anyone is willing to push the point and force a final understanding. I assert that there just isn't any change to birthright citizenship forthcoming.

 

[Into the Night]

The Constitution says otherwise.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any such magick granting of citizen of an illegal alien nor their offspring.

Somehow, someone convinced you that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "this amendment does not apply if someone else commits a crime." How did that happen?

If you travel to Germany, and you get arrested, does that make you a citizen of Germany??
No. You are still a US citizen.

"It"? "It" was born in the United States and is subject to US jurisdiction.

A child of an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the mother's nation.

The 14th Amendment does not impose requirements on the parents,

YES IT DOES!

and the 14th Amendment applies regardless of the crimes committed by others.

Oh, THIS again...

The MOTHER committed the crime. The child is deported with the MOTHER, even though the child itself did not commit any crime. The child is a subject of the jurisdiction of the mother's originating nation.

Oh yes there is. There is great and wonderful magick in our Constitution, especially in the recognition of inalienable rights that precede the Constitution.

Compositional error fallacy.

Anyone born in the US, regardless of the crimes of the parents, is a US citizen. Feel free to check the Constitution if you doubt me.

WRONG. They are subjects of the jurisdiction of the mother's originating country.

Oh, by the way, you were going to provide me a list of the crimes committed by children born in the US whose parents committed crimes. Please get that list to me at your earliest comvenience.

No crime needed. The child accompanies the mother when the mother is deported.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any such magick granting of citizen of an illegal alien nor their offspring.

Inalienable rights precede the Constitution. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment emphasizes that all born in the US are citizens. Other Supreme Court cases establish the citizenship of the child of illegal immigrants.

I get it, you desperately want to strip that particular inalienable right from We the People, and you predict that it will be stripped, either by Presidential executive order or by Supreme Court decision. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no executive order and no court can strip any inalienable rights.

If you travel to Germany, and you get arrested, does that make you a citizen of Germany??
No. You are still a US citizen.

Irrelevant. None of this is even analagous.

A child of an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the mother's nation.

The child, born in the US, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

The MOTHER committed the crime.

Ergo, no punishment can be levied against the child who did not commit any crime.

The child is deported with the MOTHER, even though the child itself did not commit any crime.

The child is not deported. You are using the wrong word. The child is provided transportation to accompany the mother. The child, however, may return to the US in the future because the child is a US citizen.

The child is a subject of the jurisdiction of the mother's originating nation.

You might as well stuff this back into your azz from where you pulled it. This is absurd and false.

No crime needed. The child accompanies the mother when the mother is deported.

Yes. The mother is deported and the child, a US citizen, accompanies. You are way off base on this one.

 

[Into the Night]

Inalienable rights precede the Constitution.

Compositional error fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (US citizenship<->inherent right).

Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment emphasizes that all born in the US are citizens. Other Supreme Court cases establish the citizenship of the child of illegal immigrants.

The 14th amendment does no such thing. The Supreme Court has NO authority to change the Constitution.

I get it, you desperately want to strip that particular inalienable right from We the People,

It is NOT an inherent right to be a citizen of the United States.

and you predict that it will be stripped, either by Presidential executive order or by Supreme Court decision.

Both MUST conform to the Constitution. The Constitution you are currently ignoring.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no executive order and no court can strip any inalienable rights.

It is NOT an inherent right to be a citizen of the United States.

Irrelevant. None of this is even analagous.

YES IT IS. That's why I brought it up! Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The child, born in the US, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Changing the wording won't work. Word games won't work.

Ergo, no punishment can be levied against the child who did not commit any crime.

No punishment is noted.

The child is not deported.

The child is deported along with it's mother.

You are using the wrong word.

No. I MEAN 'deported'.

The child is provided transportation to accompany the mother.

That's 'deportation'.

The child, however, may return to the US in the future because the child is a US citizen.

The child is NOT a citizen of the United States and never was. If they wish to return, they can certainly immigrate legally and obtain a citizenship.

You might as well stuff this back into your azz from where you pulled it. This is absurd and false.

The Constitution of the United States is not anyone's ass.

Yes. The mother is deported and the child, a US citizen, accompanies.

The child is NOT a US citizen and is deported with the mother.

You are way off base on this one.

The Constitution of the United States is not 'way off base'.

 

[Into the Night]

Totally correct.


I wish you had paid more attention in English composition. All children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction.

WRONG!

Children born to foreign diplomats, illegal aliens, and similar circumstances do NOT magickally obtain citizenship of the United States.

You'll notice, as I did, that you aren't providing any examples of children born in the US who are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction beyond those with diplomatic immunity. I know that you allowed yourself to become convinced that children of parents who committed crimes are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction, but you are embarrassingly WRONG (as you like to write).

No, your word games won't work. Children of illegal aliens and the like are NOT subjects of jurisdiction of the United States. If you go to Germany and break a law, they will throw you in jail because you broke their law. You are STILL a US citizen. You do not magickally become a citizen of Germany! YOU are trying to argue that it DOES make you a citizen of Germany because you were in their jurisdiction when you broke the law.

Anyway, if Trump tries to deny citizenship to children born in the US, he will lose that one in grand fashion ... but, on the positive side, he will learn something that he didn't already know. Trump seems to be learning every day.

Football betting.

 

[Into the Night]

Too funny.

You can't laugh your way out of your problem, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Look, you got this wrong.

Inversion fallacy.

Either you misinterpreted something

It is YOU playing word games and trying to change the wording of the Constitution!

you read or someone you trust gave you some bogus advice.

The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

All children who are born in the US without diplomatic immunity for some other country are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't know what else I can tell you.

Repetition fallacy (chanting). You cannot just change the Constitution or it's wording on a whim, dude.

Perhaps if you explain to me what led you to believe that the US can somehow deprive inalienable rights on the basis of the crimes of other people, I might be able to help you see this issue more clearly.

RQAA

The child is a citizen.

No.

RQAA.

Random phrase ignored.

You are chanting,

Inversion fallacy.

and what you are chanting is an absurdity.

The Constitution of the United States is not an absurdity.

Round it out by finishing with "Climate Change is real!"

Climate cannot change. You know that. Mantra 1d.

Parentage does not matter.

YES IT DOES!

I assure you. Read the 14th Amendment.

It is YOU trying to reword the 14th amendment! Your word games won't work!

Birth in the US is all that matters,

WRONG! Read the conditions set forth in the 14th amendment!

not your wishful misinterpretation of the clause "and subject to the its jurisdiction."

I do not 'wish'. You are trying to reword the 14th amendment. Your word games won't work.

This is the point where you should be realizing that this is all you have, and that you were led astray.

The Constitution of the United States is not 'astray'.

It's time to switch back to defending inalienable rights,

Becoming a US citizen is NOT an inherent right!

away from government tyranny

Buzzword fallacy. What 'tyranny' are you referring to???

and the power of the government to strip inalienable rights by fiat.

There is no inherent right to US citizenship.

Sure, but the government hands the mother a US passport for the child to accompany its birth certificate that acts as a magick wand for the powerful magick of the Constitution.

A US passport cannot be issued to a baby UNLESS the parents sign for it AND are US citizens and it is only good for five years. See US passport laws. The parents MUS apply for such a passport and include all fees and other requirements.

WRONG, all children born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

They are NOT subjects of jurisdiction of the U.S. They are subjects of jurisdiction of the origination nation of the mother.

If the child weren't subject to US jurisdiction, the US wouldn't be able to deport him!

You are making the same word games as Pretender. You can't change the 14th amendment with word games.

I did a little research on the matter, and all illegal aliens in the US are also under US jurisdiction per Plyler v. Doe (1982).

No court has authority to change any constitution.

I was trying to get a foothold on how you allowed yourself to be convinced that the "jurisdiction" clause somehow means crimes committed by other people somehow matter.

No crime needed. You can drop this vector right now.

I haven't found anything that could somehow be stretched across five States to achieve the understanding you have seemingly adopted. I can't even meet you half-way.

There is no compromise in the Constitution. It is what it is. You just want to ignore it and play word games with it.

Anyway, you haven't offered any rationale for your strange position,

RQAA

o I guess we're going to have to see if anyone is willing to push the point and force a final understanding. I assert that there just isn't any change to birthright citizenship forthcoming.

Football betting.

 

[tigerred59]

The absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally being challenged. The left loves to argue that it's clear the following Amendment somehow says that birth rights citizenship is clearly stated in our Constitution.

Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words in bold are the ones that the left argue somehow translate to those who enter America ILLEGALLY and drop an infant on our soil should automatically be citizens. Section 1 was to leave no ambiguity about the rights for blacks to become citizens. The democrat activist SC Libtards had sided with Sanford in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) in which the democrat appointed Chief Justice Roger B. Taney spewed typical drone drivel:

1. That African Americans, free or enslaved, were not and could not be citizens of the United States under the Constitution, which meant they had no rights that white men were bound to respect.
2. That the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, was unconstitutional.

Republicans fighting racist policies didn't just start a few years ago. This also proves that the Supreme Court always fails America when it deviates from the true meaning of our brilliant Constitution. It's amazing how many things change yet stay the same.

I also love that last sentence, do the EPA rules and restrictions constitute due process? I don't think so, I'd like someone explain how it does. If the zealots with un-elected powers can and do make ridiculous rules that have severe impacts on ones private property rights, what real recourse does that property owners have? That's a bit off subject at the moment other than it points out how convoluted Libtard thinking is.

Fact, rich Asians fly into this country, have their babies and then fly home....some are clearly taking advantage of a law made for black people. Like what else is new

 

[IBDaMann]

Compositional error fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (US citizenship<->inherent right).

Misreading fallacy. US citizenship <--> birth in the US

The 14th amendment does no such thing.

The 14th Amendment mentions it very clearly.

The Supreme Court has NO authority to change the Constitution.

Correct. The Supreme Court can only apply the law, e.g. the 14th Amendment, and affirm that someone born in the US of foreigners is a US citizen.

It is NOT an inherent right to be a citizen of the United States.

The 14th Amendment is definitely an amendment.

Both MUST conform to the Constitution. The Constitution you are currently ignoring.

Both what? You should stop trying to rewrite the Constitution into some other document you prefer.

It is NOT an inherent right to be a citizen of the United States.

Birth in the US is citizenship in the US.

The child is deported along with it's mother.

Word game fallacy. US citizens are not deported, but may travel outside the country.

No. I MEAN 'deported'.

I know that this is exactly how you are mistaken.

The child is NOT a citizen of the United States

The child is a US citizen by birth in the US.

and never was.

It's hard to be a citizen before birth.

If they wish to return, they can certainly immigrate legally and obtain a citizenship.

No citizen needs to immigrate and no citizen needs to obtain a second citizenship.

The child is NOT a US citizen

The child is a US citizen.

and is deported with the mother.

No citizen is deported. Citizens travel outside the country.

The Constitution of the United States is not 'way off base'.

Correct. You are not the Constitution. You are off base; the Constitution is not. When do you estimate that the US will see things as you do? I predict that birthright citizenship will never be stripped.