SmarterthanYou
rebel
Not really. You apparently understand the intent, so you should understand it was not so illegal alien babies could become citizens.
if a child is born within the borders of the US, it is a citizen. period. end of story.
Not really. You apparently understand the intent, so you should understand it was not so illegal alien babies could become citizens.
if a child is born within the borders of the US, it is a citizen. period. end of story.
Not if the constitution is amended. period. end of story.
if a child is born within the borders of the US, it is a citizen. period. end of story.
I don't see how anyone could credibly claim that an amendment which states that all persons born in the United States are citizens thereof has the "unintended consequence" of all persons born in the United States being citizens thereof. It seems that was the intended consequence.
ftfy
He's attempting to say that it is a "right" and that it can't be defined as a "privilege"...The privilege being discussed is a right to citizenship or not- What is being said is that unless one parent has a right to that claim-there is no right to it's privileges.
But by all means let's parse the statement and split the hairs.![]()
So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?
I don't know if they had any limit on immigration back then. While I know my history well, I don't have knowledge of every law ever passed throughout history.did they have a path to citizenship back then? what were the immigration procedures prior to the 14th?
I don't know if they had any limit on immigration back then. While I know my history well, I don't have knowledge of every law ever passed throughout history.
Should we afford the privileges of citizenship based on proximity regardless of the legality of action to create the proximity?
So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?
But you don't know if they considered it, and in fact have no evidence thereof. So your statement about how you "couldn't understand" was just bull crap?I don't know. I do know that at the time it was drafted an ratifies other countries had restrictive immigration laws such that it was not unforeseeable for the issue of illegal immigrants and birth-right citizenship to be considered.
Fair enough. While I generally agree and do not argue that they are "not citizens", I do not quite get why you say he wasn't sent there for that. I'm reasonably sure he ran on a platform that was against illegal immigration and probably even stated he'd produce such an amendment while he ran.if we're talking strictly being a citizen, I find it difficult to disallow a human that was actually born on US soil, the status of US citizen, regardless of the parents heritage.
Then again that could be one reason they included the qualifying phrase "..and under the jurisdiction thereof.." If the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (ie: not here legally?) then birthright citizenry would not be conveyed. We already have instances in which simply being born within U.S. borders does not convey citizenship, such as children born of long-term foreign diplomats living in the U.S. Why would illegal residency not have the same effect?I don't know. I do know that at the time it was drafted an ratifies other countries had restrictive immigration laws such that it was not unforeseeable for the issue of illegal immigrants and birth-right citizenship to be considered.
If they are "not under the jurisdiction thereof" it would mean we could not prosecute them for crimes. That portion was added to ensure that Diplomats kids would be citizens of their own nation. We didn't want any of that riff-raff soiling our shores. European diplomats are kinda icky. This was also added to ensure that Indian Tribes that maintained their own national identity wouldn't be citizens. We couldn't have any of that now, could we?Then again that could be one reason they included the qualifying phrase "..and under the jurisdiction thereof.." If the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (ie: not here legally?) then birthright citizenry would not be conveyed. We already have instances in which simply being born within U.S. borders does not convey citizenship, such as children born of long-term foreign diplomats living in the U.S. Why would illegal residency not have the same effect?
There are already exceptions to automatic U.S. citizenship for simply being born within U.S. borders. That is why there is the qualifying phrase "...and under the jurisdiction thereof..."if we're talking strictly being a citizen, I find it difficult to disallow a human that was actually born on US soil, the status of US citizen, regardless of the parents heritage.
But you don't know if they considered it, and in fact have no evidence thereof. So your statement about how you "couldn't understand" was just bull crap?