Birthright Citizenship

[Damocles]

No, based on the language of the amendment, it is clear that the framers of the amendment intended that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of their status, would be citizens. As a consequence, all persons born in the United States are citizens. It was the intended result.

At best, you have an unforeseen (but foreseeable) consequence, not an unintended consequence.

And again, if they had not considered all consequences, as you've made clear you don't know if they did, then it is clearly understandable how somebody might say "unintended consequences". Basically, you are just trying to sound intelligent while flat contradicting yourself. I'm good with that. I can clearly see you do indeed know how somebody might see it that way, you just refuse to admit you "understand"...

That's a basic in partisan politics, a consistent stance to declare deliberately a "misunderstanding" of the motivation of others.

 

[Good Luck]

No, based on the language of the amendment, it is clear that the framers of the amendment intended that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of their status, would be citizens. As a consequence, all persons born in the United States are citizens. It was the intended result.

At best, you have an unforeseen (but foreseeable) consequence, not an unintended consequence.

Bolded part - wrong. Not ALL persons born in the U.S. are automatically citizens of the U.S. Exceptions already explained above.

Why would the qualifying phrase "and under the jurisdiction thereof" NOT apply to those entered illegally?

 

[Good Luck]

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?

There are several types of jurisdiction. We can, for instance, prosecute an illegal immigrant for theft or murder, etc. We can also ask a foreign country for permission to prosecute a diplomat accused of serious crimes.

However, we cannot prosecute illegal immigrants for, say, tax evasion. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of our tax laws, or many other laws. (voting rights, contractual law, etc. etc. etc.) Since the above laws are directly related to the rights of citizenship, then it can still be claimed they do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of the ability to prosecute them for criminal behaviors.

 

[Bonestorm]

And again, if they had not considered all consequences, as you've made clear you don't know if they did, then it is clearly understandable how somebody might say "unintended consequences". Basically, you are just trying to sound intelligent while flat contradicting yourself.

My point is really simple: all means all. In using the term "all persons," the intent was to grant citizenship to "all persons." It was not an unintended consequence to grant citizenship to a particular subgroup of "all person."

 

[Bonestorm]

Bolded part - wrong. Not ALL persons born in the U.S. are automatically citizens of the U.S. Exceptions already explained above.

Why would the qualifying phrase "and under the jurisdiction thereof" NOT apply to those entered illegally?

Because illegals are subject to (not "under") the jurisdiction of the United States. Consular officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Nor, as Damo pointed out, were aboriginal peoples at the time of the 14th A's enactment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He's attempting to say that it is a "right" and that it can't be defined as a "privilege"...

Personally I think it is a privilege that isn't a basic right. Otherwise there is no way to define "citizen", the entire planet would be citizens just as we believe the entire planet has certain rights granted by their Creator. Being a citizen isn't one of those rights. Non-citizens have rights just as we do, this isn't one of them.

That's completely rediculous Damo. By that logic there would be no rights for anyone. We'd have the privilege of free speech and the privilege of the press and the privilege of relgion, etc, etc,. My citizenship is my birth right and not a privilege. It cannot be taken away from me as a privilege can.

 

[Good Luck]

My point is really simple: all means all. In using the term "all persons," the intent was to grant citizenship to "all persons." It was not an unintended consequence to grant citizenship to a particular subgroup of "all person."

The unintended consequence is the ability of the parents, who are NOT citizens, indeed are not even legal residents, to derive many of the rights of citizens through their children. Therefore granting automatic citizenship to them DOES have an unintended consequence the writers of the 14th did not account for.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?

notice that when it doesn't suit them, the liberals idea of the constitution being a "living breathing document" go out the window

 

[zappasguitar]

Vitter, Rand Paul Propose Amendment To Pare Back Birthright Citizenship

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) have now teamed up -- and they're aiming very high. The two have proposed a constitutional amendment, to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

From their joint press release, their proposal will declare "a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen."

I sought clarification from Vitter's office as to whether this would be a full-fledged amendment to the Constitution, or a lesser legislative route. It is indeed a proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Also from the press release:

"Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits," said Sen. Paul. "This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen."

Vitter and Paul do not believe that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, either by its language or intent. This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship.

Funny isn't it, how David Vitter has already shown himself incapable of living by GOD'S laws? If he finds GOD'S laws unworthy of support, why should anyone support his ridiculous attempts at forcing people to live under laws HE thinks are important.

 

[zappasguitar]

notice that when it doesn't suit them, the liberals idea of the constitution being a "living breathing document" go out the window

Notice also how one side claims the document ISN'T a "living breathing document" unless it's necessary for it to be just the opposite for their plans to move forward...

 

[apple0154]

Yes, Don, and of you ever getting layed, or being thought of, as even slightly interesting :loser:

Shouldn't that be "laid", not "layed"?

I'm not usually picky about spelling but when discussing something of such importance, an event that can lift a man from the depths of despair to soaring the skies like a eagle, an event so life-affirming, the precursor to the big "O",......out of reverence I was obliged to mention it.

 

[Rune]

I can't beleive you people are wasting time talking about Rand Paul successfully amending the constitution.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

This is a dangerous damned notion by Rand Paul. My citizenship is a birth right and not a privilege. If Mr. Paul can determine my citizenship is a privilege that can be given to me then it's also a privelege that can be taken away! That means if they can take away the birth right citizenship of the child of an illegal immegrant, because it's a privilege, then they can take way yours because it's a privilege too! Fuck that!!

nice scare tactic.....however, since the proposed change would only effect those not yet citizens, it was rather lame.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

notice that when it doesn't suit them, the liberals idea of the constitution being a "living breathing document" go out the window

Notice also how one side claims the document ISN'T a "living breathing document" unless it's necessary for it to be just the opposite for their plans to move forward...

there's a difference between amending and pretending......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

the issue wasn't immigration when the 14th Amendment was passed, it was emancipation......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The unintended consequence is the ability of the parents, who are NOT citizens, indeed are not even legal residents, to derive many of the rights of citizens through their children. Therefore granting automatic citizenship to them DOES have an unintended consequence the writers of the 14th did not account for.

I agree and let's address that but fuck this language "Citizenship is a privilege not a birthright!"

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I can't beleive you people are wasting time talking about Rand Paul successfully amending the constitution.

Hell we'd debate cockroach mitigation regulations if we could fine any!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

nice scare tactic.....however, since the proposed change would only effect those not yet citizens, it was rather lame.....

So you agree with Rand that our citizenship is a privilege?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So you agree with Rand that our citizenship is a privilege?

since citizenship is created by law rather than protected by law, that would appear obvious......

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Vitter, Rand Paul Propose Amendment To Pare Back Birthright Citizenship

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) have now teamed up -- and they're aiming very high. The two have proposed a constitutional amendment, to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

From their joint press release, their proposal will declare "a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen."

I sought clarification from Vitter's office as to whether this would be a full-fledged amendment to the Constitution, or a lesser legislative route. It is indeed a proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Also from the press release:

"Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits," said Sen. Paul. "This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen."

Vitter and Paul do not believe that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, either by its language or intent. This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship.

Citizenship is NOT a privilege. It is a right. That's why it's in the constitution. Birthright citizenship eventually integrates subclasses into the nation. That's why it's useful.