BREAKING: Trump says he’s going to overturn the 14th Amendment with an executive order.

[Truth Detector]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/timeso...are-the-details/amp_articleshow/116119716.cms

Birthright citizenship by illegals and non-residents is a myth halfwit. There is no such thing in the 14th amendment.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment​

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

 

[Truth Detector]

Ahhh a bunch of people that don’t understand the 14th Amendment

ADumbLefty gets his information from X and MSNBC.

 

[IBDaMann]

Who cares?

I care.

The issue is that anchor babies are profiting from criminal acts.

Nope. The issue is that there is a current trend of people who want to punish one person for the crimes of another. That's not right.

That means the proceeds of the criminal act under law must be denied to the perpetrators

... but you don't incarcerate the innocent bystander who happened to witness the crime.

- hence no citizenship for your invading forces.

... but those born here did not commit any crime for which they can be punished.

In 1954 the government was engaged in mass deportations - and anchor babies didn't stop it.

But once those baby citizens became adults, they could reenter the US.

Anchor babies were not considered US citizens.

What they were "considered" is irrelevant. If they were born in the US then they are US citizens.

 

[Truth Detector]

I care.


Nope. The issue is that there is a current trend of people who want to punish one person for the crimes of another. That's not right.


... but you don't incarcerate the innocent bystander who happened to witness the crime.


... but those born here did not commit any crime for which they can be punished.


But once those baby citizens became adults, they could reenter the US.


What they were "considered" is irrelevant. If they were born in the US then they were US citizens.

Dumbest analogy on the planet. Those here ILLEGALLY are already criminals. It doesn't matter if they dropped a baby here while breaking our laws.
The 14th amendment does not apply to criminal aliens or those who are not residents or citizens shit-for-brains.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Thank you for posting that link - so well written.

The Heritage Foundation has some very bright educated people. That's why the left hates them.

 

[Truth Detector]

The Heritage Foundation has some very bright educated people. That's why the left hates them.

...and deals with facts which the brainless unhinged left also hates.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Did you read the Heritage link I posted earlier? Please read it.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Did you not see my response to it which you did not address? You certainly didn't respond to the court cases that show Heritage is wrong on the law. Cherry picking cases may work in a screed to feed to the idiots but it won't work in a court of law.

Let's extend your argument to other amendments which will highlight how ridiculous your argument is
The purpose of the 24th amendment was to grant voting rights to 18-20 year olds. Therefore the government is free to take away voting rights from anyone 21 and older in spite of the wording of the amendment saying eighteen and older.
The purpose of the 19th amendment was to grant women voting rights. Therefore the government is free to ban all men from voting even though the amendment only references "sex" as a qualifier.

You do not get to ignore the wording of an amendment and instead rely on the purpose you think it was passed for. That would only apply if the wording is vague. There is nothing vague about the amendment. There is only word-smithing to try to make words mean something other than their long established legal and standard definitions. It was long established in English common law that jus soli is the standard for citizenship in a country. The United States relies on English common law.

The first section of the 14th amendment uses the word jurisdiction twice. Your definition in the first instance if applied to the second instance makes the amendment nonsensical. If a person holds allegiance to the place of their citizenship then that would also apply to states. A citizen of Florida would hold allegiance to Florida and then would not be subject to the jurisdiction of New York when they are in New York. Since they are not subject to the jurisdiction they are not within the jurisdiction of New York. That would mean states can discriminate against any not state citizens which would violate the current meaning of the 14th amendment. Can New York pass a law that says a citizen of Florida can be fined $1,000,000 for speaking in a Southern accent? If we accept your definition of "jurisdiction" then they could do just that.

 

[Truth Detector]

Did you not see my response to it which you did not address? You certainly didn't respond to the court cases that show Heritage is wrong on the law. Cherry picking cases may work in a screed to feed to the idiots but it won't work in a court of law.

Let's extend your argument to other amendments which will highlight how ridiculous your argument is
The purpose of the 24th amendment was to grant voting rights to 18-20 year olds. Therefore the government is free to take away voting rights from anyone 21 and older in spite of the wording of the amendment saying eighteen and older.
The purpose of the 19th amendment was to grant women voting rights. Therefore the government is free to ban all men from voting even though the amendment only references "sex" as a qualifier.

You do not get to ignore the wording of an amendment and instead rely on the purpose you think it was passed for. That would only apply if the wording is vague. There is nothing vague about the amendment. There is only word-smithing to try to make words mean something other than their long established legal and standard definitions. It was long established in English common law that jus soli is the standard for citizenship in a country. The United States relies on English common law.

The first section of the 14th amendment uses the word jurisdiction twice. Your definition in the first instance if applied to the second instance makes the amendment nonsensical. If a person holds allegiance to the place of their citizenship then that would also apply to states. A citizen of Florida would hold allegiance to Florida and then would not be subject to the jurisdiction of New York when they are in New York. Since they are not subject to the jurisdiction they are not within the jurisdiction of New York. That would mean states can discriminate against any not state citizens which would violate the current meaning of the 14th amendment. Can New York pass a law that says a citizen of Florida can be fined $1,000,000 for speaking in a Southern accent? If we accept your definition of "jurisdiction" then they could do just that.

Are you attempting to suggest that the Supreme Court never gets anything wrong? Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

Did you not see my response to it which you did not address? You certainly didn't respond to the court cases that show Heritage is wrong on the law. Cherry picking cases may work in a screed to feed to the idiots but it won't work in a court of law.

Let's extend your argument to other amendments which will highlight how ridiculous your argument is
The purpose of the 24th amendment was to grant voting rights to 18-20 year olds. Therefore the government is free to take away voting rights from anyone 21 and older in spite of the wording of the amendment saying eighteen and older.
The purpose of the 19th amendment was to grant women voting rights. Therefore the government is free to ban all men from voting even though the amendment only references "sex" as a qualifier.

You do not get to ignore the wording of an amendment and instead rely on the purpose you think it was passed for. That would only apply if the wording is vague. There is nothing vague about the amendment. There is only word-smithing to try to make words mean something other than their long established legal and standard definitions. It was long established in English common law that jus soli is the standard for citizenship in a country. The United States relies on English common law.

The first section of the 14th amendment uses the word jurisdiction twice. Your definition in the first instance if applied to the second instance makes the amendment nonsensical. If a person holds allegiance to the place of their citizenship then that would also apply to states. A citizen of Florida would hold allegiance to Florida and then would not be subject to the jurisdiction of New York when they are in New York. Since they are not subject to the jurisdiction they are not within the jurisdiction of New York. That would mean states can discriminate against any not state citizens which would violate the current meaning of the 14th amendment. Can New York pass a law that says a citizen of Florida can be fined $1,000,000 for speaking in a Southern accent? If we accept your definition of "jurisdiction" then they could do just that.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The Heritage Foundation has some very bright educated people. That's why the left hates them.

The article you linked to was written in 2011. There are some very real legal reasons why it hasn't been acted on and never will be acted on. The piece is nonsense and attempts to cherry pick cases out of context. If citizenship by virtue of being born in the US is eliminated it would result in chaos since everyone born in the US that can't prove their ancestors arrived legally would lose their citizenship.

 

[MAGA]

Are you 100% sure of that?
Don't put anything past Trump.

He wants to have anal sex with you I read. You're the catcher

 

[Jarod]

Why would I refuse to answer this time? I answered the last 40 times you screamed "NUHN UHN."

{
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.}

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

That you don't like the answer and that it undercuts the objectives of your party in no way changes that you were provided the answer - repeatedly.

So why did they change the wording? Seems significant that they made it more broad.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

If the "jurisdiction" is political then the 14th amendment allows New York to pass a law that fines anyone from a Southern state $1,000,000 just for being in New York.
The word will have the same meaning every time it is used in the amendment and courts will always recognize that.

Fourteenth Amendment ​

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.

If jurisidiction means political jurisdiction then that would mean that any state is free to deny any person in that state that is not a citizen of that state equal protection. They would be free to pass laws that apply only to persons that are not citizens of that state. A citizen of Florida would only be subject to Florida's jurisdiction and cannot be in New York's jurisdiction even if they are in New York City. New York and every state would be free to deny equal protection to citizens of other states since they can only be subject to the jurisdiction of their home state.

The Heritage article is completely bogus and you are an idiot. But we always knew you were an idiot.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He wants to have anal sex with you I read. You're the catcher

I heard you have been PEGGED for that more times than we can count.

 

[Truth Detector]

The article you linked to was written in 2011.

The amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. What is your point?

There are some very real legal reasons why it hasn't been acted on and never will be acted on. The piece is nonsense and attempts to cherry pick cases out of context. If citizenship by virtue of being born in the US is eliminated it would result in chaos since everyone born in the US that can't prove their ancestors arrived legally would lose their citizenship.

Cherry picking is what halfwits on the left do dipshit. If you are an illegal, or a citizen of another country, birthright citizenship doesn't apply.

I was born in Germany to an American military father. I wasn't automatically a German citizen. In fact, I was born as an American citizen.

But hey, you're mentally unstable and get your talking points from MSNBC which makes you more ignorant and incapable of comprehending the obvious.

 

[Truth Detector]

So why did they change the wording? Seems significant that they made it more broad.

What part of "and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens, do you leftist halfwits fail to comprehend?

 

[Truth Detector]

If the "jurisdiction" is political then the 14th amendment allows New York to pass a law that fines anyone from a Southern state $1,000,000 just for being in New York.
The word will have the same meaning every time it is used in the amendment and courts will always recognize that.

What a moronic analogy. You seem to be quite full of them.

Fourteenth Amendment ​

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.

If jurisidiction means political jurisdiction then that would mean that any state is free to deny any person in that state that is not a citizen of that state equal protection. They would be free to pass laws that apply only to persons that are not citizens of that state. A citizen of Florida would only be subject to Florida's jurisdiction and cannot be in New York's jurisdiction even if they are in New York City. New York and every state would be free to deny equal protection to citizens of other states since they can only be subject to the jurisdiction of their home state.

The Heritage article is completely bogus and you are an idiot. But we always knew you were an idiot.

No, that is not what any of that means. But to a mentally unstable leftist liar like you, it probably makes perfect sense.

 

[Truth Detector]

I heard you have been PEGGED for that more times than we can count.

 

[EdwinA]

And those tariffs were not as large as the ones Trump says he is going to impose now.
Tariffs can be good to a POINT but when they are so large they destroy your economy then they are not and that is what Trump's tariffs will do,

Trump's tariffs are way too low re Chinese crap and Mexican junk. Most sane people realize Ford and GM shipping itself stuff form some foreign labor racketeering country is not even remotely the same as 'trade' with those shitholes, but of course leftists are more than a little stupid and right wing shills like lying about it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What a moronic analogy. You seem to be quite full of them.



No, that is not what any of that means. But to a mentally unstable leftist liar like you, it probably makes perfect sense.

Clearly you didn't read the Heritage article you quoted if you are going to argue that isn't what any of that means since the Heritage article relies on that being what it means.