Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Birthright Citizenship (Anchor Babies)

MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For those of you stating that Trump is wrong and that illegal immigrants having babies in the U.S. means the baby is now a U.S. citizen; I have done the research and provided it here. Let's hear why you think anchor babies are citizens.

CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1: Passed By Congress June 13th, 1866. Ratified July 9th, 1868

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.

EXPLANATION

1) Proponents of amnesty and open borders look at section 1 listed above and do 1 of 2 things:

1.1) They read the first 9 words All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ignore the rest
1.2) The read it through fully but incorrectly define the word "Jurisdiction" as a geographical term. The correct, legal definition is provided below, under the section "DEFINITIONS"

2) The proponents then do something else very interesting: they fail to do any research at all; not on the intent, the definitions, the time period, the reason the amendment was authored, why they go to work every day, why the sky is blue, why powerful men used to wear wigs and makeup...sorry I'm getting a bit off track

2.1) Coincidentally, you liberals on this site always disregard me and try and make me look like a fool when I say you're wrong and tell you to do your own research. Well, tie your shoes tight; I don't want you losing them as research knocks you on your butt starting.....now:

3) The 14th Amendment, Section 1 was primarily authored by Congressman John A. Bingham and introduced in Congress by Senator Jacob Howard to ensure recently freed slaves were considered citizens and no state could refuse them rights afforded to them as such.

4) To quell concerns in congress of vague language being represented by the 14th Amendment, while presenting the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard CLEARLY defined the intent; and in doing so, for the first time in American Constitutional history, gave clear definition to the word citizenship. This can be found a bit lower under the section "DEFINITIONS"

4.1) The important piece here of his definition of citizen is: "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."

5) Senator Edward Cowan reaffirmed Sen. Jacob Howard's definition of "citizen" by stating: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word[...]

SUPREME COURT RULINGS

1) Abstract of Rulings -- A person holding allegiance to another nation, sovereign state, or other recognized group not directly mentioned; is unable to attain citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, a person must pledge full, direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. and be completely subject to its jurisdiction.

2) Elk v. Wilkins 1884 -- the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

2.1) The court stated 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government...'

3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898] -- Wong Kim Ark, a child born in CA to legal Chinese immigrants was determined to be a U.S. citizen as his parents were legal immigrants at the time of his birth. Legal Immigrant defined in DEFINITIONS section.

3.1) This case made the clear distinction between children born from illegal immigrants as opposed to the children born to legal immigrants

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves

2) As the amendment lists The U.S. before State, the citizen my first be a citizen of the nation before he can be a citizen of a state

3) The 14th Amendment states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this was intended to exlude American-born persons from authentic citizenship whose allegiance to the U.S. was not complete

4) The intent and definition of citizen was made clear by Sen. Howard and affirmed by Sen. Cowan

5) Elk v. Wilkins & U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark are two notable Supreme Course Cases making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as well as the process of citizenship

DEFINITIONS

Jurisdiction -- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law [...]

Citizen -- "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."

Legal Immigrant -- Is subject to the jurisdiction of his birth country. Meaning in his native land (China for example) he can still vote, join the military, attend public school, own property, etc. For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 6:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah there's a case to be made for birthright citizenship not being mandated by the 14th amendment. That's a minority legal opinion, but it's still considered a somewhat valid viewpoint.

The media and the establishment will do anything they can to destroy Trump because they simply can't handle the idea of someone running who isn't bought and controlled by corporate interests. Say whatever you will about Trump but damn it if it isn't refreshing to have a Republican candidate who, instead of bending over backwards for everyone, just doesn't give a f*ck.

I am not impressed at all by Trump. I'm just beyond disgusted with everyone else. Trump triumph '16!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 6:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 4:30:33 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
For those of you stating that Trump is wrong and that illegal immigrants having babies in the U.S. means the baby is now a U.S. citizen; I have done the research and provided it here. Let's hear why you think anchor babies are citizens.

CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1: Passed By Congress June 13th, 1866. Ratified July 9th, 1868

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.

EXPLANATION

1) Proponents of amnesty and open borders look at section 1 listed above and do 1 of 2 things:

1.1) They read the first 9 words All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ignore the rest
1.2) The read it through fully but incorrectly define the word "Jurisdiction" as a geographical term. The correct, legal definition is provided below, under the section "DEFINITIONS"

2) The proponents then do something else very interesting: they fail to do any research at all; not on the intent, the definitions, the time period, the reason the amendment was authored, why they go to work every day, why the sky is blue, why powerful men used to wear wigs and makeup...sorry I'm getting a bit off track

2.1) Coincidentally, you liberals on this site always disregard me and try and make me look like a fool when I say you're wrong and tell you to do your own research. Well, tie your shoes tight; I don't want you losing them as research knocks you on your butt starting.....now:

3) The 14th Amendment, Section 1 was primarily authored by Congressman John A. Bingham and introduced in Congress by Senator Jacob Howard to ensure recently freed slaves were considered citizens and no state could refuse them rights afforded to them as such.

4) To quell concerns in congress of vague language being represented by the 14th Amendment, while presenting the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard CLEARLY defined the intent; and in doing so, for the first time in American Constitutional history, gave clear definition to the word citizenship. This can be found a bit lower under the section "DEFINITIONS"

4.1) The important piece here of his definition of citizen is: "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."

Okay, so, the family of ambassadors cannot become citizens by birth. This applies to other born entities, how?

5) Senator Edward Cowan reaffirmed Sen. Jacob Howard's definition of "citizen" by stating: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word[...]

This is a nonsequitur, everyone has protection of the law, and no one is arguing that a "foreigner" is a citizen.


1) Abstract of Rulings -- A person holding allegiance to another nation, sovereign state, or other recognized group not directly mentioned; is unable to attain citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, a person must pledge full, direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. and be completely subject to its jurisdiction.

Again, non sequitur. You might as well discuss renouncing citizenship.


2) Elk v. Wilkins 1884 -- the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

Yes. That is what the quote you previously mentioned was, this just affirms it.

2.1) The court stated 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government...'

In 1884, Indians in this context didn't have allegiance to the US, we were actively at war with them, as well as shipping them off to their "own" territorial reservation.

3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898] -- Wong Kim Ark, a child born in CA to legal Chinese immigrants was determined to be a U.S. citizen as his parents were legal immigrants at the time of his birth. Legal Immigrant defined in DEFINITIONS section.

The fact that he was born in CA probably helped. Just sayin'.

3.1) This case made the clear distinction between children born from illegal immigrants as opposed to the children born to legal immigrants

According to the verbiage you used, that conclusion cannot be arrived at from the information present.


SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves

2) As the amendment lists The U.S. before State, the citizen my first be a citizen of the nation before he can be a citizen of a state

3) The 14th Amendment states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this was intended to exlude American-born persons from authentic citizenship whose allegiance to the U.S. was not complete

An ambassador and their family are not subject to US jurisdiction. It stands to reason their children born here then, aren't citizens.

4) The intent and definition of citizen was made clear by Sen. Howard and affirmed by Sen. Cowan

Yes, however your interpretation of where it applies is mistaken.

5) Elk v. Wilkins & U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark are two notable Supreme Course Cases making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as well as the process of citizenship

That is not what your verbiage concluded.

DEFINITIONS

Jurisdiction -- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law [...]

Citizen -- "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."

This doesn't mean what you think it means, bro.

Legal Immigrant -- Is subject to the jurisdiction of his birth country. Meaning in his native land (China for example) he can still vote, join the military, attend public school, own property, etc. For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant.

How does one be an immigrant AND Citizen to the US?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, the entire argument is based on the intent of the law, as opposed to what the law says or what words have come to mean?
My work here is, finally, done.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 6:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 6:06:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
How does one be an immigrant AND Citizen to the US?

You can't be. Let's use Chinese immigrants as an example. A husband and wife are both born in China, they are Chinese citizens afforded all of the rights and privileges of a Chinese citizen while in China.

This husband and wife send a petition to the United States for legal immigration (also referred to as permanent residence). A big part of this is the requirement of a sponsor. The sponsor can be a close family member, an employer, after receiving refugee or asylum status, or many other categories. After review, if they are approved, they receive a photo identification card which is the color green, hence "Green Card". After waiting the designated amount of time, they may apply for full U.S. Citizenship, also known as naturalization. This takes years to accomplish in its entirety. However, there are ways to direct citizenship such as serving in the U.S. Military.

Moving on, you can see there is a distinction between legal immigrant (green card holder) and U.S. Citizen, there is also a reasonable period of time spent waiting; this is seen as a trial period. There are also legal differences; a legal immigrant is not able to vote in U.S. elections, they cannot remain outside the U.S. for unlimited time, they cannot make their home in another country, they are not entitled to the same assistance and benefits from the Federal Government. Violation of any of these rules among others, results in forfeiture of their legal immigrant status and denial of entry from that point forward.

Let's backtrack slightly: Let's say the Chinese couple have been approved and received their green cards, assuming legal immigrant status; they have also completed their move into permanent residence within the United States of America. Even though they are only classified as legal immigrants, if they have a baby INSIDE OF THE U.S., that baby is considered a full U.S. citizen by the legal bounds of the 14th amendment and cannot be deported against his will; he is a citizen. The parents however, are still recognized as legal immigrants and still fall within the legal bounds of the green card and immigration policy. The only way this changes is when the parents are naturalized and become full U.S. citizens.

Contrarily, if a citizen from a foreign nation (let's say Guatemala) breaks federal law by crossing the border illegally and while illegally in the U.S., has a baby, the baby assumes the citizenship status of the jurisdiction of the mother; in this case, Guatemala as the mother is still a citizen of Guatemala and in no way has the legal authority, right or approval to be within the borders of the U.S. The same goes for tourists and vacationers. Although tourists and vacationers are here legally, they are here for a predetermined temporary time period as legal visitors on a passport; they are in no way legal immigrants or otherwise and are afforded none of those birth rights.

Hopefully I answered you question. If not, feel free to post a more detailed version of your question and I will respond.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:03:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 6:33:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, the entire argument is based on the intent of the law, as opposed to what the law says or what words have come to mean?

Ummmmmm well.....yeah. That is generally how laws (and communication for that matter) are meant to be.

However, there are not any words in the 14th amendment that have changed definition. What words are you talking about?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:03:01 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 6:33:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, the entire argument is based on the intent of the law, as opposed to what the law says or what words have come to mean?

Ummmmmm well.....yeah. That is generally how laws (and communication for that matter) are meant to be.
Except, in legal matters, the actual text is very relevant, and only interpretations are where intent matters.
How many wills are discarded because of a typo, even though the intent is clear?
How many criminals get off because the law does not explicitly state something is illegal (I recall a Mass. case where a man took upskirt pics, but since the women were wearing underwear, it wasn't illegal)?


However, there are not any words in the 14th amendment that have changed definition. What words are you talking about?
Well, citizen means born here, and not what the author meant.
My work here is, finally, done.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:17:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Well, citizen means born here, and not what the author meant.

What?!? Come on man. OK, fine; I'll play along, game on.

Please provide me with documented proof of the changed definition of the word "Citizen". Proof shall include but not be limited to:

1) Date of proposed change of definition
2) Reviewing organization
3) Validating organization (the organization that seconds the approval)
4) Date of official change of definition
5) Author of proposed new definition
6) Legal case approving the definition change in relation to legal works
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:28:39 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 7:17:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Well, citizen means born here, and not what the author meant.

What?!? Come on man. OK, fine; I'll play along, game on.

Please provide me with documented proof of the changed definition of the word "Citizen". Proof shall include but not be limited to:

1) Date of proposed change of definition
2) Reviewing organization
3) Validating organization (the organization that seconds the approval)
4) Date of official change of definition
5) Author of proposed new definition
6) Legal case approving the definition change in relation to legal works

You yourself provided all the documentation. The author meant citizen to mean one thing, but the law (nor jurisprudence) reflects that.

Regardless, you ignored my point that the text of the law matters much more than the intent.
My work here is, finally, done.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:53:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:40:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
You yourself provided all the documentation. The author meant citizen to mean one thing, but the law (nor jurisprudence) reflects that.

Regardless, you ignored my point that the text of the law matters much more than the intent.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

1) Jurisprudence literally means: "The philosophy of Law"

That has NOTHING to do with the definition of "citizen"

2) Until the 14th Amendment was presented, there was no immigration the way we see it. For this reason, there was no legal definition of the word "Citizen". The only thing we had resembling a definition of "citizen" that could be used was the word "subject" which was used in Old English terms which was defined as the individuals under rule of the King. Since we were not ruled by a king, nor did we want to be linked to the same oppressive rule as we went to war to separate ourselves from, we defined the members of these United States as citizens and gave direct and clear intent on the definition. This definition was applied to American Indians as well as they did not wish to give up their tribal jurisdiction and pledge allegiance to the U.S.

3) As shown in the Supreme Court Cases I provided, the intent of the law, as long as it was properly documented as this was, is just as, if not more important than the text of the law. Why do you think when faced with a legal case, the Supreme Court ALWAYS goes back and reads the INTENT of the law and not just the law?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:26:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Citizen -- "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."

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.

Two definitions.
I'm not sure what is so hard about that. And, clearly, given U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898], this changed the definition from the intent. Unless, legal immigrants are called something other than aliens.

So, the definitions have changed, and I, again, ask, is the only argument you have that the intent was not followed?
My work here is, finally, done.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 6:49:17 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 6:06:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
How does one be an immigrant AND Citizen to the US?

You can't be. Let's use Chinese immigrants as an example. A husband and wife are both born in China, they are Chinese citizens afforded all of the rights and privileges of a Chinese citizen while in China.

This husband and wife send a petition to the United States for legal immigration (also referred to as permanent residence). A big part of this is the requirement of a sponsor. The sponsor can be a close family member, an employer, after receiving refugee or asylum status, or many other categories. After review, if they are approved, they receive a photo identification card which is the color green, hence "Green Card". After waiting the designated amount of time, they may apply for full U.S. Citizenship, also known as naturalization. This takes years to accomplish in its entirety. However, there are ways to direct citizenship such as serving in the U.S. Military.

Moving on, you can see there is a distinction between legal immigrant (green card holder) and U.S. Citizen, there is also a reasonable period of time spent waiting; this is seen as a trial period. There are also legal differences; a legal immigrant is not able to vote in U.S. elections, they cannot remain outside the U.S. for unlimited time, they cannot make their home in another country, they are not entitled to the same assistance and benefits from the Federal Government. Violation of any of these rules among others, results in forfeiture of their legal immigrant status and denial of entry from that point forward.

Let's backtrack slightly: Let's say the Chinese couple have been approved and received their green cards, assuming legal immigrant status; they have also completed their move into permanent residence within the United States of America. Even though they are only classified as legal immigrants, if they have a baby INSIDE OF THE U.S., that baby is considered a full U.S. citizen by the legal bounds of the 14th amendment and cannot be deported against his will; he is a citizen. The parents however, are still recognized as legal immigrants and still fall within the legal bounds of the green card and immigration policy. The only way this changes is when the parents are naturalized and become full U.S. citizens.

Contrarily, if a citizen from a foreign nation (let's say Guatemala) breaks federal law by crossing the border illegally and while illegally in the U.S., has a baby, the baby assumes the citizenship status of the jurisdiction of the mother; in this case, Guatemala as the mother is still a citizen of Guatemala and in no way has the legal authority, right or approval to be within the borders of the U.S.

The right to be present is completely irrelevant. That is what poses the problem, and your references didn't actually close that gap.

The same goes for tourists and vacationers. Although tourists and vacationers are here legally, they are here for a predetermined temporary time period as legal visitors on a passport; they are in no way legal immigrants or otherwise and are afforded none of those birth rights.

And again, this is not true, your current quotes do not close the gap.

Hopefully I answered you question. If not, feel free to post a more detailed version of your question and I will respond.

Well you claimed "For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant." What does dual citizenship have to do with anything there? Citizens of what nation(s)?

Anyhoo, more to the point:

"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. --- okay, so born here, you are a citizen, excepting the following:

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, --- This exclusion specifically applies to diplomatic or ambassadorial envoy. Obviously, these people and families are here to specifically represent another country, and as such, are not subject to US law (diplomatic immunity I think its been called) which includes by virtue of being law of the land, the provisions of the Constitution.

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." --- every. Other. Class. This ranges from illegal immigrant to tourist here on a tourist Visa, to legal immigrant not yet naturalized when it comes to citizenship via birth. If you disagree with my interpretation of this quote, I have a question as to how you can consider "every other class of person" to be your one special circumstance.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 10:27:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:26:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Citizen -- "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."

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.

Two definitions.
I'm not sure what is so hard about that. And, clearly, given U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898], this changed the definition from the intent. Unless, legal immigrants are called something other than aliens.

So, the definitions have changed, and I, again, ask, is the only argument you have that the intent was not followed?

Khaos, I wouldn't expect to make any progress with this one. Seems especially dense.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:22:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 9:25:59 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The right to be present is completely irrelevant. That is what poses the problem, and your references didn't actually close that gap.

I'm sorry, let me make sure I understand you correctly here:
Your position is that a nation's sovereignty and federal laws are not relevant?
What is this gap you are speaking about? I don't understand what you are saying there.

Maybe the misuse of terminology in popular culture is what is throwing you off so let me clear something up. America is not a nation, America is a nation-state.

Definitions:

1) Nation -- a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can identify culturally and linguistically. Example: Iraq, run by Shiite, people kept together and the country relevant by their religious belief and cultural similarities, nothing more.

2) State -- a legal/political entity that is comprised of the following: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government ; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Example: North Korea, A government which is centrally ruled, borders that are heavily defended, the population unable to leave, nobody able to enter, and has agreements with many of the Pacific nations. Population fights for the ruler instead of the nation.

3) Nation-State -- a single or multiple nationalities joined together in a formal political union. The nation-state determines an official language(s), a system of law, sovereign borders, manages a currency system, uses a bureaucracy to order elements of society, and fosters loyalties to abstract entities Example: The U.S., Canada, U.K. -- Has a government, a permanent population, citizen loyalties are based on the nation, it's concepts and what it stands for; money, a system of law, and DEFINED AND SOVEREIGN BORDERS.

Although tourists and vacationers are here legally, they are here for a predetermined temporary time period as legal visitors on a passport; they are in no way legal immigrants or otherwise and are afforded none of those birth rights.

And again, this is not true, your current quotes do not close the gap.

Again, close what gap? These are legal facts, not opinions, guesses or suggestions

Hopefully I answered you question. If not, feel free to post a more detailed version of your question and I will respond.

Well you claimed "For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant." What does dual citizenship have to do with anything there? Citizens of what nation(s)?

Trying to decipher and answer your question but you aren't asking any question. You're simply disregarding the research I've done and facts I have provided including the 14th Amendment quoted directly from a photograph of the actual, real Constitution along with the explanation of intent from both the author and presenter as well as the creation, defining and acceptance of the definition of the newly presented designation of "citizen"

"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. -:-- okay, so born here, you are a citizen, excepting the following:

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, --- This exclusion specifically applies to diplomatic or ambassadorial envoy. Obviously, these people and families are here to specifically represent another country, and as such, are not subject to US law (diplomatic immunity I think its been called) which includes by virtue of being law of the land, the provisions of the Constitution.

Ah, OK, I see where you're getting mixed up here. Proper English Grammar and reading comprehension. In cases such as this, it is very easy to misread the passage. This type of grammar has important parts: a subject, an absolute qualifier, a noun, and a comma separated list. I will break this down and point them out for you:

1) This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States

1.1) This means exactly what it says: "This Amendment will not include persons born in the U.S. (Qualifiers to come)

2) Now for the important part. I will first list the statement and follow with the breakdown.

who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,

1) Who are foreigners
2) Who are aliens
3) Who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

Now, explanation on what just happened. This is a comma separated list placed in sentence format and utilizing efficiency methods of writing. Do you see how Foreigners and aliens have the same subject "Who" as well as the same absolute Qualifier "Are"?

Now, see how the diplomatic piece uses the same subject "Who" but the qualifier has been replaced with the possessive "belong to"?

So they ARE foreigners; They ARE aliens; They BELONG TO

Three completely separate statements that when separated into individual statements can be easier understood. In fact, let's fully build these three statements in there native form so you can see how convoluted it becomes with the comma separated list:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

That is the extended, true version of that original statement.

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." --- every. Other. Class. This ranges from illegal immigrant to tourist here on a tourist Visa, to legal immigrant not yet naturalized when it comes to citizenship via birth. If you disagree with my interpretation of this quote, I have a question as to how you can consider "every other class of person" to be your one special circumstance.

Every other class is properly used. Just add that to the end of the native statements:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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."

Do you understand now?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:29:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:26:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Two definitions.
I'm not sure what is so hard about that. And, clearly, given U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898], this changed the definition from the intent. Unless, legal immigrants are called something other than aliens.

So, the definitions have changed, and I, again, ask, is the only argument you have that the intent was not followed?

There are not two definitions. A citizen is different from a legal immigrant. They are afforded different rights and protects.

No, that case did NOT redefine the intent of the 14th amendment nor did it alter the definition of citizen.

Listen closely......the parents were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (GREEN CARD HOLDERS). While inside of the U.S., they had a baby, that baby was the plaintiff. He claimed that because he was born inside of the U.S. by parents who were at the time LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (GREEN CARD HOLDERS), he was by way of the 14th amendment a BORN U.S. CITIZEN

LEGAL IMMIGRANT = BORN IN ANOTHER NATION
CITIZEN = BORN IN AMERICA FROM LEGAL IMMIGRANTS

LEGAL IMMIGRANT IS DIFFERENT THAN CITIZEN

LEGAL IMMIGRANT IS EQUAL TO GREEN CARD HOLDER

LEGAL IMMIGRANT IS NOT EQUAL TO CITIZEN

GREEN CARD HOLDER IS NOT EQUAL TO CITIZEN

Do you get it now or do you need a diagram?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:33:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 10:27:46 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Khaos, I wouldn't expect to make any progress with this one. Seems especially dense.

Wouldn't expect to make progress in what? Big the stereotype redneck? Naming yourself after a car company and having the reading comprehension of 3rd grader then trying to troll by adding a useless comment like you did to be passive aggressive toward me?

Learn to read...go back to school. Look up where I explained to to your buddy.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.

I've pretty much completely given up on the constitution which obviously failed to prevent the government from becoming what it has. The holders of sovereignty in the U.S. are the Supreme Court justices, anyone pretending otherwise is kidding themselves. All hail King Anthony!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:42:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.

I've pretty much completely given up on the constitution which obviously failed to prevent the government from becoming what it has. The holders of sovereignty in the U.S. are the Supreme Court justices, anyone pretending otherwise is kidding themselves. All hail King Anthony!

This isn't necessarily bad. I would much rather be ruled by Anthony Kennedy than 99% of other politicians, but his status as the de facto American philosopher-king forces him to turn sometimes to bizarre and obviously absurd readings to get the policy through that he thinks needs to be done because congress sure as hell isn't going to do anything
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.

You could say that about any law (or contract for that matter). Efforts to reinterpret existing documents are not exclusive to the Constitution. Although activists have attempted to rewrite the Constitution through judicial interpretation, it doesn't mean the Constitution has or should be rewritten.

I have certainly have no issue with using the Constitution to make judicial decisions related to modern issues (provided its a matter the federal government actually has authority to make decisions on, marriage not being one of them). If one thinks the constitution is too outdated to address such issues, the Constitution provides us the ability to amend it through direct ratification or a state led convention.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:04:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:57:23 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.

You could say that about any law (or contract for that matter). Efforts to reinterpret existing documents are not exclusive to the Constitution. Although activists have attempted to rewrite the Constitution through judicial interpretation, it doesn't mean the Constitution has or should be rewritten.

I have certainly have no issue with using the Constitution to make judicial decisions related to modern issues (provided its a matter the federal government actually has authority to make decisions on, marriage not being one of them). If one thinks the constitution is too outdated to address such issues, the Constitution provides us the ability to amend it through direct ratification or a state led convention.

What amendments would you propose we ratify at the state conventions?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:06:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:33:22 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 10:27:46 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Khaos, I wouldn't expect to make any progress with this one. Seems especially dense.

Wouldn't expect to make progress in what? Big the stereotype redneck? Naming yourself after a car company and having the reading comprehension of 3rd grader then trying to troll by adding a useless comment like you did to be passive aggressive toward me?

Learn to read...go back to school. Look up where I explained to to your buddy.

I'm not named after a car company. Also, you're an idiot.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:10:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:06:12 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
I'm not named after a car company. Also, you're an idiot.

Im sorry. Youre named after the 1960 Ford Perfect 100E Classic car which turned into a catch phrase for Ford for long time

....Or were you unoriginal enough to ripoff Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:11:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:10:22 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:06:12 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
I'm not named after a car company. Also, you're an idiot.

Im sorry. Youre named after the 1960 Ford Perfect 100E Classic car which turned into a catch phrase for Ford for long time

....Or were you unoriginal enough to ripoff Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Good job buddy, today you learned how to use the google. It's a valuable life skill.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:14:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:11:20 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:10:22 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:06:12 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
I'm not named after a car company. Also, you're an idiot.

Im sorry. Youre named after the 1960 Ford Perfect 100E Classic car which turned into a catch phrase for Ford for long time

....Or were you unoriginal enough to ripoff Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Good job buddy, today you learned how to use the google. It's a valuable life skill.

Or I know what a Ford Perfect is and I've heard the catch phrase a half billion times AND ready for this one.....Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was just on TV a couple days ago.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:04:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:57:23 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:38:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:28:17 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool for people to illegally get into this country, have children here and then insure their own residence. The 14th amendment is not to be construed as an incentive to break the law.

Probably not but there are a lot of things the framers never intended the 14th amendment or the constitution to "protect". Power to interpret the constitution is de facto power to rewrite the constitution--this is why we have completely bizarre readings claiming that a document written in the mid nineteenth century mandates abortion rights and same sex marriage.

You could say that about any law (or contract for that matter). Efforts to reinterpret existing documents are not exclusive to the Constitution. Although activists have attempted to rewrite the Constitution through judicial interpretation, it doesn't mean the Constitution has or should be rewritten.

I have certainly have no issue with using the Constitution to make judicial decisions related to modern issues (provided its a matter the federal government actually has authority to make decisions on, marriage not being one of them). If one thinks the constitution is too outdated to address such issues, the Constitution provides us the ability to amend it through direct ratification or a state led convention.

What amendments would you propose we ratify at the state conventions?

These are from Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments.

#1. Impose Congressional term limits (maximum of 12 years in the House and Senate).

#2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures (insures state interest is being represented by Congress).

#3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review (Justices can only serve a maximum of 12-years; both Congress and the state legislatures gain the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies).

#4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation (limits spending to 17.5% of GDP and requires a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling; limits the power to tax to 15% of an individual"s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one"s taxes one day before the next federal election).

#5. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review ( limit sand sunset federal regulations and subjecst the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years).
#6. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause (would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states)
#7. Limit eminent domain powers
#8. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution (allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.)
#9. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws ( allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures).
#10. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting.

I'm also tempted to endorse repealing the Incorporation doctrine, but I haven't fully made up my mind on that.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 1:07:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although tourists and vacationers are here legally, they are here for a predetermined temporary time period as legal visitors on a passport; they are in no way legal immigrants or otherwise and are afforded none of those birth rights.

And again, this is not true, your current quotes do not close the gap.

Again, close what gap? These are legal facts, not opinions, guesses or suggestions.

Yes, facts which you are simply misconstruing.

Hopefully I answered you question. If not, feel free to post a more detailed version of your question and I will respond.

Well you claimed "For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant." What does dual citizenship have to do with anything there? Citizens of what nation(s)?

Trying to decipher and answer your question but you aren't asking any question. You're simply disregarding the research I've done and facts I have provided including the 14th Amendment quoted directly from a photograph of the actual, real Constitution along with the explanation of intent from both the author and presenter as well as the creation, defining and acceptance of the definition of the newly presented designation of "citizen"

No, I think I planing asked "What does dual citizenship" have to do with your example. You immediately called the Chinese party a citizen of China... and then.... sort of left the "dual" portion out.

"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. -:-- okay, so born here, you are a citizen, excepting the following:

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, --- This exclusion specifically applies to diplomatic or ambassadorial envoy. Obviously, these people and families are here to specifically represent another country, and as such, are not subject to US law (diplomatic immunity I think its been called) which includes by virtue of being law of the land, the provisions of the Constitution.

Ah, OK, I see where you're getting mixed up here. Proper English Grammar and reading comprehension. In cases such as this, it is very easy to misread the passage. This type of grammar has important parts: a subject, an absolute qualifier, a noun, and a comma separated list. I will break this down and point them out for you:

1) This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States

1.1) This means exactly what it says: "This Amendment will not include persons born in the U.S. (Qualifiers to come)

2) Now for the important part. I will first list the statement and follow with the breakdown.

who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,

1) Who are foreigners
2) Who are aliens
3) Who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

Now, explanation on what just happened. This is a comma separated list placed in sentence format and utilizing efficiency methods of writing. Do you see how Foreigners and aliens have the same subject "Who" as well as the same absolute Qualifier "Are"?

Yes. That makes them the same "who". Observe the following:
"The army is recruiting quality. Men, who are able bodied, strong, and who are upstanding members of their community are wanted to enlist."

Its not creating 3 separate class qualifiers. Its giving adjective to the original subject.

Now, see how the diplomatic piece uses the same subject "Who" but the qualifier has been replaced with the possessive "belong to"?

So they ARE foreigners; They ARE aliens; They BELONG TO

Yes! and do you see the commonality? Its all "they who", not, "they and they and they". 1 criteria was listed.

Three completely separate statements that when separated into individual statements can be easier understood. In fact, let's fully build these three statements in there native form so you can see how convoluted it becomes with the comma separated list:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

That is the extended, true version of that original statement.

Groovy, but that leaves a rather interested question later.

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." --- every. Other. Class. This ranges from illegal immigrant to tourist here on a tourist Visa, to legal immigrant not yet naturalized when it comes to citizenship via birth. If you disagree with my interpretation of this quote, I have a question as to how you can consider "every other class of person" to be your one special circumstance.

Every other class is properly used. Just add that to the end of the native statements:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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."


Do you understand now?

The question is: do you?

If you are not an alien (legal or other wise) a foreigner (legal immigrant or other wise), or a member of a diplomatic family that is welcomed, and not all ready a citizen... what else could you be? There are no potential remainders left that could possibly included that is not covered by those criteria.

You are unwillingly advocating for the the only remainder which would be by born to parents whom are citizens, which would mean citizenship is a lineage and the 14th amendments reference to Birth locale still did nothing, including help those slaves they were (granted) originally intended to aid.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 1:25:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe Trump really wants to become president and start a new carreer in politics.
He wants to prove that none of the guys in the race for president are electable.
If your numbers are lower than Trump's, then the GOP needs to forget about you and find someone electable.
Death23
Posts: 785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 2:42:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 4:30:33 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
For those of you stating that Trump is wrong and that illegal immigrants having babies in the U.S. means the baby is now a U.S. citizen; I have done the research and provided it here. Let's hear why you think anchor babies are citizens.

CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1: Passed By Congress June 13th, 1866. Ratified July 9th, 1868

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.

EXPLANATION

1) Proponents of amnesty and open borders look at section 1 listed above and do 1 of 2 things:

1.1) They read the first 9 words All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ignore the rest
1.2) The read it through fully but incorrectly define the word "Jurisdiction" as a geographical term. The correct, legal definition is provided below, under the section "DEFINITIONS"

2) The proponents then do something else very interesting: they fail to do any research at all; not on the intent, the definitions, the time period, the reason the amendment was authored, why they go to work every day, why the sky is blue, why powerful men used to wear wigs and makeup...sorry I'm getting a bit off track

2.1) Coincidentally, you liberals on this site always disregard me and try and make me look like a fool when I say you're wrong and tell you to do your own research. Well, tie your shoes tight; I don't want you losing them as research knocks you on your butt starting.....now:

3) The 14th Amendment, Section 1 was primarily authored by Congressman John A. Bingham and introduced in Congress by Senator Jacob Howard to ensure recently freed slaves were considered citizens and no state could refuse them rights afforded to them as such.

4) To quell concerns in congress of vague language being represented by the 14th Amendment, while presenting the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard CLEARLY defined the intent; and in doing so, for the first time in American Constitutional history, gave clear definition to the word citizenship. This can be found a bit lower under the section "DEFINITIONS"

4.1) The important piece here of his definition of citizen is: "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."

5) Senator Edward Cowan reaffirmed Sen. Jacob Howard's definition of "citizen" by stating: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word[...]

SUPREME COURT RULINGS

1) Abstract of Rulings -- A person holding allegiance to another nation, sovereign state, or other recognized group not directly mentioned; is unable to attain citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, a person must pledge full, direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. and be completely subject to its jurisdiction.

2) Elk v. Wilkins 1884 -- the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

2.1) The court stated 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government...'

3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898] -- Wong Kim Ark, a child born in CA to legal Chinese immigrants was determined to be a U.S. citizen as his parents were legal immigrants at the time of his birth. Legal Immigrant defined in DEFINITIONS section.

3.1) This case made the clear distinction between children born from illegal immigrants as opposed to the children born to legal immigrants

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves

2) As the amendment lists The U.S. before State, the citizen my first be a citizen of the nation before he can be a citizen of a state

3) The 14th Amendment states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this was intended to exlude American-born persons from authentic citizenship whose allegiance to the U.S. was not complete

4) The intent and definition of citizen was made clear by Sen. Howard and affirmed by Sen. Cowan

5) Elk v. Wilkins & U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark are two notable Supreme Course Cases making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as well as the process of citizenship

DEFINITIONS

Jurisdiction -- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law [...]

Citizen -- "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."

Legal Immigrant -- Is subject to the jurisdiction of his birth country. Meaning in his native land (China for example) he can still vote, join the military, attend public school, own property, etc. For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant.

Anchor babies are American citizens through the 14th amendment, 8 USC " 1401(a), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That's the current state of the law.

From the Wong opinion -

It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."