(Mainly a side issue with Marauder)
My paralegal follows this stuff and put this together for me.
Relevant to this discussion being that a person born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power. In other words not a citizen of another country are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. This was aimed at the former slaves, their family, their children, their future children, and the black code in the southern states that were preventing the implementation of equal rights and citizenship and such citizens of every race and color. without regard to any previous condition of slavery, involuntary servitude shall have been duly the same right in every state and territory the United States ……., as is enjoyed by white citizens . This Act was intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision and eliminate these Black codes so they passed the civil rights act of 1866 in the overwhelmingly Republican Congress and what happens while the bill goes to a Democrat by the name of Andrew Johnson. President Johnson vetoed the civil rights act of 1866, but there we're enough Republicans in Congress to override his veto so it remained the law, but the Republican Congress was concerned about the ease with which a law could be changed or even eliminated down the road, they saw what Johnson tried to do. THAT was born the impetus for the 14th amendment. The purpose was to constitutionalize the civil rights act of 1866. How do we know this? Because they told us this.
I am busy, so will have to continue this in a short while. No need to respond so far as it is a simple fact. I have not yet gotten to the meat of the matter..
Here is a hint. When these guys were putting this all together in the 1800s, you have all tried to decide what they were thinking. One thing that was not in their mind was the status of illegal immigrants. Why? Because there was no such thing as someone illegally in this country.
We know all this, because section one of the 14th includes the citizenship clause. It was a constitutional basis for civil rights following the Civil War the constitutional of 1866 civil rights act.
Section One. What exactly does it say. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof That means subject to the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, etc. etc.” That does not sound like it has a lot to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigrants, let alone children of illegal immigranrs. Because it did not. The constitution talked about having no allegiance to Foreign or foundation . Here they basically implement that by saying United States jurisdiction, which is constitutional allegiance to a foreign country. They basically jurisdiction,subject to the jurisdiction of subject to the United States and the jurisdiction of the United States . they’re doing this because of these, these blacks, formally confederate states. citizens of the United States and of the state , where they reside. No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States , but no state dhall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction protection…. This says NOTHING about immigration.
The authors they could not have meant to grant citizenship at birth to the children of illegal aliens because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. Of course they were not thinking about illegal aliens because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. So there were no illegal aliens,.
It says all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States. In other words, not citizens or purses of any other Foreign Power. That is affirmative in the 14th amendment. You have to be within the jurisdiction of no other country.
This clearly excludes children of aliens we are talking about children of illegal aliens right now.There is no evidence at all the 14th amendment that the use of the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was intended to alter the meaning of the intent of the language in the 1866 civil rights act.
Two of the principal authors quoted the subject to jurisdiction it means not owing allegiance to someone else. How on earth is this an automatic grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? It is not. And it was never intended to be. Indeed, illegal aliens are here illegally, which is indirect violation of federal law. Even if we play this game, does anyone believe that a foreigner can confer upon herself legal jurisdiction for the purpose of our accidentally having her child born here to become a citizen ….,they are not even here legally..
Someone show me a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition that birthright citizenship was intended under the 14th amendment?
@AverageJoe1 saidIdiot.
(Mainly a side issue with Marauder)
My paralegal follows this stuff and put this together for me.
Relevant to this discussion being that a person born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power. In other words not a citizen of another country are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. This was aimed at the former slaves, their family, their c ...[text shortened]... us of illegal immigrants. Why? Because there was no such thing as someone illegally in this country.
No sense of history.
This was back when the Republicans were the good guys.
Not anymore.
How many times do we have to tell you that things are different now?
Reconstruction was pushed by the Republicans mainly because they were the liberal party at that time. The Southern Democrats, who had tried to secede were the conservatives. They wanted the status quo so they could continue to abuse the black slaves. They didn't consider them to be equal to whites. This is why Johnson tried to veto Reconstruction, because he hated the blacks in this country and he tried to keep them down and also why the "black codes" came back with a vengeance.
What you people stubbornly refuse to learn is that over the next nearly 100 years, by some accounts closer to 70 years, there was a polar shift in this country. The Democrats were so hated that they decided to remake themselves as Republicans, while disgusted Republicans shifted to the Democratic Party to distinguish themselves from the new Republicans, who were ideologically the same as the old Southern Democrats. By 1930, the shift was nearly complete, resulting in FDR running as a Democrat. By 1960, the shift was set in stone, which is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was spearheaded by Democrats. The old Southern Democrats, racist as sin and twice as nasty, were now the Republican Party. Some tried to hang on as Democrats, like Robert Byrd, but he was finally outed as a new Republican, who portrayed a Democrat In Name Only.
Meet the new boss (Republicans), same as the old boss (Southern Democrats).
@AverageJoe1 saidThanks for verifying that you want to destroy America.
We know all this, because section one of the 14th includes the citizenship clause. It was a constitutional basis for civil rights following the Civil War the constitutional of 1866 civil rights act.
Section One. What exactly does it say. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof That means subject to the United S ...[text shortened]... idence to support the proposition that birthright citizenship was intended under the 14th amendment?
Either follow the Constitution or GTFO.
@AverageJoe1 saidIs your imaginary paralegal aware that after the slave trade was abolished in the US 1808, approximately 51,000 slaves were illegally smuggled into the US? http://americanabolitionists.com/fact-sheet.html
(Mainly a side issue with Marauder)
My paralegal follows this stuff and put this together for me.
Relevant to this discussion being that a person born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power. In other words not a citizen of another country are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. This was aimed at the former slaves, their family, their c ...[text shortened]... us of illegal immigrants. Why? Because there was no such thing as someone illegally in this country.
By 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, these "illegal aliens" and their descendants must have numbered close to 100,000.
Now present evidence that the Framers of the 14th Amendment meant these people to be excluded from citizenship under the relevant clause of the Amendment or your argument falls apart.
@no1marauder
You are a silly goose.
"Illegal aliens" is a MODERN term, ....there was no legal category ike today's 'illegal immigrant'. You are wrong right out of the gaete. There were not immigration systems or restrictions.
The framers of the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment were not thinking in modern illegal vs legal immigrant terms… That framework did not exist yet. You have to accept that to be true on this issue.
Further, slaves were not treated as 'foreign citizens owing allegiance'. They were treated as 'stateless'.
This matters because the 14 Amendment hinges on that pesky. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
So back then, it was not about "legal vs illegal immigrants'. (this is where I lose you)
Ir was about Who Owes Full Allegiance To The United States. Indeed some framers specifically said that the clause would exclude children of diplomats and people with allegiance to another sovereign.
And, Those 100,000 illegal aliens???? They were not treated as foreign citizens, they were fully under our jurisdiction.
So, in a nutshell, your example does not show squat about what the framers thought about Modern Illegal Immigration. It shows nothing. You are wrong.
Ilegal aliens is a modern term.
PS : "illegally smuggled" you say. To be illegal, you must e breaking a law. What law, and, who broke it?
@AverageJoe1 saidWho cares what you say. It's not going to be overturned So STFU asshole.
@no1marauder
You are a silly goose.
"Illegal aliens" is a MODERN term, ....there was no legal category ike today's 'illegal immigrant'. You are wrong right out of the gaete. There were not immigration systems or restrictions.
The framers of the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment were not thinking in modern illegal vs legal immigrant terms… That framewo ...[text shortened]... legally smuggled" you say. To be illegal, you must e breaking a law. What law, and, who broke it?
@AverageJoe1 saidNo, I don't have to accept things as true that are not just because you do.
@no1marauder
You are a silly goose.
"Illegal aliens" is a MODERN term, ....there was no legal category ike today's 'illegal immigrant'. You are wrong right out of the gaete. There were not immigration systems or restrictions.
The framers of the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment were not thinking in modern illegal vs legal immigrant terms… That framewo ...[text shortened]... legally smuggled" you say. To be illegal, you must e breaking a law. What law, and, who broke it?
It was just as illegal to bring a slave into the United States from 1809-1868 as it is now to bring a truck full of immigrants across the border now. In fact, doing so subjected you to a possible death penalty. https://www.history.com/articles/us-illegal-slave-trade-civil-war
So the Framers of the 14th Amendment were perfectly aware persons could be illegally in the country.
@no1marauder saidOh, yes,it was illegal to bring slaves, yes. But we are talking about immigration laws, not laws against slavery.
No, I don't have to accept things as true that are not just because you do.
It was just as illegal to bring a slave into the United States from 1809-1868 as it is now to bring a truck full of immigrants across the border now. In fact, doing so subjected you to a possible death penalty. https://www.history.com/articles/us-illegal-slave-trade-civil-war
So the Framers of the 14th Amendment were perfectly aware persons could be illegally in the country.
We are saying there was no legal category like today’s illegal immigrant. Please stay on this subject. You purposely confuse the thread .
@AverageJoe1 saidYou are wrong; it was illegal to bring a slave into the United States from 1809 onward. That's an immigration law i.e. one concerned with the movement of new persons into a country to have them permanently reside there. Slavery was still legal in many states, but the importation of slaves was not.
Oh, yes,it was illegal to bring slaves, yes. But we are talking about immigration laws, not laws against slavery.
We are saying there was no legal category like today’s illegal immigrant. Please stay on this subject. You purposely confuse the thread .
What you are saying is incorrect; slaves transported into the country from 1809 on were "illegal immigrants".
Now all you have to do is present evidence that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant them and their children to be not made citizens by the relevant clause contained therein. Good luck.
@AverageJoe1
Without getting off subject, allow me to point out that slaves in 1700 are not germane to our talking about today.s immigration mess.
@AverageJoe1 saidDidn't say a word about "slaves in 1700" or our so-called "immigration mess".
@AverageJoe1
Without getting off subject, allow me to point out that slaves in 1700 are not germane to our talking about today.s immigration mess.
Neither are relevant to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
@AverageJoe1 saidIn fact, the Constitution specifically refers to bringing slaves into the country as "importation":
Oh, yes,it was illegal to bring slaves, yes. But we are talking about immigration laws, not laws against slavery.
We are saying there was no legal category like today’s illegal immigrant. Please stay on this subject. You purposely confuse the thread .
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,"
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9
That provision was meant to protect the slave trade into the US until 1808 after which it was promptly outlawed.
@no1marauder saidThe framers focused on allegiance and jurisdiction. Not on illegality of entry. We are talking about them, in framing the Constitution. You refuse to separate the two.
You are wrong; it was illegal to bring a slave into the United States from 1809 onward. That's an immigration law i.e. one concerned with the movement of new persons into a country to have them permanently reside there. Slavery was still legal in many states, but the importation of slaves was not.
What you are saying is incorrect; slaves transported into the country fr ...[text shortened]... them and their children to be not made citizens by the relevant clause contained therein. Good luck.
You’re asking me to prove that they excluded a category that they never even defined!!
The real question is what standard they did define—and that was allegiance, not legality of entry.
Whew. Obtuse is your middle name.
@no1marauder saidYou dodge this most simple issue. WHAT were the framers meaning, thinking about?.? Was it allegiance? No? You gonna say no? They actually SAID that “the jurisdiction thereof” meant not owing allegiance to another country. Undeniable. So you have no argument,,,,,,just bring up other stuff about slavery whatever. It ain’t the issue
In fact, the Constitution specifically refers to bringing slaves into the country as "importation":
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,"
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9
That provision was meant to protect the slave trade into the US until 1808 after which it was promptly outlawed.