Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55790
    30 Oct '18 20:00
    @no1marauder said
    A) What about that express language is unclear to you?

    B) Even if there was some serious Constitutional doubt (which there is not), the appropriate way to test the provision is by legislation passed by Congress, not dictatorial proclamations.
    Many things that seem clear when you read the next of the Constitution aren't nearly as cut and dry in real life. For example the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech." Yet, there are Constitutional restrictions on speech nevertheless.
    For the record, I would certainly agree with you on point B.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Oct '18 20:03
    @quackquack said
    Many things that seem clear when you read the next of the Constitution aren't nearly as cut and dry in real life. For example the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech." Yet, there are Constitutional restrictions on speech nevertheless.
    For the record, I would certainly agree with you on point B.
    Sure, but the "freedom of speech" always meant that certain restrictions were allowed. If the text had said "Congress shall make no law ...................... abridging speech" it would be a different kettle of fish.
  3. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81770
    30 Oct '18 20:07
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

    That's it in a nutshell...have these illegals legally renounced their citizenship of their home country?
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Oct '18 20:212 edits
    @mott-the-hoople said
    "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

    That's it in a nutshell...have these illegals legally renounced their citizenship of their home country?
    Children born in the US are citizens of this country (which is normally their "home country" ). Anybody in the US is subject to its jurisdiction (we prosecute undocumented immigrants for crimes) except the few exceptions given in the Ho article (basically diplomats and foreign soldiers).
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Oct '18 20:44
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-14th-amendment

    "Trump suggests he will end birthright citizenship with executive order
    President falsely claimed US is ‘the only country in the world’ to endow the right
    and that he would move to sign order ending it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    "a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born
    in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent
    domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but
    not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2]
    This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the
    Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."

    Some racist Americans apparently believe that the 1898 Supreme Court wrongly
    decided this case and may hope that a 21st century Supreme Court will overturn it.
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57068
    30 Oct '18 21:32
    @moonbus said
    Not all countries grant citizenship to those born in a certain place. Some countries grant citizenship based on the nationality of one or more of the parents, no matter where the babe comes down the chute.
    Obviously.
    But if you can’t say I’m X because I was born there, then the whole point of having place of birth in your passport is completely pointless.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    30 Oct '18 22:101 edit
    @shavixmir said
    What the hell is a nationality if it isn’t the bloody country you’re born in?
    These are migrants who are already citizens of another country.

    What if they are in an air plane born over the US?

    Hmm?
  8. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    30 Oct '18 22:151 edit
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executive order that would nullify the long-accepted constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States, his latest attention-grabbing maneuver days before midterm congressional elections as he has sought to activate his base by vowing to clamp down on immigrants and immigration.


    Shows what you know. The one and only inviolable right given in the constitution is the right to bear arms - including but not limited to assault weapons.

    In fact, at least 30 other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.

    Shows what you know. That's clearly fake news:

    1) Trump doesn't lie.
    2) Therefore it's fake news.

    It's basic logic that any idiot can understand.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Oct '18 22:21
    @whodey said
    These are migrants.

    What if they are in an air plane born over the US?

    Hmm?
    At the moment of birth, a child isn't a "migrant" i.e. a worker who moves from place to place to do seasonal work.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    30 Oct '18 22:22
    @no1marauder said
    At the moment of birth, a child isn't a "migrant" i.e. a worker who moves from place to place to do seasonal work.
    So if someone is born in US air space in a plane does that make them a US citizen as well?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Oct '18 22:26
    @whodey said
    These are migrants who are already citizens of another country.

    What if they are in an air plane born over the US?

    Hmm?
    If a baby is born in American airspace it is a U.S. citizen.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nationality-in-question-after-baby-born-over-international-waters-on-flight-from-philippines-to-us
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Oct '18 22:46
    @whodey said
    These are migrants who are already citizens of another country.

    What if they are in an air plane born over the US?

    Hmm?
    How on Earth can someone move to a different place when they haven't even been born yet?
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    30 Oct '18 22:501 edit
    @no1marauder said
    If a baby is born in American airspace it is a U.S. citizen.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nationality-in-question-after-baby-born-over-international-waters-on-flight-from-philippines-to-us
    Unbelievable, Why am I not surprised?

    Why does one have to be born? Why not just make them a US citizen if they are in US air space?
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Oct '18 23:21
    @whodey said
    Unbelievable, Why am I not surprised?

    Why does one have to be born? Why not just make them a US citizen if they are in US air space?
    Maybe you should read the Constitution and then its provisions wouldn't come as such a shock to you.
  15. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20386
    30 Oct '18 23:35
    Check out this quip, though, if we want to talk about original intent and what was on the minds of those who were ratifying it:

    The U.S. Senate record of debate on the birthright citizenship clause shows that Republican Jacob Howard proposed it on May 30, 1866. In his opening statement about this matter, he said:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.


    https://www.justfactsdaily.com/birthright-citizenship-debate/

    Pretty clear what was originally meant -- this was not meant ever to apply beyond the scope of black slaves. Indeed, it was meant only to apply to people who are the children of citizens -- not foreigners, aliens, or even legally present diplomats and the likes.
Back to Top