Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Contrary to what Liberals would have us believe, this amendment
DOES NOT confer automatic citizenship on anyone born here. At least one parent has to be a citizen, or a legal resident. NOT a temporary visitor.
The Amendment consists of five parts; the first being the one in question. "All persons born in the US and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof... This does not nor was it ever intended to mean anyone born here to anybody. The author of the first section, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically stated that the Amendment was not meant to apply to foreigners. There have been two SCOTUS cases in particular that address this, the first is
Elk v Wilkins 1884, in which John Elk was ruled to be NOT a citizen even though he was born here to parents who were born here because
his parents were never citizens.The second is
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, in which the SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, since his parents were, NOT temporary visitors, but
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the United States.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizenshttp://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649Anyone who claims that the 14th grants blanket citizenship to anyone born here to anyone is either a liar with an agenda, or is badly misinformed, with or without an agenda.
Loki wrote:
Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Contrary to what Liberals would have us believe, this amendment
DOES NOT confer automatic citizenship on anyone born here. At least one parent has to be a citizen, or a legal resident. NOT a temporary visitor.
The Amendment consists of five parts; the first being the one in question. "All persons born in the US and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof... This does not nor was it ever intended to mean anyone born here to anybody. The author of the first section, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically stated that the Amendment was not meant to apply to foreigners. There have been two SCOTUS cases in particular that address this, the first is
Elk v Wilkins 1884, in which John Elk was ruled to be NOT a citizen even though he was born here to parents who were born here because
his parents were never citizens.The second is
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, in which the SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, since his parents were, NOT temporary visitors, but
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the United States.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizenshttp://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649Anyone who claims that the 14th grants blanket citizenship to anyone born here to anyone is either a liar with an agenda, or is badly misinformed, with or without an agenda.
Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Cont... (
show quote)
Off topic, Loki, but...Did you send a PM yesterday
It appeared to be from you, but also appeared to be a repeat of one from several months ago. In any event, I responded as best I could.
Have a great day, my friend.
Loki wrote:
Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Contrary to what Liberals would have us believe, this amendment
DOES NOT confer automatic citizenship on anyone born here. At least one parent has to be a citizen, or a legal resident. NOT a temporary visitor.
The Amendment consists of five parts; the first being the one in question. "All persons born in the US and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof... This does not nor was it ever intended to mean anyone born here to anybody. The author of the first section, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically stated that the Amendment was not meant to apply to foreigners. There have been two SCOTUS cases in particular that address this, the first is
Elk v Wilkins 1884, in which John Elk was ruled to be NOT a citizen even though he was born here to parents who were born here because
his parents were never citizens.The second is
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, in which the SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, since his parents were, NOT temporary visitors, but
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the United States.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizenshttp://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649Anyone who claims that the 14th grants blanket citizenship to anyone born here to anyone is either a liar with an agenda, or is badly misinformed, with or without an agenda.
Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Cont... (
show quote)
So what's new. No matter what part of the Constitution you're talking about these wastes of good dirt are going to try to read something into it that isn't there.
The ultimate goal of the democrat party considering their losses in State, Local, White House and both the upper and lower chambers of the House are desperate for open borders in hopes of enticing illegals to vote for their party through welfare and liberal social programs. They are still in denial of their loss last November and are eager to open our sovereign nation's borders to this demographic in hopes of regaining power. Fortunately most intelligent voters see through this charade by the left as nothing more than attempt to gain a voting advantage through illegal aliens.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.