Smedley_buzkill

If you want to impact the tidal wave of i******s entering this country, start with the original intent of the 14th Amendment. It does not require a Constitutional Amendment, as some i***ts would have you believe. It merely requires enforcement of the 14th Amendment that was ratified in 1868.
In order to understand you must first realize that the 14th Amendment was a direct result of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This Act stated the following:


Civil Rights Act of 1866
CHAP. XXXI.—An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their
Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of s***ery
or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to
make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall
be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
This Act was vetoed by then President Andrew Johnson, whose veto was promptly overridden by Congress. In order to preclude further executive branch meddling, the Act was made into a Constitutional Amendment, with basically the same intent as the original Act.
Here are the verbatim comments of the men who actually WROTE section 1 of the Amendment...

Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This exchange supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866—excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals (that is, to resident aliens).
In the SCOTUS case of Elk v Wilkins 1884 the SCOTUS ruled that John Elk was NOT a birth citizen of the US since his parents were Indians, in exact agreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was still the law, by virtue of the veto override some 18 years earlier. If "all persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "all persons," then why were Indians, i******s, and foreign nationals excluded? Because they were NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the sense that a US citizen was. Had Indians been citizens there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which, some 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, granted them citizenship also.
Some proponents of birth citizenship for i******s point to the case of US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 in which Wong Kim Ark, a person born to Chinese parents in the US was indeed a birth citizen. The Court spelled out that the parents were LEGALLY in the US, and maintained a DOMICILE here. According to Black's Law Dictionary (1891 edition) "domicile" means a person's primary and permanent legal residence. In other words, the parents of Wong Kim Ark were the 1898 version of today's "permanent legal resident." How an i*****l a***n can maintain a "Permanent Legal Residence" in a country where he or she is trespassing is an interesting question that I will leave for Liberal Leg Humpers to answer.
To summarize... If "all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really meant "all persons" then Indians would have automatically been birth citizens and would not have needed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 If i*****l a***ns were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US they could be drafted, v**e, and be charged with and tried for treason. Just because you have to obey traffic laws does not make you "subject to the jurisdiction." The authors of section 1 of the 14th Amendment specifically stated that you must be subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the US for your child to be a birth citizen. Once more, Too many Democraps and Republicants depend on the donations from pro-illegal and pro-amnesty groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to keep their snouts in the taxpayers' trough for any meaningful action to be taken. There is no legal basis for granting citizenship to the children of i******s who were born here. There is a basis for granting citizenship to the children of permanent LEGAL residents.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Is actually quite bizarre that the US grants citizenship to the children of non citizens...

And it can be problematic at times...

Smedley_buzkill

It is a legal fiction that was never intended by the authors. The ONLY SCOTUS decisions in this matter involve the children of permanent legal residents or the past equivalent; who are practically citizens anyway. A permanent legal resident, unlike an extranjero illegal, can be drafted, can v**e, and can even legally purchase firearms. The only viable reason I can see for this travesty is the amount of money donated by groups who stand to gain from birth citizenship for the children of i******s.

elledee

I wonder how many anchor babies are staying at Peelosi's hammer house

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

Shameful calling them "anchor babies". You who claim that all babies must be cared for and how a******n should be outlawed. Wonder if you'd have the guts to say that to their faces? Probably not.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

That's right...
Not only am I against murdering babies...
I am also all for the parents being the ones to support them...
Brutal...
(it's called "personal responsibility")

American Vet

Nothing wrong with that title. And the writer makes no claim about not 'caring' for them.

Typical dishonest ELWNJ tactic - to imply something that isn't there.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

Duh, does that include Uyghurs and other minorities?

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

I said nothing about the title. Typical illiterate response

American Vet

Sure you did. Shameful calling them "anchor babies". Anchor babies is a title (an identifying name given to....). You can easily access a dictionary to help you.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

Try re-reading to whom I replied? You can do that right?

American Vet

LOL

Pathetic attempt at diverting.

It doesn't matter to whom you replied - when you are wrong, you are wrong.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

What's wrong with "anchor Babies"? Anchor is not a bad or derogatory word. Oh forgot, l*****t can change meaning of words at their pleasure!

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

No because you can't comprehend anyway

American Vet

LOL

Back home they call that 'tuck tail and run'......