Show of Hands

But his father was.

Wait, what happened?

That’s weird. Why did democrats change?

x.com/mjtruthultra/status/2039744563615519191?s=46

Democrat Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation in 1993 to end Birthright Citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

"No sane country would do that — No sane country would give illegals citizenship"

“If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. Citizenship and a guarantee to have full access to all public and social services this society provides.”

The dems didn't change, but Reid did. As for the rest of the Dems, this bill never made it out of subcommittee. In other words, neither the Dem majority nor the GOP minority supported it's moving forward.

⚡

It’s to bad. We really should have ended birther tourism. It’s just wrong. Making slaves citizens was never intended to make surrogacy children legal citizens born here. What a scam.

Give the little latino baby citizenship. We need more citizens.

I thought that you were worried about overpopulation. What happened. Did you start believing Elon?

I’ll make a deal with you. You let in all the catholic Hispanics without welfare or benefits and block all Islamics and we can make America great again. Deal?

Congress could define the jurisdiction thereof. Article 5 makes it clear that they decide.

youtu.be/-fk8dLzn72g?si=NWwwu_voCbdnIUCj

BAD - this has been asked and answered. Trump's lunacy will absolutely fail.

And it should.

⚡

I would never make that deal. And I've never said the US has an overpopulation problem.

There are now a million Chinese people who vote from China

I was almost one of them. There are Americans abroad that vote.

Americans that lived here but retired abroad? Yes. Not birther Chinese and Russians who will vote from there and change our elections.

Change our elections? Lol. And what do you mean retired? Only retired people can live abroad?

The 14th is very clear that you are a citizen if you are born here.

So is the second amendment. Stop infringing.

No, it is not.

The 2nd amendment is actually pretty explicit in saying we have the right to bear arms for the sake of being able to form a militia. No mention of any other reasons to have a gun. No hunting, no self defense, no threatening kids who get too close to your lawn.

But Bad, I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I’m in favor of common sense gun control, not outright banning guns altogether. I think it’s fine for people to have guns, but also I think we need to make sure unsafe people are not given weapons of such power as guns. After all, the 2nd says the purpose of bearing arms is to be able to form a well-regulated militia, and I firmly believe well-regulated includes having gun owners be disciplined, knowledgeable about the weapon, responsible, and safe to have the weapon. Hence, gun control.

Then the constitution must be amended to exclude birth tourism.

No, it’s interpretation. Similar to it depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Well. I certainly wish that they had put it in there. But I suppose they didn’t realize that there would be a million surrogate babies that were born here and now live in China. They vote in China.

I don’t think it was meant for birth tourism

I don't either, but that's a problem for border control and/or a new amendment.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Why is that there?

Well that's where there's disagreement, no?

To a lay person and apparently the majority of judges, it would seem why the children of diplomats are exempt since they have immunity.

Mostly conservatives say "jurisdiction" has something to do with drafting, social security numbers and so on.

Do you know the history behind that language? Real question

“Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by their citizenship under Article IV, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define who was a United States citizen. Otherwise, a state could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc., in any state they ventured into. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to any other government when naturalized or born.”

If you owe an allegiance to any other government then you aren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States. Seems pretty simple.

What's that a quote from?

I personally disagree with that, but I'm not a lawyer.

www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule, it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.”

“Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes, the same Congress that had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.“

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said, “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

“Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”


“Temporary sojourners are individuals who live in a place that is not their own for a limited time, often relying on the hospitality of the local community. This concept is rooted in biblical traditions, where sojourners are seen as strangers or foreigners in a land, reflecting a broader theme of pilgrimage and transience in life.”

It sounds like birth tourism was not allowed to make citizens.

I'll read that tomorrow, but looking at it briefly, allegiance is the word I was looking for in my first response about conservatives. Thanks for sending that.

I would also say if allegiance was so important and a used, known and common word at the time, why not use that word. And even if they had, simply being a citizen of another country doesn't mean that you don't intend on being a citizen of the US, so the transient alien sentiment makes no sense to me because would you bestow citizenship only if the parents promise to stay? Who determines that?

I’m they had this same debate 150 years ago.

I'm also confused on why definitions from Jefferson are used to explain the words of the Congress 40/50 years after his death. They construe it to seem like he was an adviser.

Also, people owing allegiances to two different countries can still be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. that's something that's always confused me about that argument. But like I said, I'm no lawyer.

Why is it so important to you that illegal aliens can come here and have babies and stay. They’re only two countries that aren’t Third World that do that.

That’s weird. Why did democrats change?

x.com/mjtruthultra/status/2039744563615519191?s=46

Democrat Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation in 1993 to end Birthright Citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

"No sane country would do that — No sane country would give illegals citizenship"

“If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. Citizenship and a guarantee to have full access to all public and social services this society provides”.

Why not?

1) The child was born here in America
2) The child was born here in America
3) The child was born here in America
I don’t care what other countries do, I thought we were the greatest country on earth, I thought we did things differently. Land of the free!

I don’t think it was meant for birth tourism

There are now people in China who did not grow up here that vote. Is that right?

I don’t think it was meant for birth tourism. I don’t think that the constitution says that.

I don’t think it was meant for birth tourism

Which part of the 14th amendment makes that clear?

Which part of the 14th amendment was it made clear that it was intended to allow foreigners to game our system?

“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.”

If you don’t like the amendment, you have to pass a new amendment…

I don’t think it was meant for birth tourism

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Why is that there?

It doesn’t matter what you think.

It means they are subject to US law… in what way does that help Trump’s case?

Regardless of how it gets fixed (Supreme Court or Congress) We as Americans are a bunch of retards for allowing foreigners to use us in this manner.

Bad, it excludes people who weren’t seen as being under the authority of the US gov’t, like foreign diplomats and native americans (at the time they were excluded since their tribal lands were treated as foreign states)

☝️