Birthright citizenship

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Really? Should this even be a question?

probably safe to assume that laws, rights and privileges such as these are intended for those obeying our laws and not for those not obeying our laws

[wdmso]

Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment

Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this.

This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP


funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment

Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this.

This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP


funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking

wrong. we know that the 14th amendment was crafted to apply to newly freed slaves. period. the senator who wrote the amendment, said it very explicitly when he introduced the amendment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong. we know that the 14th amendment was crafted to apply to newly freed slaves. period. the senator who wrote the amendment, said it very explicitly when he introduced the amendment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the 2a was when arms were muskets ... you can't have it both ways are only slaves only mentioned in the 14th amendment ?? if not you have no argument

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and the 2a was when arms were muskets ... you can't have it both ways are only slaves only mentioned in the 14th amendment ?? if not you have no argument

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

slaves didn't sneak into the country stupid

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and the 2a was when arms were muskets ... you can't have it both ways are only slaves only mentioned in the 14th amendment ?? if not you have no argument

hey i agree with you that we need some limitations to what’s available. i’m not asking to have it both ways...many conservatives do, i’m not one of them. Fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

hey i agree with you that we need some limitations to what’s available. i’m not asking to have it both ways...many conservatives do, i’m not one of them. Fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there's that and there's also the fact you may have your right to bear arms infringed upon if you commit a crime ...similarly if you break in to the country you and your offspring should not get citizenship, do not pass go and do not collect $100...if you come in by legal means and you want your child to be an American citizen .....that' s perfectly cool..though I'd think you'd want your kids to have the same citizenship as you.... it seems as though some of the socialist utopias around the world have or are working to ban that as well

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and the 2a was when arms were muskets ... you can't have it both ways are only slaves only mentioned in the 14th amendment ?? if not you have no argument

You are wrong again. "Arms" is a general term applied to all manner of weapons that can be used offensively or defensively. "Arms" at the time of constitutional ratification did not mean "muskets." At that time there were a great variety of arms--knives of all kinds including bayonets, axes, hammers, bow and arrow, spear, cannon, etc. Many types of arms existed throughout history before the Constitution. The term "arms" as used in the Constitution very well defines the weapons of today.

"Slave" is a more specific term, but as used in the Constitution, it would be anyone who is forced to do labor against his will, is not free to come and go at will, and who is held in bondage purely at the will of a master and whose life is in the hands of that master. What was considered a slave then would be considered a slave today.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment

Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this.

This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP


funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking

Wrong again. It is exactly an application of the text "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not a reinterpretation of it. That phrase was inserted into the 14A separately written from the exclusion of children of various foreign diplomats. Clearly, it is separate from the diplomats and official foreign government representatives. So the phrase encompasses ALL those who in some way are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, which would include entrants who have not been naturalized.

That same meaning applies today. Naturalization then, as now, did not occur immediately upon entry. Then it was typically a matter of years in residence. Today it also requires some form of official documentation. In neither instance would someone crossing the border without official permission immediately become a citizen. So would still be under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. So any baby of theirs born in that time before naturalization would be born of those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but to the jurisdiction of another country, at least until they were naturalized.