TOP DEM PROF SAYS "I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY POLITICIAN WITH BETTER IMMIGRATION PLAN!"

[sirs]

People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.

Yes, that's how the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, and abused, since its intent was never to include anyone here illegally, since they are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of this country.

The 14th Amendment does not state that the status of parents is in any way involved in the fact that anyone born here is a citizen.

We had no immigration policy when the 14th was passed.  The 14th was largely facilitated by the Civil War, to make sure that people wouldn't try to claim that any children born to the parents of freed slaves, wouldn't then be claimed as slaves again.  It had nothing to do with immigration

The Court could very easily simply refuse to hear any case involving anyone born here not being a citizen, which would mean that thew Wong case would be the precedent.

OR.....they could hear the case, recognizing that this is a different dynamic, since the wording of the 14th was very clear, and could be applied to the Wong case, while any subsequent case involving ILLEGAL foreigners' children was never intended to be included in the 14th

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you are born here, you are a citizen, period. Even if sirs does not think so.
Watch and see how all the nonsense you are spewing is simply not true.
This is not up to you, it is not up to me, but it is precisely what the Supreme Court said it was in 1898.
You can also see the comments made when Congress passed the 14th Amendment. It was clear to them at that time that born here=citizen, regardless of who the parents were, whether the person was a gypsy or an Oriental or whatever.

The discussions that I posted make this clear to me, but you wish to believe in a universe of your own device.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It is insane to allow anchor babies and whatever we need to do to halt this non-sense should be done.

[sirs]

If you are born here, you are a citizen, period. Even if sirs does not think so.

I realize this insidious need to argue issues points no one is making....in this case, how sirs supposedly has proclaimed that the 14th only applies to legal immigrants, and that because I say it, makes it some fact.  That's a decision ONLY  the Supreme Court can make legal.  I can opine all I want, just as you can spew how the 2nd amendment was all about hunting slaves with muskets.  But I never claimed or even inferred that it was "up to me".  It's simply a conclusion I've made, based on the clear wording of the 14th.

And AT THE TIME, the amendment was ratified, WE HAD NO IMMIGRATION POLICY, so that born here was referring to those born to people who had come here either legally, or by force, such as the slaves were. 

So, we simply need the Supreme Court to rule on the current Federal statute to then make it "settled law", because until then, its anything but

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is settled law because it was settled in 1898. That was 117 years ago, time enough for anything to settle. People have been born to all sorts of people, legal and illegal, lived their entire lives as citizens and died as citizens during the time that has passed. It will do no good to flail uselessly about, no one will lose their citizenship because their experience did not conform to the strange beliefs that the rightwing ratbastards have drummed into your mind.

The Supremes would have to UNSETTLE this to make it conform to your beliefs, and I do not see that happening this year or next, and for every year that passes this will become less likely, as will any constitutional amendment such have been waiting unsupported in the nether regions of Congress.

It would be okay by me if an amendment were passed declaring that no one who was born here and did not spend the first two years of his/her life here before being eligible to apply for citizenship, but I do not see that happening.

[sirs]

Yes, it is settled.....FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS/FOREIGNERS. 

What's not settled is the 14th's application to those who are not completely subect to the jurisdiction of this country....i.e.....ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/FOREIGNERS

So no, SCOTUS doesn't have to unsettle anything related to the Wong case.  That ruling was consistent with the wording of the 14th. 

And no, it wouldn't require an Constitutional Amendment either, since it merely requires SCOTUS to more consisely interpret the current Federal statute as it relates to the clear wording of the 14th

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Wait and see, you are simply wrong.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It would be okay by me if an amendment were passed declaring that no one who was born here and did not spend the first two years of his/her life here before being eligible to apply for citizenship....

Well I agree with that XO.

[sirs]

Wait and see, you are simply wrong.

And given your track record of proclamations & accusations, makes me all giddy inside with anticipation

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am the one that predicted that the Afghanistan invasion was likely to last for far too long, and that Bush's Iraq War would reveal no WMD's and would be an expensive disaster.

[sirs]

Well, 1 out of 1000+ isn't bad I suppose.  Even a broken clock is more often correct than you've demonstrated yourself to be in claim after claim after claim after claim

[Plane]

People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.

Yes, that's how the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, and abused, since its intent was never to include anyone here illegally, since they are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of this country

     I think there is a problem with the definition of "jurisdiction" in this context.
     Isn't a person who is standing, even for a short period, on the territory of the USA subject to the jurisdiction that governs that territory?

[sirs]

Absolutely....as in they are supposed to abide by any law, be it local, country, state, or Federal.  If they don't, they're reprimanded by law enforcement......unless of course you reside in a sanctuary city.  Nor is one who has just walked onto the territory obligated to the jurisdiction of jury duty, or able to vote. 

In other words, the Supreme Court is necessary to interpret the existing Federal statute, as it relates to illegal immigrants & the 14th amendment

[Plane]

  I do not disapprove of birthright citizenship, even though it does cause problems , there doesn't seem to be a better policy ready to use.

     In my opinion , a person is under the jurisdiction of the USA whenever she is within the part of the world in which this person must obey US law, it is corollary to this that US law must be the jurisdiction of a persons birth when the person is born in US jurisdiction.

     A person giving birth does not gain the rights of a citizen , but the infant being born does.

      This is exploitable for people who want to immigrate and find a loophole in our standing laws, this can be a problem.

       But doesn't it demonstrate that our immigration laws are too onerous if circumventing them is worth dedicating a child to this purpose?

        I hope that it won't be too long before immigration laws can be revamped , with good sense and efficacy in mind .

        When a person is healthy and honest and strong and smart , we should be inviting them in , with incentive.

         

[Christians4LessGvt]

I do not disapprove of birthright citizenship, even though it does cause problems ,
there doesn't seem to be a better policy ready to use.

Uh?
At least one of the child's parents should be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

None of these countries have "birthright citizenship" and neither should we.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda,
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom

Rasmussen Reports Polling Data:
April 1-2, 2015
"Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?"

Yes: 38%
No: 54%