Citizens or Not?

[Guest]

Donald Trump's (actually written by Jeff Sessions) immigration plan says that children born to undocumented immigrants in the US are not US citizens.

Doesn't Article I of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution say they are citizens?

This would be challenged quickly and the Supreme Court would likely render a swift ruling. How would that ruling go?

[Guest]

They'd tell Sessions YOU'RE FIRED and Trump will change the subject.

[Guest]

People born in the United States are citizens. What Trump suggests is that since parents of such children will be deported then it follows they will not want to break up their families; albeit it is possible illegal parents can leave their kids with relatives who came here legally.

However this entire discussion is futile because it will never come to pass. heck politicians can't even seem to agree to terms on securing the border.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

If Trump's plan had been in place, neither Jindal, Rubio, Cruz or Santorum would be US citizens.

[Guest]

People born in the United States are citizens. What Trump suggests is that since parents of such children will be deported then it follows they will not want to break up their families; albeit it is possible illegal parents can leave their kids with relatives who came here legally.:


No, you are wrong. Read Trump's immigration plan and it specifically states that birthright citizenship will be stopped.

Wouldn't that take a constitutional amendment to achieve?

[Guest]

My guess is that the Supreme Court decision would be 8-1 saying the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the USA regardless of the legal status of the parents.

The one dissent vote would probably be Clarence Thomas.

[Guest]

Not all people born in the US are automatically US citizens. there are exceptions to the 14th.

[Guest]

How does Trump's plan help with the Hispanic vote? Most experts say in order for the GOP to win in 2016, they must get 40% of that vote. George Bush got 40%, McCain got 30% and Romney got 25%. Anyone see a pattern developing here?

[Guest]

Since Trump considers President Obama to be an "illegal" since he was not born in the USA, would his immigration plan also require the President to leave the country?

[Guest]

Since Trump considers President Obama to be an "illegal" since he was not born in the USA, would his immigration plan also require the President to leave the country?

Lot a good that would do us now. The horses are already out of the barn. Closing the door doesn't do any good. How much damage can Obama do once he leaves office? I mean, the only thing he is qualified for is hosting SNL. He is a comedian after all. No one takes him seriously even now.

[Guest]

The exceptions to the 14th amendment are children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens. It would take another amendment to rescind the 14th amendment.

Frequently Asked Questions: Defending Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/frequently-asked-questions-defending-citizenship-under-14th-amendment-us-constitution)

[Guest]

If Trump's plan had been in place, neither Jindal, Rubio, Cruz or Santorum would be US citizens.

Oh really, I don't believe that is a true statement! Since their parents or grandparents entered legally!

[Guest]

No one takes President Obama seriously. Then, what is the big deal about the Iran agreement. He isn't serious about vetoing Republican's opposition to the agreement. Just vote no on the agreement, why pretend that you are looking at all the options? As soon as he put it forward, the Republicans were against it. Why wait? No one is going to believe the illusion the Republicans are trying to put forward. That they actually care about anything, but themselves.

[Guest]

No one takes President Obama seriously. Then, what is the big deal about the Iran agreement. He isn't serious about vetoing Republican's opposition to the agreement. Just vote no on the agreement, why pretend that you are looking at all the options? As soon as he put it forward, the Republicans were against it. Why wait? No one is going to believe the illusion the Republicans are trying to put forward. That they actually care about anything, but themselves.
What has your comment got to do with OP's original post?

[Guest]

No one takes President Obama seriously. Then, what is the big deal about the Iran agreement. He isn't serious about vetoing Republican's opposition to the agreement. Just vote no on the agreement, why pretend that you are looking at all the options? As soon as he put it forward, the Republicans were against it. Why wait? No one is going to believe the illusion the Republicans are trying to put forward. That they actually care about anything, but themselves.


Well, I guess we know where you stand.

[Guest]

When did Donald's mother become a citizen?:ohdear:

[Guest]

No one takes President Obama seriously. Then, what is the big deal about the Iran agreement. He isn't serious about vetoing Republican's opposition to the agreement. Just vote no on the agreement, why pretend that you are looking at all the options? As soon as he put it forward, the Republicans were against it. Why wait? No one is going to believe the illusion the Republicans are trying to put forward. That they actually care about anything, but themselves.

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act.

No matter what happens, President Obama has only one person to blame for both the continuing distrust on the Affordable Care Act and the Iran deal.

Back in 2014, there was an opinion piece that I read and concur with. I looked and finally was able to pin it down.

It speaks to our President never asking for advice and feeling that his opinion is the only opinion and is always correct.

A few "outages" from that piece, which is on the Iran deal, but you can substitute the Affordable Care act as well...

"President Obama’s insistence on consulting largely with himself on the world’s most complex issues is well known. Most troublesome for the outcome with Iran is his rejection of needed support from Congress."

This insistence was apparent in the Affordable Care ramp up. He did not want any input at all and was forced to have a dog and pony show on CSPAN, in which he mocked Republicans PUBLICLY. I designated that day that the was the end of any cooperation between the parties, as he manifested that it was "his way or the highway"

While negotiations were on going in 2014 and concessions were being made...

"Throughout the negotiations, however, the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to weaken the U.S. negotiating hand. Earlier this year, the White House twisted arms in the Senate to abandon a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 60 of the chamber’s 100 legislators, that put in place stronger sanctions against Iran in case those talks failed.

Despite Mr. Obama’s opposition, the Senate had led the push to hit Iran’s economy harder, forcing the regime to the table. Noting Iran’s opposition to this year’s sanctions bill, Administration officials said they wanted to send a goodwill gesture to Tehran. As the summer deadline extension showed, the Iranians offered nothing in return."


Those who look at our world and think that NOBODY but the President can be correct, are doing a real disservice to themselves, because not only are they totally and freely ignoring what has happened in this country for six years but making the situation much more diverse than it need be,

Obama, Congress and Iran - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-congress-and-iran-1413242627)

When John Kerry appeared before Congress, he was asked by a democrat, Representative Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) if the LAW will be followed by the administration if the veto is overridden, which is probably not going to happen.

But his response was telling in that he would not commit without consulting with the President. Sherman pressed in shock and asked him if he were implying that the LAW would not be followed by the President. Kerry would not commit.

If you need a link to that, either google or ask. I is a video on several sites.

The key is this President has made this mess with Democrats and Republicans and has even offended many....well, lets say LOTS within his party with his idea that HE and only HE....not the law...he should have the final say on everything.

We need in the next election and this will be my guide, a statesman and someone who understands the meaning of compromise and hearing others ideas and also understanding this is not someone's kingdom

Republicans will criticize Democrats...Democrats will criticize Republicans, but the last 6 years the cadence has picked up. I just suggest you consider what I am saying. There is a lot of information to bolster this and when this administration is done, there will be many many books written about how this President, single handily has widened the crevice of understanding, not only in politics but in race and other areas. And he has only himself to blame

[Guest]

How does Trump's plan help with the Hispanic vote? Most experts say in order for the GOP to win in 2016, they must get 40% of that vote. George Bush got 40%, McCain got 30% and Romney got 25%. Anyone see a pattern developing here?

Well, since Hilary won't be able to get the Independent vote, assuming that she is still in the running and not in jail, then it isn't about the Latin vote so much. If all the Republicans vote Republican and the Independents vote Republican by a majority, then a Democrat could conceivably have the Latin vote and still not win the election. After all, I doubt Hilary will get much of a black turnout for her. She can incite them all she wants, but she might make them angry but not stupid enough to vote for her. NO ONE trusts her, let alone the black voter. And, suppose Rubio or Cruz are nominated. Do you think the Latin voter is going to vote for Hilary? Did the blacks vote for McCain? I doubt that Trump will be the nominee.

[Guest]

Well, since Hilary won't be able to get the Independent vote, assuming that she is still in the running and not in jail, then it isn't about the Latin vote so much. If all the Republicans vote Republican and the Independents vote Republican by a majority, then a Democrat could conceivably have the Latin vote and still not win the election. After all, I doubt Hilary will get much of a black turnout for her. She can incite them all she wants, but she might make them angry but not stupid enough to vote for her. NO ONE trusts her, let alone the black voter. And, suppose Rubio or Cruz are nominated. Do you think the Latin voter is going to vote for Hilary? Did the blacks vote for McCain? I doubt that Trump will be the nominee.

And here is a surprise for the trophy seeking, party loving folks.

Some candidates are running for President because they believe in things and are not pandering for votes.

Some on here keep posting when a candidate speaks from the heart.....well, how can he/she get that vote.....you know, winning the trophy is not always the goal. Trying to convince folks to support your plans to make the country better is a better goal.

I realize that is foreign to many, but I prefer those who speak from their heart and not with a copy of a poll in their hand.

Other night, a poster was flat out maligning a few candidates basically because they believed in something and she objected to that. I might not agree with them, but they have my instant respect.

[Guest]

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act.

No matter what happens, President Obama has only one person to blame for both the continuing distrust on the Affordable Care Act and the Iran deal.

Back in 2014, there was an opinion piece that I read and concur with. I looked and finally was able to pin it down.

It speaks to our President never asking for advice and feeling that his opinion is the only opinion and is always correct.

A few "outages" from that piece, which is on the Iran deal, but you can substitute the Affordable Care act as well...

"President Obama’s insistence on consulting largely with himself on the world’s most complex issues is well known. Most troublesome for the outcome with Iran is his rejection of needed support from Congress."

This insistence was apparent in the Affordable Care ramp up. He did not want any input at all and was forced to have a dog and pony show on CSPAN, in which he mocked Republicans PUBLICLY. I designated that day that the was the end of any cooperation between the parties, as he manifested that it was "his way or the highway"

While negotiations were on going in 2014 and concessions were being made...

"Throughout the negotiations, however, the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to weaken the U.S. negotiating hand. Earlier this year, the White House twisted arms in the Senate to abandon a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 60 of the chamber’s 100 legislators, that put in place stronger sanctions against Iran in case those talks failed.

Despite Mr. Obama’s opposition, the Senate had led the push to hit Iran’s economy harder, forcing the regime to the table. Noting Iran’s opposition to this year’s sanctions bill, Administration officials said they wanted to send a goodwill gesture to Tehran. As the summer deadline extension showed, the Iranians offered nothing in return."


Those who look at our world and think that NOBODY but the President can be correct, are doing a real disservice to themselves, because not only are they totally and freely ignoring what has happened in this country for six years but making the situation much more diverse than it need be,

Obama, Congress and Iran - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-congress-and-iran-1413242627)

When John Kerry appeared before Congress, he was asked by a democrat, Representative Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) if the LAW will be followed by the administration if the veto is overridden, which is probably not going to happen.

But his response was telling in that he would not commit without consulting with the President. Sherman pressed in shock and asked him if he were implying that the LAW would not be followed by the President. Kerry would not commit.

If you need a link to that, either google or ask. I is a video on several sites.

The key is this President has made this mess with Democrats and Republicans and has even offended many....well, lets say LOTS within:blahblahblah::blahblahblah: his party with his idea that HE and only HE....not the law...he should have the final say on everything.

We need in the next election and this will be my guide, a statesman and someone who understands the meaning of compromise and hearing others ideas and also understanding this is not someone's kingdom

Republicans will criticize Democrats...Democrats will criticize Republicans, but the last 6 years the cadence has picked up. I just suggest you consider what I am saying:blahblahblah:. There is a lot of information :blahblahblah:to bolster this and when this administration is done, there will be many many books written about how this President, single handily has widened the crevice:blahblahblah: of understanding, not only in politics but in race and other areas. And he has only himself to blame


What the heck does your rambling rant have to do with the original post?

If you want to start a new thread, do so, but stay on topic.

[Guest]

What the heck does your rambling rant have to do with the original post?

If you want to start a new thread, do so, but stay on topic.

Just responding to posts about voting blocks. But you have fun now !!

[Guest]

Just responding to posts about voting blocks. :ohdear: But you have fun now !:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah:!

"Voting blocs". Look it up.

[Guest]

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act

I know Republicans only watch Fox News. If you watched other news stations, you wouldn't make this comparison. This week MSNBC raked the Republicans over the coals concerning the dire consequences Boehner, McConnell, and others predicted would happen to the economy, and the health care industry due to ACA. They were proven wrong on everything. They were so wrong that they aren't even talking about it now.

If you haven't noticed, ACA doesn't come up much except by Republican candidates, who never provide any great detail into how they would replace it.

If the Iran agreement turns out to be the same disaster(LOL) as ACA, it will go in history as a great agreement. Sorry, I changed the subject. You were on such a roll talking about Trump's stupidness.

[Guest]

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act

I know Republicans only watch Fox News. If you watched other news stations, you wouldn't make this comparison. This week MSNBC raked the Republicans over the coals concerning the dire consequences Boehner, McConnell, and others predicted would happen to the economy, and the health care industry due to ACA. They were proven wrong on everything. They were so wrong that they aren't even talking about it now.

If you haven't noticed, ACA doesn't come up much except by Republican candidates, who never provide any great detail into how they would replac,e it.

If the Iran agreement turns out to be the same disaster(LOL) as ACA, it will go in history as a great agreement. Sorry, I changed the subject. You were on such a roll talking about Trump's stupidness.

BS!

[Guest]

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act

I know Republicans only watch Fox News. If you watched other news stations, you wouldn't make this comparison. This week MSNBC raked the Republicans over the coals concerning the dire consequences Boehner, McConnell, and others predicted would happen to the economy, and the health care industry due to ACA. They were proven wrong on everything. They were so wrong that they aren't even talking about it now.

If you haven't noticed, ACA doesn't come up much except by Republican candidates, who never provide any great detail into how they would replace it.

If the Iran agreement turns out to be the same disaster(LOL) as ACA, it will go in history as a great agreement. Sorry, I changed the subject. You were on such a roll talking about Trump's stupidness.

Wrong. Says something when you attempt to use MSNBC as a reference. Lowest rated network out there. :1rotfl:

[Guest]

When did Donald's mother become a citizen?:ohdear:

Are you a citizen?

[Guest]

This Iran situation is simply a repeat of the Affordable Care Act

I know Republicans only watch Fox News. If you watched other news stations, you wouldn't make this comparison. This week MSNBC raked the Republicans over the coals concerning the dire consequences Boehner, McConnell, and others predicted would happen to the economy, and the health care industry due to ACA. They were proven wrong on everything. They were so wrong that they aren't even talking about it now.

If you haven't noticed, ACA doesn't come up much except by Republican candidates, who never provide any great detail into how they would replace it.

If the Iran agreement turns out to be the same disaster(LOL) as ACA, it will go in history as a great agreement. Sorry, I changed the subject. You were on such a roll talking about Trump's stupidness.

Nothing to do with the subject. Go away troll.

[Guest]

The exceptions to the 14th amendment are children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens. It would take another amendment to rescind the 14th amendment.

Frequently Asked Questions: Defending Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/frequently-asked-questions-defending-citizenship-under-14th-amendment-us-constitution)

The supreme court could do it without an amendment.

[Guest]

This thread has gone useless!

[Guest]

If Trump's plan had been in place, neither Jindal, Rubio, Cruz or Santorum would be US citizens.

They came in legally ...what part of that do you find difficult to understand?

[Guest]

The supreme court could do it without an amendment.

No, they could not. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to take out an amendment.

Even IF they could, the current Court is a liberal sided Court. Probably the only justice that would vote in favor of removing the amendment is Clarence Thomas - and he is a loser.

[Guest]

No, they could not. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to take out an amendment.

Even IF they could, the current Court is a liberal sided Court. Probably the only justice that would vote in favor of removing the amendment is Clarence Thomas - and he is a loser.

RACIST remark!! :police:

[Guest]

RACIST remark!! :police:

Just a loser that ......happens to be black!

[Guest]

Just a loser that ......happens to be black!

Ahh, I get it! It's OK, since you are a liberal, right? Liberals can't be racist. Not even when they insist on gov funding of Planned Parenthood, even though they killed more black babies last year than were born. Got it.

Sorry, I am guilty of diverting this time. Couldn't resist it. :D

[Guest]

Ahh, I get it! It's OK, since you are a liberal, right? Liberals can't be racist. Not even when they insist on gov funding of Planned Parenthood, even though they killed more black babies last year than were born. Got it.

Sorry, I am guilty of diverting this time. Couldn't resist it. :D

Who said you could come out of your racist troll hole? Get back underground.

It is a mother's choice to choose an abortion or not. The mother's choice is hers alone and is not up to a legislative body.

[Guest]

How does Trump's plan help with the Hispanic vote? Most experts say in order for the GOP to win in 2016, they must get 40% of that vote. George Bush got 40%, McCain got 30% and Romney got 25%. Anyone see a pattern developing here?

Dear Guest: The lack of Hispanic vote for Romney ( 25-27% have been quoted) did not sink him. What did was 4% white Republican voters who refused to vote. We can thank the Republican Establishment for that result.

Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

Since Trump considers President Obama to be an "illegal" since he was not born in the USA, would his immigration plan also require the President to leave the country?

Dear Guest: Be careful now progressive have taken "illegal alien" to be a trigger warning micro aggressive term along with anchor baby

People who spend years working to enter this country through proper channels should be incensed over this issue. And every time I hear Bush say it is an act of love it tells me emotion precedes intellect.

Mexico is now requiring Americans to present passports at the border so they know who is entering their country.....Go figure!

As to: Obama is his name and "illegality" is his game............"and I side with the majority worse president ever


Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

Who said you could come out of your racist troll hole? Get back underground.

It is a mother's choice to choose an abortion or not. The mother's choice is hers alone and is not up to a legislative body.

You didn't answer the question, but I think by that you have proven that you are not from here and indeed are a troll.

I never argued about the legality of abortion. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. That just makes it statutorily correct.

[Guest]

The term "Illegal Alien" is NOT a slur. It's a correct term that upsets the group that is trying to convince us that squatting on American land indicates residence/citizenship. They are criminals, thus the term "Illegal" and belonging to a foreign country so "alien." There is no slur in using a totally correct term. It would only be a slur if in fact, these foreign nationals came our country legally, in which case they would be legal aliens or in some cases if they were staying, then they would be immigrants. Another term would be "illegal immigrants" which would also be a proper term. Using a term such as "undocumented immigrant" is a misnomer when using it to describe a person that enters our country illegally. That term implies that person may or may not have come here legally but has yet to obtain proper residency paperwork.

So, the PC crowd can kiss my @** because if they don't understand the proper meaning of a term, then perhaps they need to go back to grade school.

We are a country of laws. Just because we have those that believe they are above the law (ie, the Clintons) does not change that fact. Without laws we become an anarchy. We have proper immigration laws. There is no statute of limitations on illegally entering our country. If a child is born in our country from an illegal alien, it is not our fault but the fault of the illegal parent. The child may stay, but the parent must leave. Sorry, we have laws. Same thing happens when a parent (U.S. citizen) breaks a law in our country. They go to jail and leave the child behind. I didn't cause them to break the law.

I believe that the Constitution was not written specifically for these cases. But, it was interpreted that way by the high and mighty Supremes, therefore law. If we want a different process, then we simply add a small amendment that states that children of illegals are not given citizenship by birth. Simple.

[Guest]

Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

[Guest]

Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

How do you know that they aren't going along with him on this? The ones that I know that stood in line for their right to enter the U.S. and then studied for their citizenship paperwork, agree with him.

Trump is just sounding off on issues that many of us would like addressed. I don't necessarily like him as a candidate and won't vote for him in the primary. But, if he is nominated, I will vote for him in the general. Who else would I vote for? Hilary, the criminal or Bernie the socialist? I don't think so. If Biden doesn't enter the fray, then the Dems have nothing to offer as an alternative.

[Guest]

Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

You would think that those who are able to vote would be saying "FINALLY" to what Trump is saying as they worked to become a citizen,

Most of the noise you here is from "professionals", i.e.. groups and activists.

[Guest]

You would think that those who are able to vote would be saying "FINALLY" to what Trump is saying as they worked to become a citizen,

Most of the noise you here is from "professionals", i.e.. groups and activists.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

Here is Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I don't think it needs to be repealed; it needs to be applied.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegal immigrants subject to US law? Not if they're here illegally. They are squatters.

A bit of history:

<snip>The Amendment was intended to give citizenship to the African-American former slaves and not to Indians. Government agencies (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior), and the courts (state, federal, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court) consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians. <snip>

"http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/617"

Sounds bizarre. The courts reasoning, at the time, was that Native Americans were tribal citizens, not American citizens. They weren't granted citizenship en masse until 1940.

[Guest]

Here is Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I don't think it needs to be repealed; it needs to be applied.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegal immigrants subject to US law? Not if they're here illegally. They are squatters.

A bit of history:

<snip>The Amendment was intended to give citizenship to the African-American former slaves and not to Indians. Government agencies (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior), and the courts (state, federal, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court) consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians. <snip>

"http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/617"

Sounds bizarre. The courts reasoning, at the time, was that Native Americans were tribal citizens, not American citizens. They weren't granted citizenship en masse until 1940.

Good post :thumbup:

[Guest]

Good post :thumbup:

Thanks. And yet, the thread is dropping like a rock. Go figger.

[Guest]

Ah yes, the TOTV Political Forum Constitutional scholars. What a bunch (otherwise known as the former Six Pac) these few people are!

Listen to Fox Noise and hear the pundits and talking heads. They know that the babies born in the USA to undocumented immigrants ARE US citizens by birthright.

I got a kick out of Rubio who said something has to be done about the pregnant women coming to the USA and having babies that are automatically US citizens - BUT HE HASN'T THOUGHT OF WHAT CAN BE DONE!

That quote was from an interview of Rubio and O'Reily.

So, save your blathering. Children of diplomats and foreign combatants are not subject to the "jurisdiction" wording but the children born to undocumented immigrants are - and they are US citizens just the same as the ridiculous former 6-Pac posters.

IF you can cite a Supreme Court decision that states that these children ARE NOT US citizens, put it out there.

[Guest]

Ah yes, the TOTV Political Forum Constitutional scholars. What a bunch (otherwise known as the former Six Pac) these few people are!

Listen to Fox Noise and hear the pundits and talking heads. They know that the babies born in the USA to undocumented immigrants ARE US citizens by birthright.

I got a kick out of Rubio who said something has to be done about the pregnant women coming to the USA and having babies that are automatically US citizens - BUT HE HASN'T THOUGHT OF WHAT CAN BE DONE!

That quote was from an interview of Rubio and O'Reily.

So, save your blathering. Children of diplomats and foreign combatants are not subject to the "jurisdiction" wording but the children born to undocumented immigrants are - and they are US citizens just the same as the ridiculous former 6-Pac posters.

IF you can cite a Supreme Court decision that states that these children ARE NOT US citizens, put it out there.

Really tired of all the innuendos here.....how about a real discussion.

There is an entire industry at some border towns simply delivering babies to women who come to these towns shortly before scheduled delivery.

And it is not just our souther border....

"The U.S. is one of the few nations where simply being born on its soil confers citizenship on a newborn. That policy has spawned a birth-tourism industry, in which pregnant foreigners flock to American hospitals to secure U.S. passports for their babies. Although the foreign couple can’t acquire U.S. nationality themselves, once their American-born offspring turn 21 they can theoretically sponsor their parents for future U.S. citizenship. Another perk: these American-born kids can take advantage of the U.S. education system, even paying lower in-state fees for public universities, depending on where they were delivered. (California is a popular birth-tourism destination because of its well-known university system.)"

Birth Tourism: Chinese Flock to the U.S. to Have Babies | TIME.com (http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/)

This story in Time awhile back alludes to the Chinese...

"All of which has led to a proliferation of so-called anchor babies. At least 10,000 such Chinese babies were born in America last year, according to an estimate by an online platform dedicated to monitoring and rating confinement centers for Chinese women giving birth in the States. Naturally, a thriving business catering to these tiny foreign passport holders has developed. The Jia Mei Canadian and American Baby Counseling Services Center, with offices across China, charges between $30,000 and $40,000 to women who want to deliver babies in the States. "

This is not from Fox news and frankly you folks who constantly use Fox News and Tea Party for some sort of fun and games make a fool of yourself with that kind of stuff.

THIS IS A PROBLEM.....note the below is from last year.....

"I recently spoke to a person who told me about their profitable “concierge service” that involves helping pregnant women come to America to give birth so their children can acquire U.S. citizenship. She is not the only one offering such help. Apparently there are a number of “baby care centers” in the United States that offer expectant mothers a place to give birth to an American citizen child.

According to the person I talked to, prospective clients are sold on the notion that public education in the United States is “ free.” I know in the case of my own children who went to school in the United States as Canadians, we paid a huge amount of money for their education. As this person pointed out, having an American citizen child permits that child to acquire the same education at a much lower tuition."

Immigration: The Myth Of The 'Anchor Baby' (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2014/09/22/immigration-the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby/)

This is a freakin business for people....taking advantage of us.

Now..

"The matter was raised in Congress a few years ago, with legislators debating how this growing trend could be stopped. However, efforts like this have now taken a backseat to the issue of undocumented immigrants, border security and comprehensive immigration reform. The concern over birthright citizenship has also been raised in Canada by the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has vowed to crackdown on the situation.



Instead of calling out networks or cacacuses neither of which makes any sense to me at all, how about we try and get a bit educated on this subject.

You folks seem to delight in calling names...heck, I am a dumb ********* old white man who is a racist and a bigot.....which, by the way reflects on your folks who say those things.

I am trying to find out how I feel so I know who to vote for....does not matter the party OR what network they watch or what, but guess what....if you do not read and learn, you will continue to make a fool of yourselves with idiotic comments referring to a news network or a group of folks in congress.

If I sound angry, I am....it is voters like you who screw this place up. Who will criticize our lawmakers but play into their hands by being so shallow and uninformed.

So for now, I am simply asking that people stop the stupid and inane name calling and actually find out what is happening so a real discussion can be had.

If you have the ability or the adult patience to read...read the below and it further complicates what we keep passing off as a name calling game...

"It should be noted that citizenship by birth is not as carte blanche as you might believe. I often see comments on stories that talk as if a person can come across the border, have a child and stay in the country indefinitely. That isn’t the way it works.

You may not be aware that the mere birth of a child in North America does not guarantee the child nor their parents the right to live in the United States or Canada, at least not until the child reaches the age of majority. Put another way, the family can be and often is removed from the U.S. or Canada, even if they have a native born child, because they do not have lawful status in the country. Some time in the future, once the child becomes an adult, they will be able to return to the U.S. or Canada, but that is down the road. It does not prevent deportation now.

Once a citizen child reaches 21 in the case of the United States and 18 in the case of Canada, that child can return to North America and eventually sponsor their parents to legally immigrate to the country of citizenship. As for education in the meantime, unless the child can show legal guardianship or custody by a U.S. or Canadian citizen that would give them permission to reside in North America, they will not be able to study here, either.

[Guest]

So, your short and simple answer to finding a US Supreme Court decision that says children born to illegal immigrants ARE NOT automatically US citizens is -
you cannot find one.

You may not like it - but they are a citizen just like YOU.

[Guest]

So, your short and simple answer to finding a US Supreme Court decision that says children born to illegal immigrants ARE NOT automatically US citizens is -
you cannot find one.

You may not like it - but they are a citizen just like YOU.

So, who was this addressed to, what does it mean, and what point do you wish to make.

Lots of dribble,not much sense

[Guest]

So, your short and simple answer to finding a US Supreme Court decision that says children born to illegal immigrants ARE NOT automatically US citizens is -
you cannot find one.

You may not like it - but they are a citizen just like YOU.

It means that they can be deported along with their parents, and not allowed to return until they are 21 years old. You can read, can't you?

[Guest]

It means that they can be deported along with their parents, and not allowed to return until they are 21 years old. You can read, can't you?

You did not give any source for your statement about deporting a child who is born in the US of undocumented immigrants. Please do so.

Was it a Supreme Court decision? Please give the citation.

[Guest]

Still waiting for that Supreme Court decision that says a child born in the USA of undocumented immigrant parents can be deported until they are 21 years old.

[Guest]

Still waiting for that Supreme Court decision that says a child born in the USA of undocumented immigrant parents can be deported until they are 21 years old.

Post #48

Otherwise, if your Google is not broke, do your own work.

[Guest]

The latest debate initiated recently by Trump is regarding the interpretation of 14th Amendment. "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

What (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)

"...So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all 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 Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, 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 aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

...This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

According to this debate, I summarize: if a child is born of an "alien" meaning a citizen of another country, that is NOT a legal citizen of our country, then the child does not automatically become a citizen of our country. I am just going according to the study in the above article/link.

This is already law, but the Supremes make their own decisions on what is law and what is not law.
On the other hand, illegal aliens are not considered protected by our laws and therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction.." A good argument could be made that the 14th Amendment does not automatically make the child a citizen of the U.S. I do realize that all this is dependent on a liberal interpretation of the supreme court.

[Guest]

You Tea Bag folks can yap and yap all you want about children born in the USA of undocumented immigrants not being US citizens by birth. You can yap on and on about your knowledge of the Constitution. However, I would bet you a Dunkin' Donut and cup of coffee that if there is any Supreme Court case in the future about this - you will be proven wrong.

[Guest]

You Tea Bag folks can yap and yap all you want about children born in the USA of undocumented immigrants not being US citizens by birth. You can yap on and on about your knowledge of the Constitution. However, I would bet you a Dunkin' Donut and cup of coffee that if there is any Supreme Court case in the future about this - you will be proven wrong.

Typical troll post. Instead of debating or discussing someones post, you simply attempt to slur the one posting and ignore the reply. You are by yourself. Implying that I am a member of the Tea Party, makes you think you are disparaging me, but it's more of a compliment. You see, even though I am not a member, I still agree with most of what I have heard they advocate. Attempting to use vulgar language in reference to the Tea Party, simply makes you an immature juvenile that yearns for attention, since your momma obviously ignores your petulance childishness.

[Guest]

Typical troll post. Instead of debating or discussing someones post, you simply attempt to slur the one posting and ignore the reply. You are by yourself. Implying that I am a member of the Tea Party, makes you think you are disparaging me, but it's more of a compliment. You see, even though I am not a member, I still agree with most of what I have heard they advocate. Attempting to use vulgar language in reference to the Tea Party, simply makes you an immature juvenile that yearns for attention, since your momma obviously ignores your petulance childishness.

It IS interesting about these trolls.

They call you names, refer to your age and the color of your skin....

THEN CALL YOU A BIGOT.

Go figure.

[Guest]

Has anyone here actually read the Constitution and the Amendments? You could actually learn something instead of insulting each other.

[Guest]

Has anyone here actually read the Constitution and the Amendments? You could actually learn something instead of insulting each other.

Reading the Constitution is one thing, but it does nothing until the Supreme court makes their ruling. It can be obvious to us, but then if you have a liberal supreme court, they decide what will be law and what is not. Obama bypasses the supreme court and makes his own ruling. If he wishes not to uphold laws, he prohibits others from enforcing them also. If he doesn't get his way with congress, he makes his own laws, regardless of what the Supreme court says.

I read the 14th Amendment to say that children of illegals are NOT automatically citizens. But, others say different. The law was not written to protect the babies of illegals. It wasn't even considered when they wrote it. If illegals are not protected and given rights according to our laws, then the amendment says their children are not U.S. citizens.

[Guest]

You Tea Bag folks can yap and yap all you want about children born in the USA of undocumented immigrants not being US citizens by birth. You can yap on and on about your knowledge of the Constitution. However, I would bet you a Dunkin' Donut and cup of coffee that if there is any Supreme Court case in the future about this - you will be proven wrong.

You can bet all you want, but until such an occurrence, you are the one wrong. And if you make that a krispy kreme donut, I might take your bet.

[Guest]

I don't know where you read that "children of illegals are NOT automatically citizens."

What is the 14th Amendment?

“Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

[Guest]

I don't know where you read that "children of illegals are NOT automatically citizens."

What is the 14th Amendment?

“Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Illegals are technically NOT subject to the jurisdiction of. Read the article above to get the historic arguments regarding that phrase. Therefore, the children technically are not automatically citizens. Not only my read on it, but many others, including scholars that have not yet become brainwashed to the liberal mentality. That's the Constitution, but the Supreme Court makes their own rules on these things.

Liberals also interpret other things different, such as:
I say freedom OF religion
Liberals say freedom FROM religion

I say babies
They say fetus

I say infanticide or willful murder of a baby
They say aborted fetus due to inconvenience. Mother's right.

The fact is that the 14th Amendment was not created for the purpose of protecting the illegals by allowing citizenship of their children. It's been misconstrued to that point. A simple Amendment could be passed that states that children of illegals do not become automatic citizens of the U.S.

[Guest]

...subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

Sanctuary cities willfully stop immigration enforcement efforts.

Interesting that a progressive philosophy may be part of the illegal alien's downfall.

[Guest]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court interprets the law and not Tea *******.

[Guest]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court interprets the law and not Tea *******.

Real intelligent.....NOT!!

[Guest]

Real intelligent.....NOT!!

They are attempting to raise their standard of insult all the way up to the gutter level.

[Guest]

Illegals are technically NOT subject to the jurisdiction of. Read the article above to get the historic arguments regarding that phrase. Therefore, the children technically are not automatically citizens. Not only my read on it, but many others, including scholars that have not yet become brainwashed to the liberal mentality. That's the Constitution, but the Supreme Court makes their own rules on these things.

Liberals also interpret other things different, such as:
I say freedom OF religion
Liberals say freedom FROM religion

I say babies
They say fetus

I say infanticide or willful murder of a baby
They say aborted fetus due to inconvenience. Mother's right.

The fact is that the 14th Amendment was not created for the purpose of protecting the illegals by allowing citizenship of their children. It's been misconstrued to that point. A simple Amendment could be passed that states that children of illegals do not become automatic citizens of the U.S.



A simple amendment would still require ratification by two-thirds of the states, not something that can be done overnight.

[Guest]

A simple amendment would still require ratification by two-thirds of the states, not something that can be done overnight.

Overnight, like Obamacare?

[Guest]

Overnight, like Obamacare?
Here's the timeline:

Timeline of the health care law - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/)

[Guest]

A simple amendment would still require ratification by two-thirds of the states, not something that can be done overnight.

Why would it need an amendment? ...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

Clarification by the Supreme Court, sure.

I think the law is actually quite clear. We, as a country, have simply been ignoring it.

[Guest]

Why would it need an amendment? ...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

Clarification by the Supreme Court, sure.

I think the law is actually quite clear. We, as a country, have simply been ignoring it.

I agree, but a liberal court sees it their way, so you end up having to write the law with crayons in order for them to properly interpret it.

[Guest]

Look at the Supreme Court decision on this issue involving a child of one of the Chinese railroad workers. The Chinese parents were not citizens but the Court ruled the child was a citizen.

Anyhow, it is a moot point because Trump (actually Jeff Sessions) plan won't even be tested as he will not ever have a chance to try and use it.

[Guest]

Look at the Supreme Court decision on this issue involving a child of one of the Chinese railroad workers. The Chinese parents were not citizens but the Court ruled the child was a citizen.

Anyhow, it is a moot point because Trump (actually Jeff Sessions) plan won't even be tested as he will not ever have a chance to try and use it.

If you'd provided a link, I would look at it. Even the name of the decision. I'm not having success finding it.

You don't have credibility on a political forum if you don't provide a source. Political forum 101.

[Guest]

I think this is the referenced case: ... United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[1] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Interesting case. One difference jumps out: the Chinese were not here illegally. They were here by treaty.

[Guest]

Whatever the similarities or differences are moot. Trump or Sessions will not test it. Be assured, though, that the Supreme Court would decide the children are citizens.

[Guest]

I think this is the referenced case: ... United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[1] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Interesting case. One difference jumps out: the Chinese were not here illegally. They were here by treaty.

:thumbup: That's why these things get misinterpreted. Liberals take everything out of proportion and try to make it relative.

[Guest]

Whatever the similarities or differences are moot. Trump or Sessions will not test it. Be assured, though, that the Supreme Court would decide the children are citizens.

You don't know that, and neither do I.

I hope the Supremes do take it up. This country is being damaged but unregulated, illegal immigrants.

[Guest]

You don't know that, and neither do I.

I hope the Supremes do take it up. This country is being damaged but unregulated, illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court does not just take a possible situation such as this and make a decision. it is a lengthy process to get a case in front of the Court. They are the final decision makers on a case that has gone through several other lower courts.

This "Trump" scenario would have to go through legal challenges after being implemented - and will not be implemented unless Congress votes on it or the President signs an Executive Order. Neither are likely.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court does not just take a possible situation such as this and make a decision. it is a lengthy process to get a case in front of the Court. They are the final decision makers on a case that has gone through several other lower courts.

This "Trump" scenario would have to go through legal challenges after being implemented - and will not be implemented unless Congress votes on it or the President signs an Executive Order. Neither are likely.

:girlneener:

Thank you for your version of a Civics lesson.

You do not know what the future holds, and neither do I.

[Guest]

:girlneener:

Thank you for your version of a Civics lesson.

You do not know what the future holds, and neither do I.

Why the snarky reply? I was only trying to be helpful in explaining the Supreme Court process to those who might not know it. Why do you say my version of a Civics lesson? Isn't that the process? Correct me if I am wrong.

My comment about the unlikeliness of a Court challenge was non-partisan. No, neither of us knows what might be done so I really do not understand the reason you had a snarky reply and the emoticon sticking out the tongue. What was it for?

[Guest]

Why the snarky reply? I was only trying to be helpful in explaining the Supreme Court process to those who might not know it. Why do you say my version of a Civics lesson? Isn't that the process? Correct me if I am wrong.

My comment about the unlikeliness of a Court challenge was non-partisan. No, neither of us knows what might be done so I really do not understand the reason you had a snarky reply and the emoticon sticking out the tongue. What was it for?

Because your post was condescending.

And this one's passive aggressive. ...I was only trying....

[Guest]

Because your post was condescending.:rant-rave:

And this one's passive aggressive. ...I was only trying.... :rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave:


TROLL ALERT

Make that a sputtering troll!

[Guest]

Time to get back on topic.

The 14th Amendment does state that the children would be US citizens. Trump is wrong. Sessions is wrong.

Moot point. No President is going to have illegals rounded up. Some will be deported but more will come. Live with it.

[Guest]

Time to get back on topic.

The 14th Amendment does state that the children would be US citizens. Trump is wrong. Sessions is wrong.

Moot point. No President is going to have illegals rounded up. Some will be deported but more will come. Live with it.

No, the Amendment is INTERPRETED by the Supremes as saying the children would be citizens. It actually does NOT say that, if you read it. It was not even written to include illegals and their children, if you knew anything about history. Someone ought to give a history lesson to the Supremes so that they too can understand the reasoning behind the amendment. This is another good reason for term limits for members of the supreme court. They let their staff read and they decide.

[Guest]

No, the Amendment is INTERPRETED by the Supremes as saying the children would be citizens. It actually does NOT say that, if you read it. It was not even written to include illegals and their children, if you knew anything about history. Someone ought to give a history lesson to the Supremes so that they too can understand the reasoning behind the amendment. This is another good reason for term limits for members of the supreme court. They let their staff read and they decide.

Once again, read your Constitution. In order to impose term limits on either Congress or The Court, amendments would have to be added to the Constitution. Remember, there had to be an amendment added to have a term limit on the Presidency.

[Guest]

Once again, read your Constitution. In order to impose term limits on either Congress or The Court, amendments would have to be added to the Constitution. Remember, there had to be an amendment added to have a term limit on the Presidency.

You are totally missing the point. Term limits has nothing to do with the comment, other than a small side line that suggested that I am in favor of term limits. What did what I say have to do with amending the constitution? Besides, just because you feel that something is difficult, does not mean that it can't be done. That has been the whole problem with deportation....."it can't be done....it's too hard....." whine, whine and more whine. We have a country that does NOT consider anything impossible. That's why we have folks that want European socialism here, because life without a babysitter (Gov.) is just too hard.

[Guest]

Are you saying that term limits for Supreme Court justices should or should not be set? If so, it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment just as for Congress term limits.

Do you realize the process for this to take place? Read the Constitution before making rash statements. Research can do you a lot of good.

[Guest]

Are you saying that term limits for Supreme Court justices should or should not be set? If so, it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment just as for Congress term limits.

Do you realize the process for this to take place? Read the Constitution before making rash statements. Research can do you a lot of good.

Still missing the point. What is "rash" about it? Maybe you should learn the vocabulary word, before using it. Sorry, just working on my first cup of coffee. Spent yesterday upgrading my computer OS.

Term limits was a suggestion. Congress gets paid a pretty good salary plus benefits to do a particular job. Legalizing gay marriage, marijuana and abortions is not the only legislation that they are limited to. So, don't get your panties in a wad when someone suggests that maybe they could be challenged with doing something reasonable with their time such as imposing term limits. They said Obamacare couldn't be done too, but it was done without the GOP vote.
The issue or subject of this thread deals with whether or not children born in America by illegal aliens are legal citizens. Until you got sidetracked I was suggesting that the Amendment did not address it directly and was not intended to handle the issue of illegals of today. It was directed at a totally different matter. Read up on the back ground of the Amendment.