Originally Posted by 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.

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.”

Originally Posted by 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.

...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.

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

Real intelligent.....NOT!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Real intelligent.....NOT!!

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

Overnight, like Obamacare?

Originally Posted by Guest

Overnight, like Obamacare?

Here's the timeline:

Timeline of the health care law - CNNPolitics.com

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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...._Wong_Kim_Ark

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