Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Immigration Immigration Political Forum - For topics and discussions about illegal immigrants and immigrant rights


Thanks Tree5Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 18th, 2016, 02:43 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,014
As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.
Thanks from Pete Moss
caconservative is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 02:45 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.
]

YUP !!! And since the illegals have not officially renounced there prior citizenship, their children shouldn't be citizens.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 02:48 PM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Deer Park, Washington
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Those countries could change the law, in the US it would require changing the constitution, and that takes a bit more work.
It's like abortion in that respect, no political party is willing to suffer the backlash of such an attempt.
The GOP will pander to racists and xenophobes, but they won't risk the backlash of actually doing anything about it, just like they will pander to anti-abortion people, but will not take actions that would risk backlash.
No, it wouldn't require an amendment. There is nothing in the constitution permitting anchor babies.
Pete Moss is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 02:49 PM   #24
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Deer Park, Washington
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.
Exactly.
Pete Moss is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 04:40 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Moss View Post
No, it wouldn't require an amendment. There is nothing in the constitution permitting anchor babies.
Hello, earth to Pete, Reality Calling...
goober is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 04:43 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It would not require changing the Constitution to adhere to the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Much like the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted to limit firearms to the militia....
goober is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 04:45 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Hello, earth to Pete, Reality Calling...
Anchor babies were created by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Thanks from Clara007
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 04:47 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Much like the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted to limit firearms to the militia....
That would not be a re-interpretation. That would be creating a meaning and intent that does not exist.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 04:51 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
That would not be a re-interpretation. That would be creating a meaning and intent that does not exist.
But why would the founders put all that stuff in there about a militia if it didn't mean anything.

And if 5 Supreme Court Justices think that's what it means, then that's what it means....
goober is offline  
Old March 18th, 2016, 05:02 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
But why would the founders put all that stuff in there about a militia if it didn't mean anything.

And if 5 Supreme Court Justices think that's what it means, then that's what it means....
It is a prefatory clause and nothing more. It served a purpose and has nothing to do with the operative clause.

If five Supreme Court justices rule that the Second Amendment limits firearms to the militia, then each one should be impeached. And their ruling would not change the meaning unless they want to change all the individual rights to collective rights in the Bill of Rights.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Tags
jurisdiction, subject, thereof



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sikhs Subject to Turban Search pensacola_niceman Other Religions 1 November 20th, 2010 05:44 AM
Because every subject needs a little chuckle ... tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 4 January 12th, 2009 03:27 PM
Hucks thoughts on the subject. fxashun Gay and Lesbian Rights 24 March 1st, 2008 06:35 AM
Bill Clinton changing subject from 'me' to 'she' CNN Current Events 1 July 2nd, 2007 11:04 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.