Raids on "birth tourism" sites

Sep 2017
228
37
In a House
#11
I don't know what the 1866 civil rights act was. But I know that the 14th amendment is meant to give the children born here citizenship. And that was meant to help ex-slaves. So it has outlived its usefulness. Also, the 1866 civil rights act existed before there was a 14th amendment. It would continue to exist if the 14th amendment was repealed.
You should look up what the 1866 CRA is. The 14th should be read in light of the 1866 CRA. At no point has the 14th outlived its usefulness.
 
Sep 2017
228
37
In a House
#12
"Subject to the jurisdiction of " is already defined.
It means people who are within the borders of the United States who do not have diplomatic immunity.
That is for a civil status, yet there is also a political status that it infers. Illegals are not under our jurisdiction in the since they can be conscripted, their residence here is not recognized via legal domicil, which is a recognized international issue, etc. I suggest you read Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998 ) where the court concluded
“jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.”
What case is it you think backs up your assertion?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2017
1,366
728
Hell
#14
Would a $50 billion wall solve this problem ?
It'll stop the pregnant ones from South and Central America. We also need to speed up the deportation process. Asylum proceedings can take 9-12 months, just in time to get pregnant and give birth again. That is called "an anchor AND and a spare".
 
Mar 2013
8,731
9,399
Middle Tennessee
#15
We don't need SCOTUS to "redefine" anything. There would be HOWLS of anger from the fright wing if they did !!! How dare those unelected black robes make new law from thin air !!!!!!

Congress has all the authority they need to fix the issue. The exemption for the children of diplomats is NOT in the constitution. It's in the immigration laws written and passed by CONGRESS. ALL congress needs to do is extend that exemption to ANYONE that is A) Not already a citizen B) Not here legally, C) here on a VISITORS visa or D) Anyone else who is not here with the intent of full LEGAL immigration (including temporary H1B for migrant workers or any other temp worker)

All it would take is ONE SENTENCE added to existing law to clear up the "born here" citizenship problem. That would stop the birther tourism AND the anchor baby.
 

Similar Discussions