RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/16/ken-cuccinelli-ending-birthright-citizenship-does-not-require-constitutional-amendment/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Ken may not know what he is talking about, again. https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The 14th amendment has been exploited by liberals to try and justify anchor baby citizenship ... we need a Supreme Court ruling to end this misguided and illegal practice ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 I am actually going to agree with Barry on this one. The 14th amendment does allow those "BORN" on United States soil to be a US Citizen. On the other hand, that does NOT allow those who gave birth or fathered the child to be in this country ILLEGALLY, and those people along with their child, since they are responsible for that child until they are 18 years old, should have to follow the laws of the land and be deported if caught here ILLEGALLY. Just because you are born in the United States does NOT mean that the taxpayers have to foot your parents bills to be here ILLEGALLY. As with many countries in the world, that child would be a dual citizen until their 18th birthday, when they would have to decide which nation to be a citizen of. At that time they can choose their parents homeland or the United States. So while they are US citizens because they are born in the United States, doesn't mean they get to stay in the United States if their parents are ILLEGALLY in the country. Meaning that I am NOT in favor of Anchor Babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: I am actually going to agree with Barry on this one. The 14th amendment does allow those "BORN" on United States soil to be a US Citizen. On the other hand, that does NOT allow those who gave birth or fathered the child to be in this country ILLEGALLY, and those people along with their child, since they are responsible for that child until they are 18 years old, should have to follow the laws of the land and be deported if caught here ILLEGALLY. Just because you are born in the United States does NOT mean that the taxpayers have to foot your parents bills to be here ILLEGALLY. As with many countries in the world, that child would be a dual citizen until their 18th birthday, when they would have to decide which nation to be a citizen of. At that time they can choose their parents homeland or the United States. So while they are US citizens because they are born in the United States, doesn't mean they get to stay in the United States if their parents are ILLEGALLY in the country. Meaning that I am NOT in favor of Anchor Babies. Only a misreading of the 14th amendment justifies this illegal practice. The 14th amendment was never meant or written to include these children born of illegal aliens. They should be deported along with their parents without a US birth certificate ... I challenge anyone to read the entire background on this issue .... any intellectually honest reading bears out my conclusion .... Edited October 17, 2019 by KirtFalcon yo mama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 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. ILLEGAL ALIENS do not fit the highlighted clause, thus their children born here do not qualify for citizenship.......simple grammar....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Did anyone read the court case I cited? I think it is very clear that 'exclusionary immigration policy' doesn't take away birthright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, BarryLaverty said: Did anyone read the court case I cited? I think it is very clear that 'exclusionary immigration policy' doesn't take away birthright. Plessy v Ferguson was another court case that was very clear on a subject......how'd that one turn out??? The courts are wrong much more than they are right....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said: Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 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. ILLEGAL ALIENS do not fit the highlighted clause, thus their children born here do not qualify for citizenship.......simple grammar....... I believe you are wrong, but then like "when life begins" it needs to be decided in the Supreme Court, but until that happens, anyone born in the United States or on US Soil is considered a US Citizen, but as stated above, their parents should not be allowed to anchor in the United States if they are here ILLEGALLY, and children should have to stay with parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said: Plessy v Ferguson was another court case that was very clear on a subject......how'd that one turn out??? The courts are wrong much more than they are right....... A real stretch with "separate but equal" to an amendment that has in the actual words, ALL PERSONS BORN as the first 3 words are US Citizens. And personally, jurisdiction to me means that they have to follow the laws of the United States and of the state they reside. And while their parents may have been ILLEGAL, the actual child was born in the United States and is a US Citizen, by the first 3 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: I believe you are wrong, but then like "when life begins" it needs to be decided in the Supreme Court, but until that happens, anyone born in the United States or on US Soil is considered a US Citizen, but as stated above, their parents should not be allowed to anchor in the United States if they are here ILLEGALLY, and children should have to stay with parents. When life begins was already decided by God.....anything man has to say on the subject is irrelevant...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: A real stretch with "separate but equal" to an amendment that has in the actual words, ALL PERSONS BORN as the first 3 words are US Citizens. And personally, jurisdiction to me means that they have to follow the laws of the United States and of the state they reside. And while their parents may have been ILLEGAL, the actual child was born in the United States and is a US Citizen, by the first 3 words. your opinion is noted.....leaning toward wrong, but noted....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: it needs to be decided in the Supreme Court, Plessy v Ferguson was decide in the Supreme Court.....I notice you didn't laud the merits of THAT decision........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 Dred Scott v Sanford was yet ANOTHER ruling by the Supreme Court you guys seem to worship.....how'd that one turn out??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 27 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: I believe you are wrong, but then like "when life begins" it needs to be decided in the Supreme Court, but until that happens, anyone born in the United States or on US Soil is considered a US Citizen, but as stated above, their parents should not be allowed to anchor in the United States if they are here ILLEGALLY, and children should have to stay with parents. Only if you ignore the clear language of the amendment .... these babies CLEARLY don't qualify ... they are subject to the jurisdiction of their own countries, not the United States ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said: Only if you ignore the clear language of the amendment .... these babies CLEARLY don't qualify ... they are subject to the jurisdiction of their own countries, not the United States ... People tend to ignore the grammar so their own opinions can fit.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Born and under jurisdiction. Not born in US is under our jurisdiction. They were born here but they are citizens in other countries and not under our jurisdiction. Are military members babies born in another country citizens of that country cause they were born there? No do they even have dual citizenship? No you are not French cause you were born there and you’re not American cause you were born here. Very simple and very plain English. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Youngcoach123 said: Born and under jurisdiction. Not born in US is under our jurisdiction. They were born here but they are citizens in other countries and not under our jurisdiction. Are military members babies born in another country citizens of that country cause they were born there? No do they even have dual citizenship? No you are not French cause you were born there and you’re not American cause you were born here. Very simple and very plain English. You are wrong, if your parents are in the military and you are born overseas in other countries, there is a possibility that you could have dual citizenship. Especially if you were born off the military base. In the 1960s, if you were born in Germany--at 18 you had to decide your citizenship. The laws may have changed, but I do know this personally. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.htmlDual NationalityThe concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: You are wrong, if your parents are in the military and you are born overseas in other countries, there is a possibility that you could have dual citizenship. Especially if you were born off the military base. In the 1960s, if you were born in Germany--at 18 you had to decide your citizenship. The laws may have changed, but I do know this personally. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.htmlDual NationalityThe concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. You claim I’m wrong because of a possibility, then post vague info about regular citizens using language with “may”s And “can be”s. But please continue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said: You claim I’m wrong, then post vague info about regular citizens using language with “may”s And “can be”s. But please continue I am just reading the newest laws, but I can tell you from personal experience, being born in Germany in 1962, when you turned 18 you had to choose a citizenship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 56 minutes ago, DannyZuco said: I am just reading the newest laws, but I can tell you from personal experience, being born in Germany in 1962, when you turned 18 you had to choose a citizenship. Yes you have to choose. Germany didn’t tell you you were German. If you are born in the US we tell you that you are American. And we are constitutionally wrong for doing it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, DannyZuco said: I am just reading the newest laws, but I can tell you from personal experience, being born in Germany in 1962, when you turned 18 you had to choose a citizenship. My sister was born in Vienna Austria and was almost three years old before my dad returned to the US ... my sister doesn't have dual citizenship ... she had to be naturalized after she came here ... back in the 50s ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 8 hours ago, WestHardinfan1 said: People tend to ignore the grammar so their own opinions can fit.......... As well as the Bible. Back on topic, a law could be made in regards to this without a Constitutional Amendment. Of course it would wind up in court, and we know how it would be ruled upon by the leftist judges. It would probably wind up in the Supreme Court , and then we'd see how they ruled. At the present time I don't see a law or an amendment being passed in Congress to go before the Presidents desk. I do think that it should be illegal to simply come to America give birth in an American hospital, and poof the child has dual citizenship. This happens a lot with not only Central Americans but Chinese as well. I think they should simply make it illegal to travel to America while pregnant, and that would cut down on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now