All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Your inability to understand things is your fault. I certainly didn't mean any of the things you listed.

Of course not. Now that it's been explained to you  

 

Quote

Did you think to ask what Nationalist meant? He could've meant anything when he put punctuation marks around "jurisdiction".

It seemed fairly obvious that he was referring to the phrase in the amendment. I'm sure he'll let me know if I somehow misinterpreted that. What do YOU think he meant?  

Quote

In any case a constitution informs the law not the other way around. As such it puts a limit on what Trump can do in his jurisdiction.

You appear to be claiming that if the constitution doesn't mandate something there can't be a law regarding it. That is most definitely wrong. While the constitution may impact or inform the law it is not the exclusive source of law. And as long as a law doesn't directly Conflict with the constitution it's valid. So there is nothing staying that you can't have a law which removes that which the constitution originally applied. The constitution does not say that they are a citizen irrevocably or that additional conditions couldn't apply

Quote

.While you're definitely wrong.

Says the guy who was wrong  about me being wrong    I guess in your case two wrongs DO make a right  

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Your inability to understand things is your fault. I certainly didn't mean any of the things you listed.

Did you think to ask what Nationalist meant? He could've meant anything when he put punctuation marks around "jurisdiction".

In any case a constitution informs the law not the other way around. As such it puts a limit on what Trump can do in his jurisdiction.

While you're definitely wrong.

Not really.

I meant and mean that a foreign national is not an American and neither is the anchor baby. They have to follow American laws while here, but they can be deported and returned to their homeland. Thus they are guests or illegals who have broken the trust of the host nation and are subject to nothing more than deportation.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I meant and mean that a foreign national is not an American and neither is the anchor baby.

Every baby born in America is a citizen by Constitutional right.

Everything you say on the topic that doesn't encompass that fundamental reality is mere personal opinion as opposed to established fact.

It doesn't matter how many punctuation marks you put around words or how many different definitions you use for them.

Anchor babies of foreign nationals are American the moment they emerge into the world.

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Every baby born in America is a citizen by Constitutional right.

Everything you say on the topic that doesn't encompass that fundamental reality is mere personal opinion as opposed to established fact.

It doesn't matter how many punctuation marks you put around words or how many different definitions you use for them.

Anchor babies of foreign nationals are American the moment they emerge into the world.

Today they are. But that might just change...soon.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Today they are. But that might just change...soon.

Only as a result of changing the constitution. Soon you say?

I suspect changing the constitution would require careful diplomatic politicking over at least the duration of a presidents first term with hope of getting the support they'd need to accomplish it during their second term. 

Good luck with that.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Only as a result of changing the constitution. Soon you say?

I suspect changing the constitution would require careful diplomatic politicking over at least the duration of a presidents first term with hope of getting the support they'd need to accomplish it during their second term. 

Good luck with that.

So can you point to anything that says that trump could not pass a law saying "children born on us soil to parents who are in the country illegally shall have their citizneship revoked ?

In fact, Congress DOES have the power to pass laws de-naturalizing people. 

Congress’s power over denaturalization derives from its power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and from its power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.¹ 

Denaturalization (Revoking Citizenship) Generally | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

As the article notes, there are already laws in place automatically allowing for citizenship to be revoked especially where it was obtained on false pretense or in a manner that is not in keeping with the intent of the laws as congress sees fit. 

So in reality there's nothing to say you can't pass a law automatically revoking the citizenship of any child born in the country to people who were in the country illegally or falsely.  

Is there. 

But you just keep ignoring this and demanding that the facts aren't the facts. You've been saying that for decades. 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Only as a result of changing the constitution. Soon you say?

I suspect changing the constitution would require careful diplomatic politicking over at least the duration of a presidents first term with hope of getting the support they'd need to accomplish it during their second term. 

Good luck with that.

Maybe...and maybe not. A constitutional change is not the only avenue available to change this.

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Maybe...and maybe not. A constitutional change is not the only avenue available to change this.

its amazing how so few understand this. Agree with or not.. irrelevant. Executive Order is mostly ceremonial in this case. A new constitutional amendment is the only way for this to have staying power. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So can you point to anything that says that trump could not pass a law saying "children born on us soil to parents who are in the country illegally shall have their citizneship revoked

The Constitution.

If the alternative you presented had a leg to stand on Trump would have invoked it by now.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The Constitution.

 

I just provided proof that the constitution does not stand in the way of such laws. With explicit examples and everything.

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

If the alternative you presented had a leg to stand on Trump would have invoked it by now.

How? It would still need an act of congress. He'd still have to put a motion forward and it would still have to be voted on. You couldn't do it by executive order. You might not need a change to the constitution but you still need a new law.

You really don't understand how any of this political stuff works do you?

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You really don't understand how any of this political stuff works do you?

A lot better than you and Trump ever will.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A lot better than you and Trump ever will.

I literally had to explain what a congressional vote was to you moments ago  

It's like a 7 week old puppy claiming to understand advanced calculus

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I literally had to explain what a congressional vote was to you moments ago

With an article that doesn't mention the 14 the Amendment at all.

The concept of naturalization typically concerns the grant of citizenship to a person who has lived in the United States for a specified time

IOW not someone who was born there.

On 1/29/2025 at 9:39 AM, CdnFox said:

fact, Congress DOES have the power to pass laws de-naturalizing people. 

Who were born to Americans outside the US.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm like a 7 week old puppy claiming to understand advanced calculus

Yup.

 

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

With an article that doesn't mention the 14 the Amendment at all.

 

 

It discusses the role of congress when dealing with constitutionally granted or gov't granted citizenship. 

The issue isn't the 14th amendment. What this states is that regardless of how the person comes to their citizenship congress does have a role and can pass legislation altering that citizenship.

So I can't imagine why you would think your comment is relevant

Quote

 

The concept of naturalization typically concerns the grant of citizenship to a person who has lived in the United States for a specified time

IOW not someone who was born there.

 

Yes, but we're not talking about naturalization. You know lines how the congress has a role in passing laws that affect someone's citizenship regardless of how it's granted. Naturalization is one way, birthright citizenship is another way, blood right is another way. But at the end of the day congress still has a role to play in altering that citizenship and it spells that out quite clearly

Quote

Who were born to Americans outside the US.

To any citizen.  There's no constitutional difference between someone born on american soil or someone born to American parents.  blood right and birth right are of equal weight. 

 

Quote

I know you're right but i'm so out of my depth all i can do is misquote you and cry myself to sleep at night. 

Yup.  

Keep going puppy  

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes, but we're not talking about naturalization

🤔 Hmmm...so you missed where it says naturalization in the thread title or the article you posted?

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

To any citizen.  There's no constitutional difference between someone born on american soil or someone born to American parents.  blood right and birth right are of equal weight. 

Can you quote the section of the 14th Amendment where it says that?

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know you're right but i'm so out of my depth all i can do is misquote you and cry myself to sleep at night.

Yup.

[Five of swords]

On 1/25/2025 at 11:24 AM, Dougie93 said:

wherein "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" opens the way for interpretation

the SCOTUS could interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "

to exclude children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the U.S.,

as their parents may owe allegiance to another country.

and/or Congress could pass a law restricting birthright citizenship for those specific groups

but ultimately, the President could simply invoke Article II war powers ; declare a national emergency

by those means overriding both Congress & the Courts,

by declaring those groups to be "enemy aliens",  see ; internment of the Japanese Americans

Separation of Powers FTW

Not really. Feeling an allegiance to another country is irrelevant to 'subject to the jurisdiction of'. Obviously people are subject to us jurisdiction if you, for example, intend to deport them...And there is already precedent set in the interpretation with that Chinese guy. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

🤔 Hmmm...so you missed where it says naturalization in the thread title or the article you posted?

Hmmm so you  missed the part where it goes on to say that congress has the ability to address citizenship?

Is this too many words for you?

Tell you what post a link that shows that the congressional right to affect citizenship doesn't exist.  Then we'll talk.  Basically at this point you're just whining because you found out you're wrong. 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hmmm so you  missed the part where it goes on to say that congress has the ability to address citizenship?

Nope.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Is this too many words for you?

Nope.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Tell you what post a link that shows that the congressional right to affect citizenship doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as it pertains to people born in the US...not without another Amendment that cancels the 14th.

Can you show me the section in the 14th Amendment where it deals with people born outside the US?

Nope, because it doesn't exist either.

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Basically at this point you're just laughing at me because I can't chase my own tail without tripping over it.

Yup.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Nope.

Nope.

Yup 

Yup. 

Quote

There is no such thing as it pertains to people born in the US...not without another Amendment that cancels the 14th.

That's not what the article or the 14th say, can you provide any source that confirms that?

No? None? Not one? hmmmm

Quote

Can you show me the section in the 14th Amendment where it deals with people born outside the US?

You first kiddo.

Quote

Nope, because it doesn't exist either.

Cite?

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I know i'm wrong but like all lefties i'm too much of a coward to admit it

Yup