I agree birthright citizenship should end. If you have a baby in the United States, and you’re not legal the birth should be reported to the parents’ home country so they can apply for a proper birth certificate.
One parent should be a legal citizen for birth right to be established.
What you are doing is ‘reading into’ what’s written a meaning that doesn’t exist if you simply ‘read’ the text. Why did you “ignore” that there are two “who” clauses? Under American English linguistic rules, Senator Howard described at least two classes of people–‘simple’ (as you put it) Foreigners/Aliens, and also children of ambassadors.
Further, if you read the entire congressional debate, you’d know that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was explained at least twice, both times affirming that complete admission to the political jurisdiction of the US is required for US citizenship. Admission as a citizen is determined by the nation, not by visitors who cross borders. Foreigners who remain citizens of their home countries are subject to their country’s laws even while in the USA. Example: try working abroad as a US citizen but don’t file taxes with the IRS as required for ex-pats. If you think the IRS can’t get you because you’re in a foreign jurisdiction, you will be very sad to learn reality.
Finally, the only ones making “BIG CLAIMS” are the fools who don’t know that until the State Dept. created anchor baby policy out of thin air in the 1950s, what I’m stating was the default understanding by literally everybody. NOBODY thought a foreign woman could cross the border, squat out a kid, and PRESTO! That kid’s as American as any descendant of soldiers who fought in the War for Independence. It’s just a lie that modern suckers believe.
You made another comment about getting rid of 14A. Do you not know that 14A was not ratified as required by the Constitution? It’s literally illegitimate and, therefore, moot, or it would be if we were still honoring the Constitution. In any case, there are no “misleading sentences” in it. It’s perfectly clear if you read the plain text instead of reading weird meanings into it.
I think you might have misunderstood me thank you for the background a little bit on the native Americans I knew that they didn’t become citizens until after World war I but I think their citizens now and they damn well should be. As far as the white squat and drop a kid at the end, I’m okay with that kid becoming a permanent residence not a citizen. I do believe though the third generation that the child’s child should be given citizenship if it’s born in the country. But I don’t believe that the first squat and drop generation should be given citizenship I just don’t. Ties are too close to the country still, and with Kamala that woman had no American Spirit nothing not to mention she was raised in Canada. Most foreigners who come here their children are proud to be here and proud to be I didn’t see that out of her.
If an American citizen is born and raised in the US and marries a foreigner, that American citizen’s children are entitled to US citizenship as it should be. Are you serious that you would deny that? Where is it suggested that the American’s citizen’s children would be citizens otherwise, no person’s land?
This idea is not serious or practical. Americans can only marry and have children with other American’s?
Citizenship should be granted if one parent is a citizen and the other parent is here legally.
I agree for two reasons. First, as many write the child is by default a US citizen. This process is being abused to create “anchor babies” with taxpayer benefits. Likewise, other countries (China) may be using this policy to create indoctrinated “spies/traitors” who can legally reside in the USA while working to undermine this country.
Secondly, I believe all children around the world should have the citizenship of the child’s biological mother. This would reduce the number of women that tricked into sex slavery while seeking a better life through citizenship in another country. If young women know that they cannot stay in the country of their choice simply by having an anchor baby, they are less likely to fall for the scams of sex trafficers.
I’m not ““reading into”” anything, I’m actually following the correct grammatical sentence structure as it was put into your Quoted sentence…
When you Split it in that way, it doesn’t make any sense at all, because it should have then been written ““who are Foreigners, INCLUDING Aliens,””, instead of simply saying they are ““Foreigners, Aliens””, the word ““Aliens”” in this specific CONTEXT is being used to show that Those Children are Foreigners, Aliens, to our United States…
Take it to a CollAge English Prof of 20+ years, and you’ll be re-corrected, in agreement with me…
HOSEQ: “I’m not ““reading into”” anything,”
Proceeds to ‘read into’ the clear text what he desperately wants it to say (but it doesn’t).
You also apparently don’t understand what a transcript of congressional debate minutes is. It’s not a “written” speech. It’s what the actual, literate men said during the debate. If one of them had said “I hate smelly, stinky foreigners,” that’s what the transcript would record despite there obviously being redundancy with smelly and stinky. Same thing applies to “foreigners, aliens.”
And if you had taken the time to read the entire debate, you’d know that American Indian tribes were considered as ‘foreign, alien’ as Chinese migrant workers. Mind you, this was at a time when Congress had only promulgated naturalized citizenship for “white men of good character,” so the notion that all the non-white races were welcome to the franchise is simple historical fantasy
Further, from a purely parliamentarian rule POV, the motion as Howard introduced and explained it went through debate unchanged. His original amendment and its interpretation prevailed. Ret-conning different meanings more than a century later isn’t how parliamentary rules work.
With primary residence in the US. A citizen should primarily reside in the country they are a citizen of.
LEGAL CITIZENSHIP EXPLAINED
The Constitution, Congress, and the US Supreme Court are crystal clear: being born on American soil doesn’t automatically grant citizenship! 
In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court denied birthright citizenship to an American Indian, ruling merely being born in the US isn’t enough. Citizenship requires being born subject to US jurisdiction. 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clarified the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” means being required to obey US law. This interpretation granted US citizenship to some children born of foreigners on American soil (known as jus soli), as long as their parents were legally present. 
Fun fact: Native Americans had to wait until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to be granted US citizenship by Congress. 
This historical truth and legal principle remain unchanged. No legislation or amendment has altered this fact. 
Some people confuse “subject to the jurisdiction” with “under the jurisdiction.” The former refers to those owing allegiance to the nation, while the latter encompasses all individuals within our borders. 
In the 1960s, under the leftist Great Society initiatives, the federal government expanded and reinterpreted immigration law, falsely claiming citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens. We must take action and deport the parents and the children who wrongly believe otherwise. 
#CitizenshipExplained #LegalTruth #KnowTheLaw #USConstitution #AmericanIdentity #Deportation #ImmigrationReform
1 Like
My father came to this country, legally at age 17. A U.S. Navy ship transported him and many Hungarian refugees to New York City. He later served in the U.S. Navy, became a naturalized citizen, swearing allegiance to this country. This made him subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which makes his children citizens. Illegal aliens, whose very presence in this country is a crime by stature do not share this distinction. Neither do tourists or those here on student and work visas.
John, I truly think you didn’t even fully understand my statement. I never said anything about illegal immigrants. But European descents have easier and more routes to immigrate to the US than non-European descent. I will support illegal immigration until the immigration system is fair to all. Nobody should have to wait 20 years to immigrate to the US. Nobody should have to sell an arm and a leg to even just APPLY. Even European descents have shorter wait times. Tell me how this is fair?
I prefer how Europe addresses this: if two legal resident Lithuanians have a baby in Denmark, the baby is Lithuanian but can have nearly automatic legal residence in Denmark.
The child NEVER automatically gets some extra status that the parents don’t have. If they are legal status, they cannot have citizen children. They can, however, have children with legal residential status only, but those children will still be citizens of their parents country.
This is how most first world countries do it, and it is the most logical and fair arrangement.
Birthright Citizenship is being abused. Citizenship and social security numbers should only be granted if the child’s biological parent is a legal resident or US citizen. Work visa, student visa, guest visa, "whatever " visa do not qualify.
if an American citizen man parent or American citizen woman parent has a kid, the kid is an American citizen same as the parent.
Doesn’t matter where in the universe the other parent is from or where they were born.
You aren’t taking any American citizen’s kids away from them.
Isn’t Trump doing this already?
AMERICA IS CLOSED!!
Closed to erutopsans also
LEGAL CITIZENSHIP EXPLAINED
The Constitution, Congress, and the US Supreme Court are crystal clear: being born on American soil doesn’t automatically grant citizenship!
In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court denied birthright citizenship to an American Indian, ruling merely being born in the US isn’t enough. Citizenship requires being born subject to US jurisdiction.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clarified the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” means being required to obey US law. This interpretation granted US citizenship to some children born of foreigners on American soil (known as jus soli), as long as their parents were legally present.
Fun fact: Native Americans had to wait until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to be granted US citizenship by Congress.
This historical truth and legal principle remain unchanged. No legislation or amendment has altered this fact.
Some people confuse “subject to the jurisdiction” with “under the jurisdiction.” The former refers to those owing allegiance to the nation, while the latter encompasses all individuals within our borders.
In the 1960s, under the leftist Great Society initiatives, the federal government expanded and reinterpreted immigration law, FALSELY claiming citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens. We must take action and deport the parents and the children who wrongly believe otherwise.
#CitizenshipExplained #LegalTruth #KnowTheLaw #USConstitution #AmericanIdentity #Deportation #ImmigrationReform