Trump To End Birthright Citizenship

[Bill the Cat]

You don't understand the link you posted. Everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the circumstances, who is subject to the juristiction therein, is a citizen, period. Foriegners, and their families, who are here as Ambassadors, or Foreign Ministers are not subject to the juristiction and therefore, even if born here, would not be a citizen. Trump is lying to you once again. The wording of the Constitution is perfectly clear and there is nothing he can personally do to change that fact. It's another election time gimmick, like his new middle class tax plan lie. When are you going to learn!

Tourists are not ambassadors or foreign ministers.

[Sparko]

Well no, they shouldn't according to those who wrote and passed the amendment, see post #42 above. And for most of its history.

well they do. There is an entire industry dedicated to Birth Tourism.

https://www.globalimmigrationblog.co...rism-industry/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

[seer]

You don't understand the link you posted. Everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the circumstances, who is subject to the juristiction therein, is a citizen, period. Foriegners, and their families, who are here as Ambassadors, or Foreign Ministers are not subject to the juristiction and therefore, even if born here, would not be a citizen. Trump is lying to you once again. The wording of the Constitution is perfectly clear and there is nothing he can personally do to change that fact. It's another election time gimmick, like his new middle class tax plan lie. When are you going to learn!

Nope, not according those who wrote it and passed the amendment:

I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...itution/#_ftn3

[seer]

well they do. There is an entire industry dedicated to Birth Tourism.

https://www.globalimmigrationblog.co...rism-industry/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

That is nuts! Just another reason to get rid of this insanity.

[JimL]

Tourists are not ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Yeah, so what. Did you have a point, or did you think you made one?

[JimL]

Nope, not according those who wrote it and passed the amendment:

Like I said, you are not correctly comprehending what you are reading. Foriegners, aliens, who belong to the families of Amassadores or foriegn Ministers are not included in the birth right clause because they are not under the juristiction of the U.S. Everybody else is included, all foriegners, because, so long as they are in the U.S, they, unlike the families of Amassadores or foriegn ministers, are under the juristiction of the U.S.

[Sparko]

Yeah, so what. Did you have a point, or did you think you made one?

It means that tourists are subject to the laws of the country they are in, and diplomats are not. That is why foreign diplomats do not get US citizenship for their children born in the USA but tourists do under the current law.

[seer]

Like I said, you are not correctly comprehending what you are reading. Foriegners, aliens, who belong to the families of Amassadores or foriegn Ministers are not included in the birth right clause because they are not under the juristiction of the U.S. Everybody else is included, all foriegners, because, so long as they are in the U.S, they, unlike the families of Amassadores or foriegn ministers, are under the juristiction of the U.S.

This 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, but will include every other class of persons.

Jim that would be redundant. Families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are already foreigners and aliens. Foreigners and aliens are a different class. Then ask yourself why the birthright we are speaking of was never allowed until the 1960s?

[JimL]

This 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, but will include every other class of persons.

Jim that would be redundant. Families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are already foreigners and aliens. Foreigners and aliens are a different class. Then ask yourself why the birthright we are speaking of was never allowed until the 1960s?

"foriegners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadores or foriegn ministers" C'mon seer, it's not rocket science!

[JimL]

It means that tourists are subject to the laws of the country they are in, and diplomats are not. That is why foreign diplomats do not get US citizenship for their children born in the USA but tourists do under the current law.

I know what it means Sparko, apparently BTC doesn't.

[seer]

"foriegners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadores or foriegn ministers" C'mon seer, it's not rocket science!

No any persons who are foriegners, aliens or who belong to families of... if not the language is totally redundant.

[One Bad Pig]

In 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney proposed to modify the jus soli birthright citizenship recognized in Canadian law as a means of discouraging birth tourism. ... As of 2016, however, Minister John McCallum said during an interview that there is no plan to end birthright citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

Thanks.

[JimL]

No any persons who are foriegners, aliens or who belong to families of... if not the language is totally redundant.

Now why do you feel the need to make stuff up, seer? It does not say or. You slipped that or in there yourself. Just admit you misunderstood it. That's all.

[seer]

Now why do you feel the need to make stuff up, seer? It does not say or. You slipped that or in there yourself. Just admit you misunderstood it. That's all.

There is a reason for that Jim, because they knew the distinction:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of personsis fully justified when this statement is read in the light of the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly excludes foreigners (and aliens) from birth-right citizenship, an exclusion that was authorized by an overwhelming majority of the same Congress that approved the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The many statements in the debate by supporters of the citizenship clause support this conclusion.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...itution/#_ftn3

[Terraceth]

You can't have meaning without knowing what the writers intended to convey by the words. Scalia would even used history, like the right of self defense in English common law and how the Founders would have understood that in the Heller case.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

And in that article, once again, he says nothing about intent, only meaning. His opinion was always that the text was what mattered, not the intention behind the text. What matters is not how its author read it, but how a dispassionate observer would.

I actually don't think that if someone happens to give birth here on vacation that the child becomes a US citizen. They are French citizens, their child is a French citizen.

To my knowledge, the United States and France do not forbid their citizens from having citizenship of the other country, so one could be both. Now, some countries do deny dual citizenship, in which case the question is stickier and I am not sure of the answer.