This is gonna play hell with those west coast birthing centers that only speak Chinese.

---

so when we talk abortion you crazies treat babies and mothers as totally separate people.

But when it comes to this suddenly they should be tied together again.

Your hatred for others clouds all judgement

---

I'd agree with you. But if we're going to hold that anyone in the US is subject to its laws, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", then children born in the US are also subject to the Constitution, which makes them citizens at birth.

We should probably just stop them from having anchor babies.
When they come in for their baby check up with no medical insurance we should ship em all back before the anchor baby is born.

Ta Hell with trying to convince half of our population what words actually mean as opposed to what you want them to mean....
just nip the problem in the bud.

Stop all immigration until a better plan is in place for legal immigration.
All people here illegally should be deported immediately regardless of country of origin, age, religion, pregnancy status....

But I'm sure you all would much rather argue over who is racist and what some dude meant 100+ years ago when trying to write law.

I agree with probably more than you think. If it's safe to do so, I'm not opposed to sending expectant mothers here illegally outside of our borders before any child is born. Cutting off immigration entirely would be a disaster. It wouldn't stop illegal immigration, but it would thrash our economy. I don't support blanket deportation, but I don't support blanket amnesty either. I think a true plan to fix illegal immigration (as much as it can be fixed) will have to involve an economic wall rather than a boondoggle that effectively cedes large chunks of land to Mexico and doesn't stop a damn person. 

Nathaniel Hackett's playcalling would do a better job of stopping immigration than a fence in the desert, and while Nathaniel Hackett's offense does tend to lose yards, it doesn't cede miles upon miles of US land to Mexico because the fence can't be built directly through a mountain range in Arizona, the footers can't extend into Mexican soil and it can't be built in a way that would interfere with the natural flow of the Rio Grande. It would cut off wildlife migration routes (or are deer and rabbits illegal immigrants too?) and, as it already has with rivers crossing the border in California and Mexico, interrupt the natural ecosystem. All for what? To stop people from crossing into the US in places where they don't cross into the US anyway? I'm not saying knock down the walls we have. Most of them are doing their job, but that's because most of them are in high-traffic areas near major roads and border towns where someone could easily disappear. They're not there to stop, they're there to slow down so the Border Patrol can get there. The uninhabited desert doesn't need fences to stop traffic that, for the most part, isn't there. Expand and beef up fencing around major cities, towns, highways that approach the border (I-10 and I-8, in particular), anyplace else that someone could easily get in and get lose, sure. But don't waste billions of dollars that should be going to infrastructure, education, better equipment and better Border Patrol agents, real tax cuts that don't turn into a pumpkin in 2024, etc. 

My objection to a wall is really not about the people coming across. It's about there being a right way and a wrong way to do things--economically and practically. A $25 billion wall (that's 250 years of Aaron Rodgers at QB...we should be so lucky) that is going to be more of a symbol to make the far right feel good about themselves than an actual measure to prevent immigration is just ridiculous.

---

I just posted the Authors intent, it's up for debate what is a US Citizen

Being of a foreign diplomat is one things, but the author even specifies that *the person in question* must be an immigrant or alien, not their parents. Someone born on US soil has not, at any point in their lives, been an alien or immigrant, therefore they are a citizen by birth. This isn't a question of settled law. It's written in the damn Constitution, and a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by way of executive order then acting upon that unconstitutional order is impeachable, hopefully imprisonable and/or deportable.

Are you that crazy? A president writing an executive order is not committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" no matter how unconstitutional the executive order is. The courts will stop it, and Trump knows that. This is only a way of getting a dialog started.

As far as someone born in the US automatically being a US citizen, aren't the children of foreigners considered citizens of their home country?. Aren't those children subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country? So what you are claiming is the Constitution grants automatic dual citizenship of foreigners' children.

I know that children of US citizens born abroad are considered US citizens. Are there nations that refuse to grant citizenship if the parents are in a foreign country when their child is born?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Being of a foreign diplomat is one things, but the author even specifies that *the person in question* must be an immigrant or alien, not their parents. Someone born on US soil has not, at any point in their lives, been an alien or immigrant, therefore they are a citizen by birth. This isn't a question of settled law. It's written in the damn Constitution, and a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by way of executive order then acting upon that unconstitutional order is impeachable, hopefully imprisonable and/or deportable.

Are you that crazy? A president writing an executive order is not committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" no matter how unconstitutional the executive order is. The courts will stop it, and Trump knows that. This is only a way of getting a dialog started.

As far as someone born in the US automatically being a US citizen, aren't the children of foreigners considered citizens of their home country?. Aren't those children subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country? So what you are claiming is the Constitution grants automatic dual citizenship of foreigners' children.

I know that children of US citizens born abroad are considered US citizens. Are there nations that refuse to grant citizenship if the parents are in a foreign country when their child is born?

Yes.  There are many people that are citizens of nowhere for this reason.  Google it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

so when we talk abortion you crazies treat babies and mothers as totally separate people.

But when it comes to this suddenly they should be tied together again.

Your hatred for others clouds all judgement

Lol...  You're just not very good at this are you?

---

We should probably just stop them from having anchor babies.
When they come in for their baby check up with no medical insurance we should ship em all back before the anchor baby is born.

Ta Hell with trying to convince half of our population what words actually mean as opposed to what you want them to mean....
just nip the problem in the bud.

Stop all immigration until a better plan is in place for legal immigration.
All people here illegally should be deported immediately regardless of country of origin, age, religion, pregnancy status....

But I'm sure you all would much rather argue over who is racist and what some dude meant 100+ years ago when trying to write law.

I agree with probably more than you think. If it's safe to do so, I'm not opposed to sending expectant mothers here illegally outside of our borders before any child is born. Cutting off immigration entirely would be a disaster. It wouldn't stop illegal immigration, but it would thrash our economy. I don't support blanket deportation, but I don't support blanket amnesty either. I think a true plan to fix illegal immigration (as much as it can be fixed) will have to involve an economic wall rather than a boondoggle that effectively cedes large chunks of land to Mexico and doesn't stop a damn person. 

Nathaniel Hackett's playcalling would do a better job of stopping immigration than a fence in the desert, and while Nathaniel Hackett's offense does tend to lose yards, it doesn't cede miles upon miles of US land to Mexico because the fence can't be built directly through a mountain range in Arizona, the footers can't extend into Mexican soil and it can't be built in a way that would interfere with the natural flow of the Rio Grande. It would cut off wildlife migration routes (or are deer and rabbits illegal immigrants too?) and, as it already has with rivers crossing the border in California and Mexico, interrupt the natural ecosystem. All for what? To stop people from crossing into the US in places where they don't cross into the US anyway? I'm not saying knock down the walls we have. Most of them are doing their job, but that's because most of them are in high-traffic areas near major roads and border towns where someone could easily disappear. They're not there to stop, they're there to slow down so the Border Patrol can get there. The uninhabited desert doesn't need fences to stop traffic that, for the most part, isn't there. Expand and beef up fencing around major cities, towns, highways that approach the border (I-10 and I-8, in particular), anyplace else that someone could easily get in and get lose, sure. But don't waste billions of dollars that should be going to infrastructure, education, better equipment and better Border Patrol agents, real tax cuts that don't turn into a pumpkin in 2024, etc. 

My objection to a wall is really not about the people coming across. It's about there being a right way and a wrong way to do things--economically and practically. A $25 billion wall (that's 250 years of Aaron Rodgers at QB...we should be so lucky) that is going to be more of a symbol to make the far right feel good about themselves than an actual measure to prevent immigration is just ridiculous.

At current, they think that they need 5000 more judges to handle the backlog of amnesty cases (nearly 3/4 of a million) to even approach the turn around needed to comply with the Flores Declaration and billions of dollars in infrastructure to detain he physical people crossing the border.  When you factor in those costs a wall would actually pay for itself in less than a presidential term. 

As for birthright citizenship, historically there have been understood to be three prime common law exceptions to the jus soli doctrine, 1.) Foreign diplomats, 2.) Tourist ships incidentally in terrestrial waters, 3.) enemy invaders/combatants.

---

so when we talk abortion you crazies treat babies and mothers as totally separate people.

But when it comes to this suddenly they should be tied together again.

Your hatred for others clouds all judgement

Lol...  You're just not very good at this are you?

He's the best at non sequitur I've ever seen.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Being of a foreign diplomat is one things, but the author even specifies that *the person in question* must be an immigrant or alien, not their parents. Someone born on US soil has not, at any point in their lives, been an alien or immigrant, therefore they are a citizen by birth. This isn't a question of settled law. It's written in the damn Constitution, and a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by way of executive order then acting upon that unconstitutional order is impeachable, hopefully imprisonable and/or deportable.

Are you that crazy? A president writing an executive order is not committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" no matter how unconstitutional the executive order is. The courts will stop it, and Trump knows that. This is only a way of getting a dialog started.

As far as someone born in the US automatically being a US citizen, aren't the children of foreigners considered citizens of their home country?. Aren't those children subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country? So what you are claiming is the Constitution grants automatic dual citizenship of foreigners' children.

I know that children of US citizens born abroad are considered US citizens. Are there nations that refuse to grant citizenship if the parents are in a foreign country when their child is born?

I believe that a President who willfully, knowingly uses their office to violate the Constitution should be impeached, yes. I think a President rewriting the Constitution to suit their whims should fall under the high crimes and misdemeanors category, as the Constitution is the law that supersedes all other laws in this country. Yes, children of foreigners born on US soil are granted dual citizenship if their home country allows it. They are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States while here. Case in point: let's assume China grants dual citizenship to the child of a Chinese couple born elsewhere (not sure if they do). It's also illegal in China to have more than one child. If the mother gives birth to her child while over here from China on a student visa (example) and this is her second child, she might have committed a crime in China, but she hasn't here. She's not subject to the laws and jurisdiction of China while in the US; she's subject to ours. So is her child, and her child is therefore an American citizen.

Yes, there are nations that do not grant citizenship if a child is born to two citizens of that country in a foreign nation. On the flipside, despite what the diplomat in chief and White House Constitutional Scholar might have said earlier, the US is not the only country that grants birthright citizenship.

I agree with probably more than you think. If it's safe to do so, I'm not opposed to sending expectant mothers here illegally outside of our borders before any child is born. Cutting off immigration entirely would be a disaster. It wouldn't stop illegal immigration, but it would thrash our economy. I don't support blanket deportation, but I don't support blanket amnesty either. I think a true plan to fix illegal immigration (as much as it can be fixed) will have to involve an economic wall rather than a boondoggle that effectively cedes large chunks of land to Mexico and doesn't stop a damn person. 

Nathaniel Hackett's playcalling would do a better job of stopping immigration than a fence in the desert, and while Nathaniel Hackett's offense does tend to lose yards, it doesn't cede miles upon miles of US land to Mexico because the fence can't be built directly through a mountain range in Arizona, the footers can't extend into Mexican soil and it can't be built in a way that would interfere with the natural flow of the Rio Grande. It would cut off wildlife migration routes (or are deer and rabbits illegal immigrants too?) and, as it already has with rivers crossing the border in California and Mexico, interrupt the natural ecosystem. All for what? To stop people from crossing into the US in places where they don't cross into the US anyway? I'm not saying knock down the walls we have. Most of them are doing their job, but that's because most of them are in high-traffic areas near major roads and border towns where someone could easily disappear. They're not there to stop, they're there to slow down so the Border Patrol can get there. The uninhabited desert doesn't need fences to stop traffic that, for the most part, isn't there. Expand and beef up fencing around major cities, towns, highways that approach the border (I-10 and I-8, in particular), anyplace else that someone could easily get in and get lose, sure. But don't waste billions of dollars that should be going to infrastructure, education, better equipment and better Border Patrol agents, real tax cuts that don't turn into a pumpkin in 2024, etc. 

My objection to a wall is really not about the people coming across. It's about there being a right way and a wrong way to do things--economically and practically. A $25 billion wall (that's 250 years of Aaron Rodgers at QB...we should be so lucky) that is going to be more of a symbol to make the far right feel good about themselves than an actual measure to prevent immigration is just ridiculous.

At current, they think that they need 5000 more judges to handle the backlog of amnesty cases (nearly 3/4 of a million) to even approach the turn around needed to comply with the Flores Declaration and billions of dollars in infrastructure to detain he physical people crossing the border.  When you factor in those costs a wall would actually pay for itself in less than a presidential term. 

As for birthright citizenship, historically there have been understood to be three prime common law exceptions to the jus soli doctrine, 1.) Foreign diplomats, 2.) Tourist ships incidentally in terrestrial waters, 3.) enemy invaders/combatants.

No, it really wouldn't. What would pay for itself is an overhaul of the immigration courts to streamline the process. They've been chronically underfunded and understaffed. Hire more judges, yes, but also hire arbitrators, administrative judges, whatever you want to call them to go through and get the easy cases out of the system, and there are many. The guy here claiming asylum for the fourteenth time, the group of single males who were observed cutting through a helicopter mat fence with an acetylene torch, the guys who called the Border Patrol a bunch of bad words, get that stuff cleared out. Let the cases that should actually go to judges, like people credibly requesting asylum or mothers with children, go in front of the judges, and let the obvious ones be rejected on paper before anyone's time is spent on them. Again, my objections are not entirely philosophical. They are largely economic and, to an extent, environmental.

Or we could just update the goddamned immigration laws to put some real teeth behind them for employers and landlords that knowingly deal with illegal immigrants.

As for jus soli, they're clearly not foreign diplomats, they're not tourists, and last time I checked we weren't at war with anyone, although I'd hardly hold it against the President for trying to withhold citizenship from a child named Jihad born to two Iranians who walked over from Mexico waving an ISIS flag. There is nothing in the common law exceptions which rules out immigrants, even illegal ones. In fact, it seems to me that if you end birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants, you'd have to end it for everyone here legally, maybe even creep on up the ladder to naturalized citizens. After all, many of them retain dual citizenship. And what about naturally-born Americans who have dual citizenship by birth or parentage in a foreign country? See the slope here and how slippery it is, and how impossible it is to draw lines on the issue?

Then again, if Paul Ryan is saying he can't do what he wants here, this is probably not something we need to worry about. It's just another bit of fluffing from Trump to make sure his base is fully agitated coming into the election. They're still losing the House.

---

Are you that crazy? A president writing an executive order is not committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" no matter how unconstitutional the executive order is. The courts will stop it, and Trump knows that. This is only a way of getting a dialog started.

As far as someone born in the US automatically being a US citizen, aren't the children of foreigners considered citizens of their home country?. Aren't those children subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country? So what you are claiming is the Constitution grants automatic dual citizenship of foreigners' children.

I know that children of US citizens born abroad are considered US citizens. Are there nations that refuse to grant citizenship if the parents are in a foreign country when their child is born?

I believe that a President who willfully, knowingly uses their office to violate the Constitution should be impeached, yes. I think a President rewriting the Constitution to suit their whims should fall under the high crimes and misdemeanors category, as the Constitution is the law that supersedes all other laws in this country. Yes, children of foreigners born on US soil are granted dual citizenship if their home country allows it. They are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States while here. Case in point: let's assume China grants dual citizenship to the child of a Chinese couple born elsewhere (not sure if they do). It's also illegal in China to have more than one child. If the mother gives birth to her child while over here from China on a student visa (example) and this is her second child, she might have committed a crime in China, but she hasn't here. She's not subject to the laws and jurisdiction of China while in the US; she's subject to ours. So is her child, and her child is therefore an American citizen.

Yes, there are nations that do not grant citizenship if a child is born to two citizens of that country in a foreign nation. On the flipside, despite what the diplomat in chief and White House Constitutional Scholar might have said earlier, the US is not the only country that grants birthright citizenship.

At current, they think that they need 5000 more judges to handle the backlog of amnesty cases (nearly 3/4 of a million) to even approach the turn around needed to comply with the Flores Declaration and billions of dollars in infrastructure to detain he physical people crossing the border.  When you factor in those costs a wall would actually pay for itself in less than a presidential term. 

As for birthright citizenship, historically there have been understood to be three prime common law exceptions to the jus soli doctrine, 1.) Foreign diplomats, 2.) Tourist ships incidentally in terrestrial waters, 3.) enemy invaders/combatants.

No, it really wouldn't. What would pay for itself is an overhaul of the immigration courts to streamline the process. They've been chronically underfunded and understaffed. Hire more judges, yes, but also hire arbitrators, administrative judges, whatever you want to call them to go through and get the easy cases out of the system, and there are many. The guy here claiming asylum for the fourteenth time, the group of single males who were observed cutting through a helicopter mat fence with an acetylene torch, the guys who called the Border Patrol a bunch of bad words, get that stuff cleared out. Let the cases that should actually go to judges, like people credibly requesting asylum or mothers with children, go in front of the judges, and let the obvious ones be rejected on paper before anyone's time is spent on them. Again, my objections are not entirely philosophical. They are largely economic and, to an extent, environmental.

Or we could just update the goddamned immigration laws to put some real teeth behind them for employers and landlords that knowingly deal with illegal immigrants.

As for jus soli, they're clearly not foreign diplomats, they're not tourists, and last time I checked we weren't at war with anyone, although I'd hardly hold it against the President for trying to withhold citizenship from a child named Jihad born to two Iranians who walked over from Mexico waving an ISIS flag. There is nothing in the common law exceptions which rules out immigrants, even illegal ones. In fact, it seems to me that if you end birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants, you'd have to end it for everyone here legally, maybe even creep on up the ladder to naturalized citizens. After all, many of them retain dual citizenship. And what about naturally-born Americans who have dual citizenship by birth or parentage in a foreign country? See the slope here and how slippery it is, and how impossible it is to draw lines on the issue?

Then again, if Paul Ryan is saying he can't do what he wants here, this is probably not something we need to worry about. It's just another bit of fluffing from Trump to make sure his base is fully agitated coming into the election. They're still losing the House.

Quite the contrary, the third exception fits perfectly for those who violated the countries laws to gain entry.  The concept of "under the jurisdiction thereof" represents a volitional pact between the person in the country and the country of origin for the person to reasonably submit to our jurisdiction and the country to allow them entry not just a random illegal playing red rover red rover with border patrol gents while his wife is 9 months pregnant in the back of a van somewhere that is ultimately subject to our laws and or deportation.  

As for "streamline the process" are you kidding me?  There are ALREADY 700k cases on backlog and we get tens of thousands more each year.  Not to mention that we don't have the room and the infrastructure to hold the people coming into the country to even make it to a hearing.  We are already talking about tent cities etc. etc. etc.  No one making the economic argument about 25 billion for the wall (a rounding error in the federal budget) actually takes into account the actual cost of truly processing everyone that we CATCH coming across the border, expanding border patrol to actually stop more people from crossing, the cost of drug treatment, internal law enforcement, and the 2.4 billion plus we already spend on social services for the roughly 300-400k children of illegal immigrants that are born in this country each year.  The Healthcare costs alone justify a physical barrier.

---

Lol...  You're just not very good at this are you?

He's the best at non sequitur I've ever seen.

Guess the change of direction confused you lunatics, apologies.

---

He's the best at non sequitur I've ever seen.

Guess the change of direction confused you lunatics, apologies.

I get the correlation you were trying to make, but unfortunately it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

---

I just posted the Authors intent, it's up for debate what is a US Citizen

Being of a foreign diplomat is one things, but the author even specifies that *the person in question* must be an immigrant or alien, not their parents. Someone born on US soil has not, at any point in their lives, been an alien or immigrant, therefore they are a citizen by birth. This isn't a question of settled law. It's written in the damn Constitution, and a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by way of executive order then acting upon that unconstitutional order is impeachable, hopefully imprisonable and/or deportable.

Aside from it not being an impeachable offense, I'm curious why you think it's OK to deport a US citizen that breaks the law but not a non-citizen breaking the law.

I can't really figure out where you stand on deportation so I could be wrong.

As for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it isn't applicable to everyone. B2hibry is correct in his explanation. That isn't a simple "you have to follow the law" statement; everyone has to follow the law. The 14th amendment was intended to enfranchise slaves. It wasn't even considering citizenship to foreigners. That's why they include the phrase that they can't be subject to foreign powers. You keep saying that it's written in the constitution, but you're ignoring the clearly stated phrase that it only applies to persons not subject other jurisdictions.

---

The USA and Canada are the only 2 western nations that have birthright citizenship, Europe doesn't. And we hear these liberal scream we should be like Europe so...... Make up your minds liberals

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

The USA and Canada are the only 2 western nations that have birthright citizenship, Europe doesn't. And we hear these liberal scream we should be like Europe so...... Make up your minds liberals

I would be very curious to see the employment industry breakdown of those who support illegal immigration and this invasion on our country are in. 

I think liberal construction worker and fast food employees are dumb enough to support this without realizing how the end result will affect them.

---

The USA and Canada are the only 2 western nations that have birthright citizenship, Europe doesn't. And we hear these liberal scream we should be like Europe so...... Make up your minds liberals

Look up 'jus soli' on Wikipedia.  A lot of Europe grants citizenship to those born in their territory, as does most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The USA and Canada are the only 2 western nations that have birthright citizenship, Europe doesn't. And we hear these liberal scream we should be like Europe so...... Make up your minds liberals

Look up 'jus soli' on Wikipedia.  A lot of Europe grants citizenship to those born in their territory, as does most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

Almost none of Europe does that.

---

Look up 'jus soli' on Wikipedia.  A lot of Europe grants citizenship to those born in their territory, as does most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

Almost none of Europe does that.

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Almost none of Europe does that.

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

And accounting for 90% of the hostile immigrant takeover.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yeah just Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Just countries accounting for about half of the population of Europe.

And accounting for 90% of the hostile immigrant takeover.

As it turns out when you build a country with welcoming culture and decent paying jobs people want to come! who knew?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.