Bill would end birthright citizenship.

A right, by its very definition, is limiting. Citizenship established by the 14th Amendment is not an inalienable right.

Whats more amazing is the complete misconstruing of the words to achieve a completely inept understanding of those very documents.

 

That quote does not refute anything, in fact it makes my quote even more solid as it states exactly what the requirements were to be considered domiciled. birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. Do you even understand those quoted words?

 

Refuted in this post...... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

Specifically says simple presence inside the borders is all that is required.

 

That quote does not state nor say that. Do you even understand the word "amity" and what was required to be "predicable of aliens in amity "?

I like this part from your quote: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection........but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. Do you not understand that his very quote of yours is limiting to specific aliens and those already subjects of the King?

 

And yet you quote the very opposite of what you are claiming: from your very quote: the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
So if the 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of the interpretation of Common Law, then simple law can change the very interpretation of the 14th.

This is basic first year law student stuff here.

 

The criteria to establish what is and what is not an inalienable right is certainly very limiting and I've provided that criteria in the past.

An inalienable (natural) right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

Citizenship based upon Jus Soli meets the explicit criteria of an Inalienable (Natural) Right of the Person. It is inherent in the child, not dependent upon the parent, does not violate anyone else's rights, and does not impose an involuntary obligation on anyone (note: welfare laws are a voluntary obligation by society created by government).

The provisions of the 14th Amendment (i.e. born in the United States.... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) enumerate the protection of the Inalienable (Natural) Right of Citizenship of the Person established by Jus Soli.

 

Refuted in this post...... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

Specifically says the only children not born citizens (subjects) are to ambassadors with immunity or invading armies, as neither are subject to the jurisdiction. EVERYONE else is subject to the jurisdiction by their simple presence.

 

No it does not, and no it is not The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is merely declaratory of existing law, i.e. the 1866 Civil Rights Act and prior CRA's and INA's.

The 14th citizenship clause is declaratory of existing law. It is not an inalienable right in any way, shape or form. Jus soli does not establish any inalienable right.

 

Yes very basic stuff here. The constitution can not be amended by simple law. Only by amendment. This is something we learn in 6th grade.

Youve been proven completely and irredeemably wrong.

 

No where does it state what you are claiming: EVERYONE else is subject to the jurisdiction by their simple presence.

It states specifically: But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King. Within the jurisdiction is defined by needing to be within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power of the King.

To this day, an illegal immigrant is not "within the jurisdiction" as defined by being within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power of the US.

Now, within the jurisdiction, of the King is limited to those aliens and subjects already, The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection........but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

 

You just agreed with me. Anyone except ambassadors or an invading army is subject to the jurisdiction. And any child born is a natural born subject(citizen)

Thank you.

 

While I've addressed the Inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli it is also worthy to note that citizenship established by Jus Sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) where the child is a citizen of the nationality of the parent is a civil right and not an inalienable right because it's dependent upon the parent. Citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parent (Jus Sanguinis) is always dependent upon statutory law and we see that where US statutory laws establish citizenship for the children of US citizens born outside of the United States.

The US Constitution does protect both Inalienable Rights (the Right of Citizenship) and Civil Rights (the Right to Vote) as well as allowing for certain privileges and immunities for US Citizens. One of those priviliges is that statutory granting of citizenship to the children of US citizens that are born outside of the United States.

 

The only thing you are doing is demonstrating that you don't understand the very words being used in the quote you think backs up your assertion, and that you somehow think what I just stated agrees with you in any way at all.

 

Not what you said what you cited.

You've been proven wrong. Sorry

 

The 14th Amendments Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law. Jus Soli is NOT an inalienable right.

Citizenship by birth is not an inalienable right. Jus soli is not an inalienable right.

 

Not what I said? Hell, I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing highlighted and bolded the portions that show you don't understand the very quote you use. The only thing proven is that you don't comprehend your very quotes, let alone the very words within those quotes.

Do you even know what "Amity" means?

 

Refuted in this post..... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

The only children NOT born citizens are to children of ambassadors or foreign invading army.

You have been proven wrong. I suggest put down your shovel and move on.

 

You've refuted absolutely nothing, in fact your very quote disproves your own claims. You've demonstrated you don't understand the words used in your quote and then embellish it and claim things that aren't even in your quote.

The ONLY in your quote refers to aliens that are within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King and aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom, so that, Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Do you still not understand what "amity" means?

 

Refuted in the linked post.

 

The continuous supply of illegals willing to do those jobs gives no incentive for the employers to make them attractive to those legally here. If there aren't any illegals, those jobs would still have to be done, but at higher wages. Eventually they would be filled with willing workers.

Media Matters is a leftwing joke. They did not discredit Dinesh. You just hate the guy for some reason.

Folks elected Obama twice because they are gluttons for punishment.

 

As long as illegals keep coming, then there is no incentive to make those jobs with living wages. If the supply dried up, it would all change.

You support illegal immigration. That's your prerogative. I think it is doing a disservice to this country.

 

That stupid claim is no truer now than it was 20 or so pages ago when you first exclaimed it.

 

There is no "criteria to establish" what is or is not an inalienable right, a person is born equal and then bestowed with inalienable rights. The only "inalienable rights" are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “All men are created equal” and are born with certain inalienable rights. These include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and no government is allowed to take them away. Jus soli isn't an inalienable right, it is a civil right bestowed upon those that meet certain criteria; that criteria is stated in common law to which the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause is declaratory of.


There is an inalienable right to life, yet that inalienable right can be taken away simply by your peers if deemed. The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than your political and ideological beliefs which do not hold to the documents you are attempting to espouse.

 

The Constitution isn't being amended. There is no need to amend it. Common Law requires that parents be here within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King and is predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom, so that, Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of common law.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the parents must be domiciled here

I'll ask you again, do you know what the word domiciled means? How about the word "amity" or the phrase "predicable of aliens in amity"?

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything, and your continued whine that you have shows a complete ineptness on your part to be able to do so.

 

You can state this repeatedly but Jus Soli does meet the explicit criteria for an Inalienable Right of the Person:

An inalienable (natural) right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

Always remember that Natural/Inalienable Rights exist outside of statutory law and without the existance of government. Assume simply that no nations/governments existed at all. A person born in "Denver CO" would first and foremost be a natural born citizen of "Denver CO" because that is their place of birth. That Natural/Inalienable Right exists because the place of birth is unique to the individual, not dependent upon anyone else such as their parents, does not violate anyone else's rights, and imposes no involuntary obligations upon any other person. It is an Inalienable Right of Citizenship to the place of one's birth.

I know it's hard for many to understand the Natural/Inalienable Rights of the Person but that understanding is critical for Americans because our nation was founded on the political ideology that the very purpose of government is to protect the Natural/Inalienable Rights of the Person. It is a real pity that this isn't really taught in our schools as an entire semester/quarter should be dedicated exclusively to this single subject. I find this to be one of the greatest failures of education in the United States.