Media Hacks Attacking Donald Trump and Lying About United States Citizenship

[NumberSix]

So, the media is slamming the Donald for saying he wants to deport illegals. They also keep making the claim that illegals born in the United States are citizens, which they of course aren't. These hacks keep claiming that the 14th amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil. So let's explore this ridiculous claim.

Here is the article of the 14th amendment in question...


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Now, why is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so important? Originally the amendment didn't have the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line in it. So why was it added?

Author of the amendment Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan made sure it was added and explained exactly what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".


The 14th amendment 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 person.



-Senator Jacob Howard

So it's crystal clear that the 14th amendment does NOT grant citizenship to any person who is born in the United States. It grants citizenship to those born in the US AND subject to US jurisdiction.

Donald Trump is right. Babies born to illegals don't have a right to citizenship.

[NumberSix]

Texas is now being accused of not providing birth certificates to babies born to illegals. Lawyers are claiming this violates the 14 amendment, which as I just explained it doesn't.

[UK2K]

Leftist media is just trying to make it seem inhumane and cruel, when any logical person could agree that they broke laws to get here.

They don't belong here anymore than 20,000,000 Chinese showing up on a bunch of boats, having 5,000,000 babies, and then demanding citizenship.

The left defends illegals because they know they need the votes of special interest groups, even though they know laws are being broken. They can't admit that though.

[DeuceWallaces]

It wasn't applicable because we had open borders when the bill was drafted. Have you guys ever read a history book?


They don't belong here anymore than 20,000,000 Chinese showing up on a bunch of boats, having 5,000,000 babies, and then demanding citizenship.

Uh, that's exactly what made us great. Are you at all familiar with 1780-1930? Maybe you should read up on the "3 Waves of US Immigration."

[KevinNYC]

So it's crystal clear that the .....

Ha Ha Ha.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I really thought you were above being the champion of trump, but I guess being a contrarian is your shtick.

[UK2K]

It wasn't applicable because we had open borders when the bill was drafted. Have you guys ever read a history book?



Uh, that's exactly what made us great. Are you at all familiar with 1780-1930? Maybe you should read up on the "3 Waves of US Immigration."

Labor was needed then. It's not now.

Come on, I thought you were better than that.

These are two totally different time periods. Not to mention the goal then wasn't 'sneak here and get on handouts' like it is now. There's a reason the Mexican embassy in Houston hands out brochures in Spanish on how to get on government assistance.

How many of the immigrants from 100 years ago lived on welfare? Take a guess.

[GIF REACTION]

USA needs to put a priority on their own people first. Nothing comes before that. Trump is right about the Mexican border and the illegal immigrant problem.

[DeuceWallaces]

The goal has always been the same. Come here and find a job.

100 years ago we didn't have welfare, and it's a bigger problem among whites in shit-holes like where you grew up. Most immigrants are working 2 jobs no white US born would ever do. They're also not meth addicted alcoholics like half of E. Kentucky.

Keep the damn border open, I don't want to pay 12 dollars a pound for blueberries and I love eating at their restaurants.

[UK2K]

USA needs to put a priority on their own people first. Nothing comes before that. Trump is right about the Mexican border and the illegal immigrant problem.
If we are going to grant citizenship to anyone who makes it here, we need to go ahead and get rid of our borders all together.

What's the point.

[GIF REACTION]

Letting people flood in is just going to continue the divide between the wealthy and poor.

[RidonKs]

the problem isn't labour, it's capital...

the immigration debate in the states is one massive red herring

[Derka]

the problem isn't labour, it's capital...

the immigration debate in the states is one massive red herring

Its another mechanism through which the ruling parties keeps the people largely uncooperative with each other. Working as intended.

[CNNonceAgain]

It doesn't matter what trumps opinion on the 14th amendment is, it only matters what the SCOTUS thinks.

[RidonKs]

Its another mechanism through which the ruling parties keeps the people largely uncooperative with each other. Working as intended.
:cheers:

[UK2K]

the problem isn't labour, it's capital...

the immigration debate in the states is one massive red herring

As I pointed out, back in the day cheap labor was needed. The country could afford to absorb 10,000,000 people because A) we had the jobs and B) they were going to work, and not simply be a drain on our system.

Neither A or B is true today.

And surprisingly blacks, who have the highest unemployment of any race in the country (more than double that of any other race) would vote for a candidate that would allow the flood of cheap labor into this country; the same cheap labor that will put more blacks out of work.

Ironic.

[RidonKs]

don't you acknowledge the widespread notion that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs being performed by immigrants, not because they got the jobs first, but because nobody else was willing to do them? again, most of the recent labour tension in the western world, which includes the whining about soaring inequality, is a result of capital flight. americans are starved for work because of outsourcing. mexicans are starved for pay because its local industries have been displaced. then you have the millions from central america who have wandered north since the atrocities of the 80s.




btw, smith's argument for perfect markets was only intended to hold when labour was as mobile as capital. without labour mobility, the invisible hand cannot properly do its work, since capital can easily outpace workers seeking better conditions and wages. especially when investors aren't just allowed to send it anywhere in the world they like, but are capable of doing so in under a second. it creates a lot of unpredictable and unstable consequences.

worth bearing in mind anyway, even if you don't believe any of that bears relevance to the citizenship/immigration disputes going on atm.

[UK2K]

don't you acknowledge the widespread notion that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs being performed by immigrants, not because they got the jobs first, but because nobody else was willing to do them? again, most of the recent labour tension in the western world, which includes the whining about soaring inequality, is a result of capital flight. americans are starved for work because of outsourcing. mexicans are starved for pay because its local industries have been displaced. then you have the millions from central america who have wandered north since the atrocities of the 80s.




btw, smith's argument for perfect markets was only intended to hold when labour was as mobile as capital. without labour mobility, the invisible hand cannot properly do its work, since capital can easily outpace workers seeking better conditions and wages. especially when investors aren't just allowed to send it anywhere in the world they like, but are capable of doing so in under a second. it creates a lot of unpredictable and unstable consequences.

worth bearing in mind anyway, even if you don't believe any of that bears relevance to the citizenship/immigration disputes going on atm.

Yes I do.

I also acknowledge that witout illegal immigrants doing those jobs, companies would have to have Americans doing them. If they can't find any Americans who will do them, then they will have to raise the pay until it becomes a desirable place of employment.

Supply and demand. When you have a ton of supply (cheap labor) you dont have to pay shit to fill your demand (the jobs). The less supply, the more valuable the supply is.

Picture this. Every illegal immigrant disappears from the US tomorrow, back to wherever they came from. The businesses (who should be jailed for hiring them in the first place) will need labor. What will they do? Will their jobs sit idle because they refuse to pay $10/hr? Or will they raise the pay to attract the labor so that the work gets done?

[NumberSix]

I really thought you were above being the champion of trump, but I guess being a contrarian is your shtick.
I'm not the champion of Trump. But he is right about illegals not being entitled to US citizenship just because they happened to be born in the United States.

[RidonKs]

i honestly don't think it's a matter of pay dude. you could raise the pay to $12.50 and you still might have a hard time attracting long time american families to that sort of work. it is hard physical labour and considered beneath most people. i certainly consider it beneath myself at this point... though i did plant trees in the plains of northern ontario for a summer. i sucked at it tho, no self motivation too lazy mostly just got baked :lol


i really do think there's an argument that if all recent immigrants disappeared from america, it would be incredibly difficult to find employment for certain jobs. especially the geographically isolated ones. foreigners find it much less problematic to move across the country for a job since they don't have any roots. flexibility like that is a godsend for employers.

more than that, there are a few industries in my neck of the woods (eastern canada) that cannot attract people. youth unemployment here is pretty high, like 10-15% at least. yet there are apple orchards in the north and a large fish packaging plant on the shore (which services a lot of eastern seaboard united states) that simply can't attract people to do the work. bear in mind our minimum wage is like $11. but its in the rural part of the province, there isn't great transportation infrastructure to get there, and most importantly, nobody wants to package frozen seafood or pick fvcking apples.


at the same time, you're right that in a hypothetical scenario, disappearing all the millions of illegal immigrants from america would flood the american market with job openings and lower the unemployment rate by a substantial margin. but there are just SO many migrant workers at this point, as opposed to 20 years ago in the 90s when things weren't quite so bad, that a mass exodus would also collapse many an industry, if only because companies would fail to cover carrying costs while seeking out new staff, their dealers and suppliers and retailers and whatever else would abandon them for somebody more reliable, thousands of small businesses would invariably go under, etc etc

[UK2K]

i honestly don't think it's a matter of pay dude. you could raise the pay to $12.50 and you still might have a hard time attracting long time american families to that sort of work. it is hard physical labour and considered beneath most people. i certainly consider it beneath myself at this point... though i did plant trees in the plains of northern ontario for a summer. i sucked at it tho, no self motivation too lazy mostly just got baked :lol


i really do think there's an argument that if all recent immigrants disappeared from america, it would be incredibly difficult to find employment for certain jobs. especially the geographically isolated ones. foreigners find it much less problematic to move across the country for a job since they don't have any roots. flexibility like that is a godsend for employers.

more than that, there are a few industries in my neck of the woods (eastern canada) that cannot attract people. youth unemployment here is pretty high, like 10-15% at least. yet there are apple orchards in the north and a large fish packaging plant on the shore (which services a lot of eastern seaboard united states) that simply can't attract people to do the work. bear in mind our minimum wage is like $11. but its in the rural part of the province, there isn't great transportation infrastructure to get there, and most importantly, nobody wants to package frozen seafood or pick fvcking apples.


at the same time, you're right that in a hypothetical scenario, disappearing all the millions of illegal immigrants from america would flood the american market with job openings and lower the unemployment rate by a substantial margin. but there are just SO many migrant workers at this point, as opposed to 20 years ago in the 90s when things weren't quite so bad, that a mass exodus would also collapse many an industry, if only because companies would fail to cover carrying costs while seeking out new staff, their dealers and suppliers and retailers and whatever else would abandon them for somebody more reliable, thousands of small businesses would invariably go under, etc etc

So you agree America has a 'lazy as **** and just don't want to work' problem?

As for the rest of your post, you know those oil fields in Midland Texas and the Dakotas? Those aren't located near any city. People actually MOVE to those places, just for the work. South Dakota especially, has had whole towns spring up for people to work in these isolated places.

You know why people are willing to work there? Good. ****ing. Money.

It's been the leftists rallying cry for years, raise the minimum wage! Companies who run those businesses out in the cut have to pay more for labor because that's what it takes to attract workers. It's no different than Cabbage farms having to pay someone $16/hr for them to move there. Of course they probably wouldn't be on board with the idea (which, again, they should be arrested for employing them in the first place but that's another issue), but supply and demand is a real thing with a real world impact.

How much do companies pay crab fishermen in Alaska? Just enough to get people to work there. The same would be true anywhere.

[RidonKs]

So you agree America has a 'lazy as **** and just don't want to work' problem?
yes... tho i'd say probably for different reasons than you do haha


As for the rest of your post, you know those oil fields in Midland Texas and the Dakotas? Those aren't located near any city. People actually MOVE to those places, just for the work. South Dakota especially, has had whole towns spring up for people to work in these isolated places.

You know why people are willing to work there? Good. ****ing. Money.
yeah, incredible ****ing money from a bloated industry with profits spilling from its guts even now during a major downturn. selling oil is different than selling blueberries.


while i am in favour of a higher minimum wage in the united states (meaning at least one that keeps up with inflation)... i do think the minimum wage would have a negative effect on the point i am making. with a rising tide, employers in geographically isolated areas would have a harder time finding room in their profit margin to inflate wages enough to attract employees. so i feel you on that point. i don't think there is a strong principle to abide here, rather you have to accumulate all the pros and cons you can muster and decide which is preferable.

the ultimate counter to what i wrote above, at least as far as i understand it in laymen terms, is that the minimum wage simulatenously stimulates supply by putting more money into the hands of people who will spend it immediately. this may hurt companies in the short run that sell to inelastic markets, but for grocers and farmers and whatever else, primarily those located in densely populated areas, it would be a boost for business overall.

[NumberSix]

yeah, incredible ****ing money from a bloated industry with profits spilling from its guts even now during a major downturn. selling oil is different than selling blueberries.
Is Canada flooded with Mexican illegals? Do you have difficulty getting your hands on a pack of blueberries? :confusedshrug:

And if Americans don't want to pick blueberries, ok. Fine. Those jobs can still be done by immigrants. Why exactly would they have to be illegal? Legal immigrants don't have hands or something?

[DeuceWallaces]

Is Canada flooded with Mexican illegals? Do you have difficulty getting your hands on a pack of blueberries? :confusedshrug:

And if Americans don't want to pick blueberries, ok. Fine. Those jobs can still be done by immigrants. Why exactly would they have to be illegal? Legal immigrants don't have hands or something?

Canada doesn't really grow blueberries.

They buy ours, picked by migrants, both legal and illegal.

[RidonKs]

Is Canada flooded with Mexican illegals? Do you have difficulty getting your hands on a pack of blueberries? :confusedshrug:

And if Americans don't want to pick blueberries, ok. Fine. Those jobs can still be done by immigrants. Why exactly would they have to be illegal? Legal immigrants don't have hands or something?
no. we have a few migrant workers but nowhere near the number in the united states. what's ironic is that even though the problem can't remotely compare to what goes on in the states, the canadian government has already sought out effective controls to prevent companies from taking advantage of the temporary foreign worker program, which was being used for wage jobs with no prospect at advancement....

my point isn't that legal immigrants wouldn't pick blueberries. that is your point and you're welcome to it. i think it's a really dumb thing to suggest, and perhaps even dumber to try to put those words in somebody else's mouth.

it's that, even if there were still some legal immigrants around to handle the blueberry load, there would not be enough to handle the entire blueberry load. it's a subtle point to understand though so i can understand why you completely missed it and decided to say something really dumb.

[RidonKs]

Canada doesn't really grow blueberries.

They buy ours, picked by migrants, both legal and illegal.
wild blueberries > anyway... they're more tart i find. plus you don't have to pay.

i just learned about wild strawberries this summer. what an awesome thing to stumble into, we were lying in the middle of a field eating em for like an hour

[NumberSix]

my point isn't that legal immigrants wouldn't pick blueberries.
Ok, so if legal immigrants don't want to pick fruit, then oh well. Who cares?

Problem solved. https://youtube.com/watch?v=2Ki4n357DO0

[DeuceWallaces]

If you were US born and raised and an illegal Central or South American immigrant took your job, you're doing something terribly wrong.

This is what blueberry picking really looks like
http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/08/large_MigrantWorkersA.jpg

[HitandRun Reggie]

If you were US born and raised and an illegal Central or South American immigrant took your job, you're doing something terribly wrong.


This point has been addressed several times in this thread, but it's failing to sink in for some reason with you, Americans will do most people of the jobs these illegals are doing, just not as cheap. Go to any factory in my the southwest, especially food processing plants, that only requires unskilled labor, and you will likely find a large percentage of illegals. You sound like the greedy corporate capitalists you claim to despise, you want Americans to work for the same dirt cheap wages of a 3rd worlder or STFU about it. :rolleyes:

[RidonKs]

This point has been addressed several times in this thread, but it's failing to sink in for some reason with you, Americans will do most people of the jobs these illegals are doing, just not as cheap. Go to any factory in my the southwest, especially food processing plants, that only requires unskilled labor, and you will likely find a large percentage of illegals. You sound like the greedy corporate capitalists you claim to despise, you want Americans to work for the same dirt cheap wages of a 3rd worlder or STFU about it. :rolleyes:
this is actually a brilliant post

straight out of rove's mouth. or maybe this is more up newt's ally.

[UK2K]

If you were US born and raised and an illegal Central or South American immigrant took your job, you're doing something terribly wrong.

This is what blueberry picking really looks like
http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/08/large_MigrantWorkersA.jpg

But this is 2015. People can be worthless and **** up, but they don't ever have to face the consequences of their decision.

We just give them shit because they 'messed up'.

[ThePhantomCreep]

I'm not the champion of Trump. But he is right about illegals not being entitled to US citizenship just because they happened to be born in the United States.

Welp, looks like you've solved the riddle that is the 14th amendment. Very impressive for a google scholar.

Now run your theory up the SCOTUS flagpole and see if any of the appointed justices salute it. (Hint: they'll tell you to go f--k yourself).

[HitandRun Reggie]

Getting a little off topic, but another thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the federal government prohibits companies from using E-Verify to verify an applicant's immigration status BEFORE they are hired. This seems absolutely stupid. Can someone explain why this is?

Map of states on how they use E-Verify. States in green care about American workers. States in red HATE Americans.

https://www.numbersusa.com/jvrobb/www/nusa/weeklynewsletter/images/StateMaps/e_verify_map550px102011.jpg

[Droid101]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/75/35/bc/7535bc36948977e2624a1c7ca4c24158.jpg

[NumberSix]

Welp, looks like you've solved the riddle that is the 14th amendment. Very impressive for a google scholar.

Now run your theory up the SCOTUS flagpole and see if any of the appointed justices salute it. (Hint: they'll tell you to go f--k yourself).
I didn't solve anything, and it's not my "theory". This is common knowledge that for some reason the media keeps misinforming viewers about.

You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. They haven't, so I don't see why they would tell me to go fcuk myself.

I can see why you would assume something of this importance has already been decided, but remember. The case for gay marriage only just recently went to the Supreme Court. If/when a case to decide whether babies of illegals are entitled to citizenship goes before the Supreme Court, they're going to decide the obvious. They aren't entitled to citizenship.

[KevinNYC]

I'm not the champion of Trump. But he is right about illegals not being entitled to US citizenship just because they happened to be born in the United States.
ha ha ha

[KevinNYC]

You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. They did.

Over a hundred years ago.

[NumberSix]

They did.

Over a hundred years ago.
No, they didn't. There is no case law whatsoever. The closest thing is one case where foreigners who were in the country legally had a child. The Supreme Court ruled that the child was entitled to citizenship. There has never been a case brought before the court of a child born to parents who are in the country illegally. If/when such a case ever does make it to the Supreme Court, it will quite clearly lose.

[KevinNYC]

No, they didn't. There is no case law whatsoever. The closest thing is one case where foreigners who were in the country legally had a child. The Supreme Court ruled that the child was entitled to citizenship. There has never been a case brought before the court of a child born to parents who are in the country illegally. If/when such a case ever does make it to the Supreme Court, it will quite clearly lose.
When you say the closest thing exactly which case are you referring to.

and, of course, there is case law and we don't have to wonder If/when because they already ruled.

[NumberSix]

When you say the closest thing exactly which case are you referring to.

and, of course, there is case law and we don't have to wonder If/when because they already ruled.
Then you should have no problem pulling up the case and the decision, right?

But of course you won't, because it hasn't been ruled on.

[NumberSix]

Anyways, there's good news. Looks like this issue could be going to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Some illegals are claiming that Texas is refusing to provide birth certificates for their babies. Their lawyers are claiming this is a violation of the 14th amendment (it isn't). If it goes to the Supreme Court, they will decide whether this actually does violate the 14th amendment (it doesn't).

[KevinNYC]

Then you should have no problem pulling up the case and the decision, right?

But of course you won't, because it hasn't been ruled on.
Yup. I don't have any problem doing that. It was during President McKinley's term.
In fact, a couple of links later, I found this graphic where the royal blue represents "Unconditional* birthright citizenship for persons born in the country."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Jus_soli_world.svg/500px-Jus_soli_world.svg.png

I asked you because I want to see what you are basing your argument on.

Also, I'm not the one who is wrong.

[DeuceWallaces]

This point has been addressed several times in this thread, but it's failing to sink in for some reason with you, Americans will do most people of the jobs these illegals are doing, just not as cheap. Go to any factory in my the southwest, especially food processing plants, that only requires unskilled labor, and you will likely find a large percentage of illegals. You sound like the greedy corporate capitalists you claim to despise, you want Americans to work for the same dirt cheap wages of a 3rd worlder or STFU about it. :rolleyes:

Hey dumbass, I got it in my first post when I said I don't want to pay 12 dollars for blueberries. Learn to read ****tard.

Americans will not do the jobs illegals do. These are not factory jobs. Illegals aren't working the line in a US textile factory or doing any job a US born will do.

If you're job is taken by an unskilled, uneducated, Mexican who illegally entered the country then you're an idiot. This country was built on unbridled immigration. Just a bunch of crying idiot racists.

[aj1987]

How is giving citizenships to illegals fair to the thousands who come over there LEGALLY, spend thousands of dollars to get a citizenship, and wait for years?

[KevinNYC]

just curious, are you a George W. Bush fan or are you using icon for other reasons?

[NumberSix]

Yup. I don't have any problem doing that. In fact, a couple of links later, I found this. It was during President McKinley's term.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Jus_soli_world.svg/500px-Jus_soli_world.svg.png

I asked you because I want to see what you are basing your argument on.

Also, I'm not the one who is wrong.
So then post the case where you claim this has been decided. Youre claiming a positive while I'm claiming a negative. I can't post some kind of link to a ruling NOT existing. You claim that it exists, so let's see it.


Hint... It doesn't exist.

[NumberSix]

Hey dumbass, I got it in my first post when I said I don't want to pay 12 dollars for blueberries. Learn to read ****tard.
Did you not see the video I posted of the blueberry picking machine? It costs 1/16 of what it costs to pay human pickers.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=2Ki4n357DO0

[Droid101]

I don't know if there's a case law for it, but anyone born here is a citizen, period.


In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are 'natural born,' as opposed to 'naturalized,' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Before you trot out your "mahh interpretation!" of that one line, I'll leave this here:


The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

[KevinNYC]

So then post the case where you claim this has been decided. Youre claiming a positive while I'm claiming a negative. I can't post some kind of link to a ruling NOT existing. You claim that it exists, so let's see it.


Hint... It doesn't exist.

you're not claiming a negative, you're claiming this.

the closest thing is one case where foreigners who were in the country legally had a child. The Supreme Court ruled that the child was entitled to citizenship.

[DeuceWallaces]

Did you not see the video I posted of the blueberry picking machine? It costs 1/16 of what it costs to pay human pickers.

Yes.

No it doesn't.

[NumberSix]

I don't know if there's a case law for it, but anyone born here is a citizen, period.



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Before you trot out your "mahh interpretation!" of that one line, I'll leave this here:
No need for interpretation as I've already posted what the person who wrote the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the amendment meant by it.

"The 14th amendment 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 person -Senator Jacob Howard"

He wrote the damn thing and he's absolutely clear about what he meant by it. It's not just children of diplomats, but nice try.

[NumberSix]

Yes.

No it doesn't.
He says the machine costs 25cents per crate. He says a human picker costs $4 per crate.

Explain "no it doesn't".

[Droid101]

No need for interpretation as I've already posted what the person who wrote the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the amendment meant by it.

"The 14th amendment 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 person -Senator Jacob Howard"

He wrote the damn thing and he's absolutely clear about what he meant by it. It's not just children of diplomats, but nice try.
Nice try yourself. I'm glad he clarified that to himself but it's not in the amendment so who cares? The law is the law.

[NumberSix]

Nice try yourself. I'm glad he clarified that to himself but it's not in the amendment so who cares? The law is the law.
Sorry pal, but that's what he said BEFORE writing it into the amendment. They all knew what it meant and agreed to put it in. That's what it means. There's no ambiguity about it.

[Richesly]

Trump isn't even conservative, he's more in between but i'm pretty sure he's for abortion stated for about 20 years he was, he just abused a corrupted system to get shit done for him, and maybe now can make it up. He's already put the corruption of the system on blast, more than any candidate has even yet to mention so he has my vote thus far.

I do like Bernie Sanders but I really can't ****in stand liberals, he actually has very similar beliefs to that of JFK.

Thing about liberals that are ****ing annoying is that they say they are progressive, yet want to keep outdated rights that are actually killing our country. WE DO NOT have enough jobs for every adult in this country even if there were 0 immigrants, but the fact is business owners prefer guys who are paid under the minimum rather than going by the law.

Trump clearly wants to make a bang, and I'm up for it because Obama fooled us with his good debating and GREAT policies, but he ain't do shit but help legalize marijuana.

Obamacare is a practice from commies. Not a republic.

[Droid101]

Sorry pal, but that's what he said BEFORE writing it into the amendment. They all knew what it meant and agreed to put it in. That's what it means. There's no ambiguity about it.
Every person born here is a citizen and it's been that way since the amendment.

I guess every person in the country (except for you doe) has been misinterpreting the thing this whole time? Yikes!

[ThePhantomCreep]

Then you should have no problem pulling up the case and the decision, right?

But of course you won't, because it hasn't been ruled on.

The wording in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" was broad enough that even a dumbass conservative could understand it.

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization," Justice Horace Gray wrote for the Court's majority.

I see no mention of that parent's legal status here.

[NumberSix]

The wording in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" was broad enough that even a dumbass conservative could understand it.

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization," Justice Horace Gray wrote for the Court's majority.

I see no mention of that parent's legal status here.
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

[NumberSix]

Every person born here is a citizen and it's been that way since the amendment.

I guess every person in the country (except for you doe) has been misinterpreting the thing this whole time? Yikes!
Well, it's up to the Supreme Court to define the proper interpretation of the constitution. I'm confident when it comes time for them to do so, they rule that the 14th amendment does not grant a right of citizenship to the children of illegals.

[ThePhantomCreep]

"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof".I don't see anything about legal status of the PARENTS in that line. Point it out to me, please.

The children? As stated, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That means they get the bad with the good. They have to pay taxes at the city, state, and federal level, they're subject to being drafted, and they don't get deported upon arrest, they go to jail.

Like I said, good luck getting a constitutional amendment on this one. Be sure to grasp those straws extra tight when you make your case to the Supreme Court.

[KevinNYC]

No need for interpretation as I've already posted what the person who wrote the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the amendment meant by it.

"The 14th amendment 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 person -Senator Jacob Howard"

He wrote the damn thing and he's absolutely clear about what he meant by it. It's not just children of diplomats, but nice try.
You're wrong on "subject to the juridisction thereof and you're wrong the Texas case. In the case of Texas not providing birth certificates, Texas is not claiming the children are not citizens. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2178325-motion-to-dismiss-texas-birth-certificate.html) Texas doesn't have that right as that is not a state right.

as for jurdisiction (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/23/425568894/texas-fights-suit-after-denying-birth-certificates-to-children-of-illegal-immigr) since you're avoiding the Supreme Court did speak to this.
[QUOTE]The 14th confers citizenship on anyone born in the United States "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

As a Congressional Research Service report from 2010 puts it, what that means has been the subject of great debate. Did it mean that the children born to Chinese immigrants

[NumberSix]

You're wrong on "subject to the juridisction thereof and you're wrong the Texas case. In the case of Texas not providing birth certificates, Texas is not claiming the children are not citizens. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2178325-motion-to-dismiss-texas-birth-certificate.html) Texas doesn't have that right as that is not a state right.

as for jurdisiction (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/23/425568894/texas-fights-suit-after-denying-birth-certificates-to-children-of-illegal-immigr) since you're avoiding the Supreme Court did speak to this.
That's a case involving parents who were in the country legally. It doesn't answer the question of parents who are in the country illegally.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Where in the text does it state that the parents must be legal residents for birthright citizenship to kick in? Where is it even implied?

[ALBballer]

The goal has always been the same. Come here and find a job.

100 years ago we didn't have welfare, and it's a bigger problem among whites in shit-holes like where you grew up. Most immigrants are working 2 jobs no white US born would ever do. They're also not meth addicted alcoholics like half of E. Kentucky.

Keep the damn border open, I don't want to pay 12 dollars a pound for blueberries and I love eating at their restaurants.

So basically you want to people to work for slave wages with no benefits to give you cheap fruits.

You sound like the Kelly Osbourne kunt "Like without Mexicans who would wash my bathroom...okay?"

[KevinNYC]

That's a case involving parents who were in the country legally. It doesn't answer the question of parents who are in the country illegally.
yeah, that was my question a couple of pages ago, you're hanging your whole CRYSTAL CLEAR argument on a technical clause, that the case that settled what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means in terms of citizenship shouldn't apply because it was before modern immigration laws were written and pretending there was no case law.

In fact Republicans in Congress who were opposed to birthrate citizenship have explored how to amend the Constitution, because US vs Wong Kim Ark did settle the issue and would apply today in the case of a child born to non-US citizens. From the Congressional Research Service (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf)
In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court made clear that U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation.
.....
The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of unauthorized aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a U.S. citizen or whether the native-born child of nonimmigrant aliens as opposed to legal resident aliens may be a U.S. citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark specifically held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Chinese emperor, but had a “permanent domicil [sic] and residence in the United States” and were not diplomats of the emperor, was born a U.S. citizen. The holding does not make a distinction between illegal and legal presence in the United States, but one could argue that the holding is limited to construing the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of parents who are legal permanent residents. However, the Court’s own discussion of the common law doctrine of jus soli and the Fourteenth Amendment as an affirmation of it indicates that the holding, at the least, would not be limited to permanent legal residents as opposed to nonimmigrant, transient, legal aliens and currently accepted law would also weigh against this argument. Also, the cases involving the deportation of unauthorized aliens simply take for granted that their U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens in considering whether the existence of extreme hardship to U.S.- citizen, minor children should stay the deportation of the parents. This is true regardless of whether the children were born during the period of any lawful stay by the parents, during the period of any unlawful stay, or after an immigration court’s finding of deportability of the parents. However, some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in Congress and ratified by the states. Although the Elk decision construed the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the situation of Native Americans is unique, so any interpretation that the U.S.-born children of unauthorized aliens are not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States arguably could not rely on the Elk decision.

Crystal freaking Clear.

You're also pretending that the language of the debate in Congress is what should be interpreted by the Supreme Court, rather than the text of the law of the amendments.

[NumberSix]

yeah, that was my question a couple of pages ago, you're hanging your whole CRYSTAL CLEAR argument on a technical clause, debate over which was actually settled.

You're also pretending that the language of the debate in Congress is what should be interpreted by the Supreme Court, rather than the text of the law of the amendments.
Being born in the United States isn't the sole criteria. You also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The parents have to have some kind of legal status. That doesn't mean your parents have to citizens. It can mean legal residents, temporary work visa, you have to be in the country legally.

At some point, the Supreme Court is going to have to "interpret" what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Unless you're advocating for purposely misinterpreting it, I don't know how you get passed it being clearly explained in congress what it means before agreeing to put it in. It's pretty clear cut.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Being born in the United States isn't the sole criteria. You also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The parents have to have some kind of legal status. That doesn't mean your parents have to citizens. It can mean legal residents, temporary work visa, you have to be in the country legally.

At some point, the Supreme Court is going to have to "interpret" what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Unless you're advocating for purposely misinterpreting it, I don't know how you get passed it being clearly explained in congress what it means before agreeing to put it in. It's pretty clear cut.

This isn't implied anywhere in the 14th Amendment, much less stated.

Here again, is what is plainly stated:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here is what you think it states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, with parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There's a reason why most legal scholars feel the issue of birthright citizenship has been decided; their cognitive abilities are in working order.

[NumberSix]

This isn't implied anywhere in the 14th Amendment, much less stated.

Here again, is what is plainly stated:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here is what you think it states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, with parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There's a reason why most legal scholars feel the issue of birthright citizenship has been decided; their cognitive abilities are in working order.
Hey, genius. I'm not telling you what I think it means. I'm telling you what the people who wrote it say it means.

[NumberSix]

Hey, I wonder what the 2nd amendment means by "arms"? It's clear that to the people who wrote the amendment arms means guns, but I dunno. It doesn't actually say arms means guns in the actual amendment. I guess we can only assume that anything that can be called "arms" is legal.

But of course, you guys won't make THAT argument.

[KevinNYC]

Being born in the United States isn't the sole criteria. true.
You also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. true
The parents have to have some kind of legal status. false

Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States applies only to the child and unless your parents are foreign diplomats or part of a invading army, it's an incredibly low hurdle to clear.

[NumberSix]

true.truefalse

Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States applies only to the child and unless your parents are foreign diplomats or part of a invading army, it's an incredibly low hurdle to clear.
:roll:

Where did you get this idea that there are ANY exemptions? Born in the USA is born in the USA. According to you, ONLY what is in the amendment counts, so where did you get foreign diplomats from?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Hey, genius. I'm not telling you what I think it means. I'm telling you what the people who wrote it say it means.

The language in the text doesn't imply (much less state) that the legal status of the parents is a determining factor in granting birthright citizenship.

You lose.

[NumberSix]

The language in the text doesn't imply (much less state) that the legal status of the parents is a determining factor in granting birthright citizenship.

You lose.
:cheers:

[Droid101]

yeah, that was my question a couple of pages ago, you're hanging your whole CRYSTAL CLEAR argument on a technical clause, that the case that settled what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means in terms of citizenship shouldn't apply because it was before modern immigration laws were written and pretending there was no case law.

In fact Republicans in Congress who were opposed to birthrate citizenship have explored how to amend the Constitution, because US vs Wong Kim Ark did settle the issue and would apply today in the case of a child born to non-US citizens. From the Congressional Research Service (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf)

Crystal freaking Clear.

You're also pretending that the language of the debate in Congress is what should be interpreted by the Supreme Court, rather than the text of the law of the amendments.
Oh shit you come up with the court case and this dipshit still grasps at straws?

Hilarious.

Hold this L six

[NumberSix]

Oh shit you come up with the court case and this dipshit still grasps at straws?

Hilarious.

Hold this L six
He came up with the case that I was referring to in the first place. I'll repeat again for you slow people. That's a case of a person born to people who were legally in the country. The topic at hand is about people who are in the country ILLEGALLY. :hammerhead:

It's like trying to explain to people who just can't understand why someone would go to jail for driving illegally while people are allowed to drive legally. It's like you just can't grasp the difference between legal and illegal.

[Droid101]

People born in America are citizens, the end.

Your vague bullshit is stupid and you're not fooling anyone. Even the usual retarded rightwing trolls aren't coming to bat for you here (Akra, Chew, etc).

Hold this L

[NumberSix]

People born in America are citizens, the end.
...

Your vague bullshit is stupid and you're not fooling anyone. Even the usual retarded rightwing trolls aren't coming to bat for you here (Akra, Chew, etc).

Hold this L
:rolleyes:

[Myth]

Leftist media is just trying to make it seem inhumane and cruel, when any logical person could agree that they broke laws to get here.

.

It is pretty shitty to deport a 15-16 year old to a country they have never been in, even if it is the law.

[NumberSix]

It is pretty shitty to deport a 15-16 year old to a country they have never been in, even if it is the law.
What else would you suggest? Deport his parents and stick him in an American foster home? That's not a good idea.

[Droid101]

:rolleyes:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dFv5eLktzhA/Tck22OdUH2I/AAAAAAAADHI/nS1S0b2iqRE/s1600/barfrolleyes.gif

[KevinNYC]

He came up with the case that I was referring to in the first place. I'll repeat again for you slow people. That's a case of a person born to people who were legally in the country. The topic at hand is about people who are in the country ILLEGALLY. :hammerhead:Yes, it's the case you continue to misrepresent. The legal status of the parents is irrelevant. The parents were subject to jurisdiction of the Chinese empire, but the child was subject to the jurisdictions of the United States.


:roll:

Where did you get this idea that there are ANY exemptions? Born in the USA is born in the USA. According to you, ONLY what is in the amendment counts, so where did you get foreign diplomats from?I got that idea there were ANY exemptions from the Supreme Court case that decided this. I got foreign diplomats because that is one the exemptions mentioned in the case. You're not aware of this because you still don't understand what the part about jurisdiction means. Birthright citizenship is known at the doctrine of jus soli and the part about diplomats comes from that ....before there was a 14th Ammendment, before there was a Constitution and before there was a USA. From the Congressional Research Service. (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf)

The traditional English common-law followed the doctrine of jus soli, under which persons born within the dominions of and with allegiance to the English sovereign were subjects of the sovereign regardless of the alienage status of their parents. The exceptions to this rule are persons born to diplomats, who are born subjects of the sovereign whom the parents represent abroad, and persons born to citizens of a hostile occupying force, who are born subjects of the invading sovereign

....
In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court made clear that U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation.

....."The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional jus soli rule, including the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships, and added a new exception of children of Indians owing direct allegiance to their tribes. It further held that the 'Fourteenth Amendment ... has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship' and that it is 'throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship."

[KevinNYC]

:roll:
so where did you get foreign diplomats from?
:hammerhead:
You know before you reach for the sarcastic emoji, you may want to ask yourself if you're wrong

The text of the Supreme Court Case is online and easily searchable

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The issue of foreign diplomats is mentioned in the second sentence of the facts of the case and mentioned 12 times overall.

[KevinNYC]

BTW, Ted Cruz came out against birthright citizenship today.

"Absolutely," Cruz replied. "We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally."

When pressed on whether a change to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship would be realistic, Cruz said: "I think it is possible, but any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve."Cruz went to Havard Law and knows that word games aren't going to get the job done.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-birthright-citizenship-20150819

[Myth]

What else would you suggest? Deport his parents and stick him in an American foster home? That's not a good idea.

I would suggest some form of statute of limitations. If Cosby gets away with rape because many years have passed, surely we can move on from somebody who has been living their life with a child who knows nothing else after a certain amount of time. You find somebody with a 5 year old born in the states, you aren't ****ing up that 5 year old nearly as much as somebody who is 15. Heck, there have been people sent to Mexico for this who don't speak a lick of Spanish. That isn't fair to them.

Even if you hate that idea, maybe give the family some choice regarding what happens with the child based on your idea, so the family can choose if the child is best going to the home country with the family or foster home, because for some, a foster home may actually be a better solution for the child.

[DeuceWallaces]

He says the machine costs 25cents per crate. He says a human picker costs $4 per crate.

Explain "no it doesn't".

He's the only one with one.

There. I explained "no it doesn't".

If it was economically feasible everyone would have one, but everyone doesn't, therefore you can assume that he/she is full of shit.

[aj1987]

He's the only one with one.

There. I explained "no it doesn't".

If it was economically feasible everyone would have one, but everyone doesn't, therefore you can assume that he/she is full of shit.
It costs ~$80k-90k. Not that expensive if you own a decent sized farm.

[QUOTE][I]

[longhornfan1234]

It's hard to see a reasonable originalist interpretation of the Amendment which doesn't apply to all born here... or else it wouldn't have applied to the slaves it was meant to protect. I'd be all for amending the Constitution to get rid of anchor babies... but I don't think there is any other way that does it.

[andgar923]

This simply boils down to bigotry and racism.

Undocumented workers are actually taking away jobs from other 'immigrants', it is rare that native born Americans fight for the same jobs.

And I wouldn't blame them (immigrants) as I would blame American businesses and consumers. They exist because American companies want to save money, consumers don't want to pay extra for shit so....

I used to own my business and worked for a few employers that hired undocumented workers. There are far more pros to hiring undocumented workers than there are in hiring Americans.

A. Lower wages
B. They don't complain
C. They work harder
D. Companies don't worry about labor laws, conditions, OSHA, etc.etc.
E. Benefits
F. Unions.. or lack there of where undocumented immigrants exist

If 'la migra' shows up, goes what? they just hire more and it's as simple as that.

I've worked jobs in which undocumented workers simply outworked American workers. Uncodumented workers busted their asses off while American workers were slower, complained, were often late, took shortcuts, etc.etc. and guess what? the companies fired them. Kept the undocumented worker at a fraction of the wage and shit was done better, faster, more efficient, they were all around more productive and were EXTREMELY LOYAL.

I know people that have worked the same shitty job for eons, and have their relatives come join them. All while basically worshipping the owner ( I aint kidding), I've literally sat at a dinner table in which they pray and say thanks to God, family and 'Tom' for giving them a job. These undocumented workers work with great PRIDE and value nothing more than their job.

I know dozens and dozens of families like this.

I've been around countless of companies like these.

So it simply isn't farmers, or janitors, there are a number of jobs that undocumented workers do that even if Americans wanted to compete for, they simply can't.

[RidonKs]

This simply boils down to bigotry and racism.

Undocumented workers are actually taking away jobs from other 'immigrants', it is rare that native born Americans fight for the same jobs.

And I wouldn't blame them (immigrants) as I would blame American businesses and consumers. They exist because American companies want to save money, consumers don't want to pay extra for shit so....

I used to own my business and worked for a few employers that hired undocumented workers. There are far more pros to hiring undocumented workers than there are in hiring Americans.

A. Lower wages
B. They don't complain
C. They work harder
D. Companies don't worry about labor laws, conditions, OSHA, etc.etc.
E. Benefits
F. Unions.. or lack there of where undocumented immigrants exist

If 'la migra' shows up, goes what? they just hire more and it's as simple as that.

I've worked jobs in which undocumented workers simply outworked American workers. Uncodumented workers busted their asses off while American workers were slower, complained, were often late, took shortcuts, etc.etc. and guess what? the companies fired them. Kept the undocumented worker at a fraction of the wage and shit was done better, faster, more efficient, they were all around more productive and were EXTREMELY LOYAL.

I know people that have worked the same shitty job for eons, and have their relatives come join them. All while basically worshipping the owner ( I aint kidding), I've literally sat at a dinner table in which they pray and say thanks to God, family and 'Tom' for giving them a job. These undocumented workers work with great PRIDE and value nothing more than their job.

I know dozens and dozens of families like this.

I've been around countless of companies like these.

So it simply isn't farmers, or janitors, there are a number of jobs that undocumented workers do that even if Americans wanted to compete for, they simply can't.
:applause: good post

[Patrick Chewing]

People born in America are citizens, the end.

Your vague bullshit is stupid and you're not fooling anyone. Even the usual retarded rightwing trolls aren't coming to bat for you here (Akra, Chew, etc).

Hold this L


So if a pregnant woman decides to have her baby in the States, then her, the baby, and the father of the baby deserve to stay here permanently? So we go from one citizen to three?

That's a problem.

[longhornfan1234]

So if a pregnant woman decides to have her baby in the States, then her, the baby, and the father of the baby deserve to stay here permanently? So we go from one citizen to three?

That's a problem.
It would depend on how the US had jurisdiction of former slaves and their offspring when the amendment was passed. I'm open to arguments that the situations aren't similar, just not to the people essentially saying well times have changed so we need to change our interpretation of it without any Constitutional basis.... which is something those people have been correctly railing on judicial liberals for doing for decades.

[andgar923]

Say you open a mold and machining company with your best friend and are PRO American.

It's only two of you and you're trying to make a name for yourselves, so you get a small contract to make a mold for a toy company. They need this job done in a month. You need material, tools, hardening, etc.etc.

You start to search and notice that:

Company A is more expensive, but has American workers
Company B is cheaper because they hired undocumented workers

You're in a tight budget but want to keep American only businesses alive, so you go with Company A.

Now you need some welding to be done, so you look to sub-contract the job.

Welder A is more expensive but is American
Welder B is undocumented but is cheaper

Again, you hire 'A' but now your job deposit is looking thinner and thinner, but you suck it up.

You fall behind schedule so you need to hire some help even tho you're income is low. But you still decide to hire an American worker for less.

You now need to take your mold to get it hardened, again you choose company A because they're American, but they're also more expensive.

You turn in your job right on time, and are already in debt and barely have enough to pay for bills. So you start raising your quotes.

The toy company liked your work, but felt you were too expensive compared to other companies in the area. So not only did you not make any profit, you were in the hole and now are struggling to get another job.

What are you to do?

:confusedshrug:

And this is only your first month being opened.

[UK2K]

It is pretty shitty to deport a 15-16 year old to a country they have never been in, even if it is the law.

Sure is.

His parents should be ashamed.

[UK2K]

This simply boils down to bigotry and racism.

Undocumented workers are actually taking away jobs from other 'immigrants', it is rare that native born Americans fight for the same jobs.

And I wouldn't blame them (immigrants) as I would blame American businesses and consumers. They exist because American companies want to save money, consumers don't want to pay extra for shit so....

I used to own my business and worked for a few employers that hired undocumented workers. There are far more pros to hiring undocumented workers than there are in hiring Americans.

A. Lower wages
B. They don't complain
C. They work harder
D. Companies don't worry about labor laws, conditions, OSHA, etc.etc.
E. Benefits
F. Unions.. or lack there of where undocumented immigrants exist

If 'la migra' shows up, goes what? they just hire more and it's as simple as that.

I've worked jobs in which undocumented workers simply outworked American workers. Uncodumented workers busted their asses off while American workers were slower, complained, were often late, took shortcuts, etc.etc. and guess what? the companies fired them. Kept the undocumented worker at a fraction of the wage and shit was done better, faster, more efficient, they were all around more productive and were EXTREMELY LOYAL.

I know people that have worked the same shitty job for eons, and have their relatives come join them. All while basically worshipping the owner ( I aint kidding), I've literally sat at a dinner table in which they pray and say thanks to God, family and 'Tom' for giving them a job. These undocumented workers work with great PRIDE and value nothing more than their job.

I know dozens and dozens of families like this.

I've been around countless of companies like these.

So it simply isn't farmers, or janitors, there are a number of jobs that undocumented workers do that even if Americans wanted to compete for, they simply can't.

Bullshit. I could take you through our warehouse right now and you would see you are 100% incorrect.

[UK2K]

Say you open a mold and machining company with your best friend and are PRO American.

It's only two of you and you're trying to make a name for yourselves, so you get a small contract to make a mold for a toy company. They need this job done in a month. You need material, tools, hardening, etc.etc.

You start to search and notice that:

Company A is more expensive, but has American workers
Company B is cheaper because they hired undocumented workers

You're in a tight budget but want to keep American only businesses alive, so you go with Company A.

Now you need some welding to be done, so you look to sub-contract the job.

Welder A is more expensive but is American
Welder B is undocumented but is cheaper

Again, you hire 'A' but now your job deposit is looking thinner and thinner, but you suck it up.

You fall behind schedule so you need to hire some help even tho you're income is low. But you still decide to hire an American worker for less.

You now need to take your mold to get it hardened, again you choose company A because they're American, but they're also more expensive.

You turn in your job right on time, and are already in debt and barely have enough to pay for bills. So you start raising your quotes.

The toy company liked your work, but felt you were too expensive compared to other companies in the area. So not only did you not make any profit, you were in the hole and now are struggling to get another job.

What are you to do?

:confusedshrug:

And this is only your first month being opened.

Which is why we need to enforce our immigration laws.

The ones that state it is a crime to employ an illegal immigrant.

[andgar923]

People open businesses to make a 'profit'.

The best way to make profit is to save money wherever they can.

America was built on cheap/free labor.

Asia and other countries are thriving due to their cheap labor.

American NEEDS cheap labor in order to sustain itself. Higher paying jobs will always be there. There are tons of jobs that undocumented workers can't even apply for, let alone work.

So while conservative figureheads are spouting off that we need to get rid of undocumented workers and need to close down the border, they are secretly hiring these same people.

It is to OUR benefit to have undocumented workers.

Conservatives want to close down the borders for 2 reasons:

A. They're racists/bigots
B. If we close down the borders and pass laws that make it harder for immigrants to become legalized, they can keep wages down.

Are you guys not aware of this?

If it makes it harder for them to come here and become legal citizens, we can exploit them to our advantage!!!

Wake up people, we NEED undocumented workers. It's the best way for America to sustain itself.

[RidonKs]

American NEEDS cheap labor in order to sustain itself.
not anymore it doesn't. it's a service economy bro, fk the masses.


Higher paying jobs will always be there.
but those higher paying jobs are continuing to become a smaller and smaller circle. as the developing world catches up to industrialization, there will be fewer technological constraints preventing business from operating in regions that are waaaaaaay more cost effective. it will take a substantial labour movement to reverse these trends.

[andgar923]

It always sounds better when you blame someone else, instead of telling people to look in the mirror.

Don't conservatives always tell blacks to strap up their boots and fend for themselves?

So if an American is fighting for a job with an immigrant, what does that say?

The American needs to step it up, strap up their boots and get a better job by going to school.

Seriously, competing for a job with an immigrant should be a wake up call.

Working at a 'warehouse'? LOL

You'd better be a manager or some shit. Driving a forklift aint a career.

[andgar923]

not anymore it doesn't. it's a service economy bro, fk the masses.



What exactly do you mean?

Higher paying jobs will always be there, they have to be created if they're not.

[andgar923]

Btw..

Immigration is a wedge issue used to get donation money from idiots.

"hey billy bob, Trump wants to get rid of these Mexicans, Im gonna vote for him, let's donate to his cause... take my money!!!"

And NOTHING ever happens!!!!

There are always loop holes in these bills that allow companies to hire undocumented workers.

People buy this bullshit every f*ckn year.

People are gullible.

[RidonKs]

What exactly do you mean?

Higher paying jobs will always be there, they have to be created if they're not.
well it may be nice if they WERE created, but that won't necessarily happen. not for any reason you haven't heard before, it's just too expensive.

basically the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy has been happening since nixon, and it sort of culminated with clinton.

a service is much easier to deliver from a distance than a good. phone banks, investment portfolios, technical assistance, deliveries, etc etc etc. you don't need anywhere near the infrastructural operation. you don't need transportation. you don't need preservation or to worry about spoilage or spillover. you aren't dealing in anything tangible. since labour conditions and raw materials are cheaper elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to set up a manufacturing plant in chicago.

but it still makes sense to utilize the technological sophistication of the first world to provide services, especially since telecommunications have made geographic distance completely obsolete.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Republicans all about the free market until brown people start getting jobs.

[NumberSix]

You people can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but it's clear that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I personally can't wait for this question to go before the Supreme Court, because we all know which way it will go.

[UK2K]

Republicans all about the free market until brown people start getting jobs.

I dont care if you're pink as long as your legal.

I feel like most everyone else will agree.

[NumberSix]

I dont care if you're pink as long as your legal.

I feel like most everyone else will agree.
This is why identity politics absolutely poisons everything. If it was millions of white Anglo Canadians, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The militant leftists wouldn't feel a need to defend lawlessness. Remember, these are the people want the government controlling who you have to bake a cake for. They're ALL for government control. The only time they aren't is when there's some identity group, because their minds are infected with Marxist identity politics nonsense.

[Patrick Chewing]

Republicans all about the free market until brown people start getting jobs.


You don't see a distinction between legal and illegal immigration?

[NumberSix]

You don't see a distinction between legal and illegal immigration?
Only if the person is not white.

These leftists are really something to behold. You know, they recently called a gay pride parade a "racist" parade because the parade went through a neighborhood that had some Muslims living in it? Apparently it's culturally insensitive. They actually called the gay pride people racists and bigots. So clearly for leftists, Muslims are higher on the totem pole than gays. Christians of course are much lower than gays, because the Christians would be the bigots for not liking homosexuality whereas gays are the bigots for not accepting Muslims right to not like homosexuality.

The defining characteristic of the left is their lack of principles.

[Droid101]

So if a pregnant woman decides to have her baby in the States, then her, the baby, and the father of the baby deserve to stay here permanently? So we go from one citizen to three?

That's a problem.
I won't get into it being a problem or not, it's quite complex.

But it is what it is right now unless you want to amend the Constitution.

[NumberSix]

I won't get into it being a problem or not, it's quite complex.

But it is what it is right now unless you want to amend the Constitution.
The constitution does not need to be amended. The Supreme Court needs to finally define whether the 14th amendment does or doesn't grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. I'm very confident that they will rule that it doesn't.

[KyrieTheFuture]

You don't see a distinction between legal and illegal immigration?
Of course I do, I don't think kicking all the illegals out will solve anything, and will actually have a negative outcome. I'm not gonna pretend to have any real idea that solves this, but I don't really like Trumps. I would much prefer harsher penalties for the employers, I'd rather a rich person taking advantage of poor workers (illegal or legal, they're essentially creating a wage war) face more punishment than the people fighting to survive. Hire an illegal, serve time. Walls simply won't work, unless you want to have death squads we aren't going to be able to keep them all out.

[KevinNYC]

You people can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but it's clear that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I personally can't wait for this question to go before the Supreme Court, because we all know which way it will go.
Your bubble is bulletproof isn't it?

Where did you come up with this in the first place? Mark Levin?

[NumberSix]

Of course I do, I don't think kicking all the illegals out will solve anything, and will actually have a negative outcome. I'm not gonna pretend to have any real idea that solves this, but I don't really like Trumps. I would much prefer harsher penalties for the employers, I'd rather a rich person taking advantage of poor workers (illegal or legal, they're essentially creating a wage war) face more punishment than the people fighting to survive. Hire an illegal, serve time. Walls simply won't work, unless you want to have death squads we aren't going to be able to keep them all out.
But how are you supposed do that when the democrats are actively blocking employers from being able to verify the legal status of potential employees?

[Patrick Chewing]

Of course I do, I don't think kicking all the illegals out will solve anything, and will actually have a negative outcome. I'm not gonna pretend to have any real idea that solves this, but I don't really like Trumps. I would much prefer harsher penalties for the employers, I'd rather a rich person taking advantage of poor workers (illegal or legal, they're essentially creating a wage war) face more punishment than the people fighting to survive. Hire an illegal, serve time. Walls simply won't work, unless you want to have death squads we aren't going to be able to keep them all out.


The solution to illegal immigration is (D) All of the above.

1. Penalize companies
2. Build a wall
3. Deport illegal aliens
4. Track and monitor all who are in this country illegally.

Penalizing the companies still doesn't solve the problem of not knowing who is crossing the border. Plus, it doesn't prevent companies or private citizens from still hiring workers under the table.

Having someone who's been deported 5 or 6 times pick up a gun and kill an American just cannot happen. Period. Whether it happens one time or never again. The opportunity should never have been there.

[KyrieTheFuture]

But how are you supposed do that when the democrats are actively blocking employers from being able to verify the legal status of potential employees?
I don't agree with the majority of what Democrats do either, but this is a thread about Trump.

Chewing, I do not believe that the fiscal and mental cost (walls are not a good thing historically) are worth it. The money is far more important, and I don't think the insane amount of money it would cost to build and maintain is worth it. It won't be effective enough.

[NumberSix]

Your bubble is bulletproof isn't it?

Where did you come up with this in the first place? Mark Levin?
I don't have the time to explain to you how a common law judicial system works, but I'm sorry to tell you that as much as you want it to be, this isn't settled law.

The Supreme Court actually did previously rule that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to American Indians born in the United States because they specifically aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

American indians have since gained legal status in the form of citizenship, but that decision makes pretty clear that the 14th amendment doesn't require that citizenship be granted to children of parents who do not have legal status.

Now, to be clear, the children of illegals currently are entitled to citizenship. That is current federal law. The point is, that federal law can be changed. It doesn't require an amendment because the constitution currently doesn't prohibit it.

[NumberSix]

I don't agree with the majority of what Democrats do either, but this is a thread about Trump.

Chewing, I do not believe that the fiscal and mental cost (walls are not a good thing historically) are worth it. The money is far more important, and I don't think the insane amount of money it would cost to build and maintain is worth it. It won't be effective enough.
How can you punish someone for hiring an illegal alien if they don't have an ability to verify if they are legal or not?

If there were a verification system, then fine.

[longhornfan1234]

The solution to illegal immigration is (D) All of the above.

1. Penalize companies
2. Build a wall
3. Deport illegal aliens
4. Track and monitor all who are in this country illegally.

Penalizing the companies still doesn't solve the problem of not knowing who is crossing the border. Plus, it doesn't prevent companies or private citizens from still hiring workers under the table.

Having someone who's been deported 5 or 6 times pick up a gun and kill an American just cannot happen. Period. Whether it happens one time or never again. The opportunity should never have been there.



Nah.... we have to help reinvigorate northern Mexico, and stop undermining NAFTA. Or just repeal NAFTA. At this point we need to assist in weakening the cartels.... which wouldn't be hard. With a stronger economy they won't be able to recruit. We need to allow Mexicans to make an honest living... and the way you do that is to make it possible for them to compete with American farmers. Right now American farmers can export corn for less than the Mexican cost to grow it. That's not fair trade. Our government created this mess in Mexico. Our government undermines NAFTA by establishing a playing field that Mexico can't compete with.

[longhornfan1234]

You people can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but it's clear that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I personally can't wait for this question to go before the Supreme Court, because we all know which way it will go.
Given the circumstances of the 14th Amendment... as applies to former slaves... it is hard to see an originalist view that didn't apply it to all those born here.... so my guess is the conservative justices would rule against it as well as the liberals.

[RidonKs]

in over 100 posts on immigration, not one mention of the latin american drug war

these things are all interconnected and there's no isolating one factor from the next

but the drug war isn't just any factor. it's been devastating lives for decades.

[RidonKs]

I did.... :biggums:
:lebronamazed:
oh. well i stand corrected then. good work sir.

[NumberSix]

in over 100 posts on immigration, not one mention of the latin american drug war

these things are all interconnected and there's no isolating one factor from the next

but the drug war isn't just any factor. it's been devastating lives for decades.
Gtfoh.

You know alcohol used to be illegal in the United States, right? You know they used bring in alcohol from Canada the way they currently bring in drugs from Mexico. Did Canada turn into a cartel war zone like Mexico is? Oh, it didn't? Well that's weird.

Another little secret. Did you know that the largest supplier of heroin into the United States is the Montreal mafia? Again, is Canada a cartel war zone?

Mexico is what Mexico is because the Mexican government is what the Mexican government is.

[RidonKs]

Gtfoh.

You know alcohol used to be illegal in the United States, right? You know they used bring in alcohol from Canada the way they currently bring in drugs from Mexico. Did Canada turn into a cartel war zone like Mexico is? Oh, it didn't? Well that's weird.

Another little secret. Did you know that the largest supplier of heroin into the United States is the Montreal mafia? Again, is Canada a cartel war zone?

Mexico is what Mexico is because the Mexican government is what the Mexican government is.
your analogy sucks balls as usual.

prohibition lasted 13 years, so it was a much shorter period. however the main difference is that american authorities weren't cracking down whatsoever. there was a lot of ambivalence toward that amendment. that's why speakeasy's and smugglers weren't exactly unknown.

compare that to the latin american drug war and you get totally different ballparks, even ignoring bullshit possession charges that fk up lives in less immediate ways.

the difference is violence. as usual, american authorities have a much easier time using forceful coercive techniques in foreign territory than they do in the motherland.

perhaps you would like to spin this point, by arguing that american authorities would not have cracked down were latin american narco traffickers not already violent thugs. but that ignores the entire history, thus if you choose to take that line of argument, i will not follow up on it.

the phenomenon is not relegated to mexico either. try colombia. or honduras. or panama el salvador nicaragua etc etc etc.




even if you think the drug war is aimed at a better world, there is absolutely no excusing the blatant hypocrisy shown by the us government, which has repeatedly shown no remorse for breaking its own law. you have basically every major financial institution in the goddamn world laundering drug money. you have the state department directly funding cartels for political purposes. more than that, the united states is the primary market of demand for this stuff.

it's all really really ugly.

[Droid101]

The constitution does not need to be amended. The Supreme Court needs to finally define whether the 14th amendment does or doesn't grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. I'm very confident that they will rule that it doesn't.
lol, even Trump says the Constitution needs to be amended for your stupid theory to be reality.

THE GUY YOU MADE THE THREAD ABOUT DISAGREES WITH YOUR DUMB INTERPRETATION regarding citizenship.

It must be exhausting being wrong all the time. How do you cope?

[NumberSix]

lol, even Trump says the Constitution needs to be amended for your stupid theory to be reality.

THE GUY YOU MADE THE THREAD ABOUT DISAGREES WITH YOUR DUMB INTERPRETATION regarding citizenship.

It must be exhausting being wrong all the time. How do you cope?
Lol. No he doesn't.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Ted Cruz, a constitutional scholar and staunch conservative, supports AMENDING the Constitution ending birthright citizenship, but concedes that would be extremely difficult task to achieve.

Whaaaaa!!!? Amend the Constitution!? That isn't necessary! According our resident Google scholar NumberSix, it clearly states that the parents need to be legal! You don't need to amend anything. Look carefully, it's there. :lol

[HitandRun Reggie]

Hey dumbass, I got it in my first post when I said I don't want to pay 12 dollars for blueberries. Learn to read ****tard.

Americans will not do the jobs illegals do. These are not factory jobs. Illegals aren't working the line in a US textile factory or doing any job a US born will do.

If you're job is taken by an unskilled, uneducated, Mexican who illegally entered the country then you're an idiot. This country was built on unbridled immigration. Just a bunch of crying idiot racists.


You're such a stupid shyt. First of all, almost all Americans could be replaced be replaced by workers from other parts of the world for cheaper you imbecile. Skilled labor, tech jobs, educators, and just about everything aside from management. That doesn't mean you open borders to the whole world you dumbfvck. I'm sure you think you do great job at what you do and are probably underpaid, but believe me there is some motherfvcker out there in India or Russia that could do your job better and cheaper you self righteous fvck. Bring on more H1-B right....:oldlol:


And yeah there are tons of illegal working in textile factories and factories of other goods, as well as food processing plants that used to pay a living wage. You don't know what the fvck your talking about. But lets so you're ok with that too. Cool. However, I know your hypocrite liberal @ss is gonna turn around the next second and bitch about greedy corporate @ssholes not paying a living wage. Sort of the same way you f@ggot liberals pretend to care about civil rights and the plight of minorities from the confines of your gated, segregated neighborhoods. :rolleyes:

[NumberSix]

Ted Cruz, a constitutional scholar and staunch conservative, supports AMENDING the Constitution ending birthright citizenship, but concedes that would be extremely difficult task to achieve.

Whaaaaa!!!? Amend the Constitution!? That isn't necessary! According our resident Google scholar NumberSix, it clearly states that the parents need to be legal! You don't need to amend anything. Look carefully, it's there. :lol
Proposing an amendment can be done for 2 reasons.

1. To make something the constitution neither mandates nor forbids to become the constitutional the law of the land, not just a matter for states to decide or federal law.

2. To undue something that is in the constitution.


He's proposing scenario 1. Something that isn't mandated by the constitution but the constitution allows it.

The constitution doesn't mandate that children of illegals be granted citizenship, but it also doesn't forbid it either. What Cruz wants to do is forbid it.

[KevinNYC]

Proposing an amendment can be done for 2 reasons.

1. To make something the constitution neither mandates nor forbids to become the constitutional the law of the land, not just a matter for states to decide or federal law.

2. To undue something that is in the constitution.


He's proposing scenario 1. Something that isn't mandated by the constitution but the constitution allows it.

The constitution doesn't mandate that children of illegals be granted citizenship, but it also doesn't forbid it either. What Cruz wants to do is forbid it.
Right, he could just take the easy path and pass a law, but dangit, he just wants the hard row to hoe.

Nope.

As a Texas U.S. Senate candidate in 2011 (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/election/national/article/Trump-immigration-plan-riles-on-the-border-6451792.php?t=0ca326eaa7438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium), Cruz stressed that birthright citizenship, however problematic, is enshrined in the Constitution. "I think it's a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Constitution says on birthright citizenship," he said. "I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border. Because birthright citizenship wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have people coming in illegally."

[QUOTE]Asking if Cruz (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-birthright-citizenship-20150819) supported Trump's immigration agenda, Medved said: "What about the most controversial element of his plan, which is getting rid of birthright citizenship

[NumberSix]

Right, he could just take the easy path and pass a law, but dangit, he just wants the hard row to hoe.

Nope.
Well, he was also positive about gay marriage, but the court ruled the other way, so this appeal to authority argument of yours isn't of much value.

I take his point though. If the border is properly secured, people sneaking in to give birth won't be much of an issue.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Proposing an amendment can be done for 2 reasons.

1. To make something the constitution neither mandates nor forbids to become the constitutional the law of the land, not just a matter for states to decide or federal law.

2. To undue something that is in the constitution.


He's proposing scenario 1. Something that isn't mandated by the constitution but the constitution allows it.

The constitution doesn't mandate that children of illegals be granted citizenship, but it also doesn't forbid it either. What Cruz wants to do is forbid it.

Are you insane? Ted Cruz is flat out telling you that children of illegal immigrants are granted citizenship at birth, and that in order to change that, the constitution needs to be amended.

Your entire argument is wrong. This is wrong:


*They also keep making the claim that illegals born in the United States are citizens, which they of course aren't.*

[KevinNYC]

That's a case involving parents who were in the country legally. It doesn't answer the question of parents who are in the country illegally.

Actually the legal status in this case was the child's. The child was in his 20's.

He was born in San Francisco when he parents lived there. His parents had moved back to China five years before the case. He went to visit them and upon his return he was prohibited from entering the United States.


Also during the debate of the 14th Amendment opponents of were distressed that it would make the hated groups of the day (subsititute "gypsies" for "illegals") citizens, though they were fine with German children becoming citizens.

[KevinNYC]

Well, he was also positive about gay marriage, but the court ruled the other way, so this appeal to authority argument of yours isn't of much value.Because that is not the type of argument I made.

I made an argument based on evidence that your reading of what Cruz is doing is directly contradicted by Cruz's words.



so are you going to admit that you were wrong about the child of diplomats exemption?

[NumberSix]

so are you going to admit that you were wrong about the child of diplomats exemption?
How am I wrong? We both agree that the children of diplomats aren't entitled to citizenship.

[Droid101]

Is this performance art at this point by NumberSix? Literally nobody on the planet, even the people who WANT it, believe what he believes.

Unreal.

[NumberSix]

Is this performance art at this point by NumberSix? Literally nobody on the planet, even the people who WANT it, believe what he believes.

Unreal.
Apparently Trump's legal team believes it too.

[Derka]

Insane to me that NumberSix has kept you guys going like this for nine pages. This is the problem with voters: most of them never learn from their mistakes.

This is a 10/10 effort.

[KevinNYC]

How am I wrong? We both agree that the children of diplomats aren't entitled to citizenship.
You were wrong here
Where did you get this idea that there are ANY exemptions? Born in the USA is born in the USA. According to you, ONLY what is in the amendment counts, so where did you get foreign diplomats from?
You now seem to agree there is an exemption.

You were wrong in that the Supreme Court in the 1890's discussed what the jurisdiction issue meant and children of diplomats is one of the very, tiny few cases of exemption.

You were wrong when you claim that the jurisdiction applies to the parents legal status. That is incorrect and ahistorical.

Because of this your misunderstanding of the issue of jurisdiction, you continue to claim the Supreme Court has never ruled on this.
Being born in the United States isn't the sole criteria. You also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The parents have to have some kind of legal status. That doesn't mean your parents have to citizens. It can mean legal residents, temporary work visa, you have to be in the country legally.

At some point, the Supreme Court is going to have to "interpret" what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Unless you're advocating for purposely misinterpreting it, I don't know how you get passed it being clearly explained in congress what it means before agreeing to put it in. It's pretty clear cut.

[TheMan]

Yes I do.

I also acknowledge that witout illegal immigrants doing those jobs, companies would have to have Americans doing them. If they can't find any Americans who will do them, then they will have to raise the pay until it becomes a desirable place of employment.

Supply and demand. When you have a ton of supply (cheap labor) you dont have to pay shit to fill your demand (the jobs). The less supply, the more valuable the supply is.

Picture this. Every illegal immigrant disappears from the US tomorrow, back to wherever they came from. The businesses (who should be jailed for hiring them in the first place) will need labor. What will they do? Will their jobs sit idle because they refuse to pay $10/hr? Or will they raise the pay to attract the labor so that the work gets done?
:applause:

So long as you realize that the prices of a bunch of shit we consume everyday will go through the roof.

[NumberSix]

You were wrong here
You now seem to agree there is an exemption.
Hey, read my original post there guy. I posted the author of the amendments explanation of which groups birthright citizenship doesn't apply to, the children of diplomats being one of them.

YOU are the person who inexplicably wants to disregard his explanation, so that is why I asked you where you got children of diplomats from. Apparently, you agree that birthright citizenship has limits that aren't explicitly mentioned in the amendment itself, so I'm asking WHERE you get a diplomat exemption from? You obviously aren't getting it from Jacob Howard, because you disregard everything else he said. So, where?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Apparently Trump's legal team believes it too.

Trump didn't think Obama was a US citizen either. He's a clown.

[NumberSix]

Trump didn't think Obama was a US citizen either. He's a clown.
Trump's legal team.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Trump's legal team.

Theirs is the minority opinion, by far.

Trump and his cronies are pandering to the nativists, nothing more.

[KevinNYC]

I posted the author of the amendments explanation of which groups birthright citizenship doesn't apply to, the children of diplomats being one of them. First of all, multiple people wrote the 14th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham#14th_Amendment). You seem to have a very facile understanding of how bills and Amendments come to be. This isn't a case of single authorship.
It was literally the product of a Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Joint_Committee_on_Reconstr uction), and something like 70 drafts were proposed. And this guy is credited as the principle drafter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham)

Howard did write a clause of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause that we are discussing, but the point stands the final text of the law or amendment is what the Supreme Court uses to interpret the law. One member of Congress's opinion, is not the final verdict, even if he wrote that part of the text.

Secondly, laws and amendments often have ambiguity and compromise into them so that they can get enough votes to pass. So multiple people can have their interpretations of who would or would not become a citizen.

If I'm for a bill and you say it means X, I don't have to agree that it means X even if I vote for it.

For what it's worth, the question of if citizenship would apply to children of parents who were not naturalized citizens did come during the debate.

[niko]

Trump's legal team.
No, Trump. I've heard him specifically say it out of his own mouth.

[NumberSix]

No, Trump. I've heard him specifically say it out of his own mouth.
Uhh, yeah. I'm sure he believes it too.

[NumberSix]

Howard did write a clause of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause that we are discussing, but the point stands the final text of the law or amendment is what the Supreme Court uses to interpret the law. One member of Congress's opinion, is not the final verdict, even if he wrote that part of the text.
So, I'll ask you again. If we're strictly using the text of the 14th amendment's 1st article, where do you get it not applying to the children of diplomats that are born in the United States?

[KevinNYC]

So, I'll ask you again. If we're strictly using the text of the 14th amendment's 1st article, where do you get it not applying to the children of diplomats that are born in the United States?
They are on the very few classes of people outside of the Tribes who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

You've heard of Diplomatic Immunity? It's based on the same idea.

There was another case in the 1980's, Plyer vs Dow that was mainly about a related issue but by a 9-0 vote said the wong ark kim decision was correct with regards to jurisdiction and said

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

[Droid101]

Masterful troll job, really.

95% of forums would give up on this idiot because, well, it's a waste of time.