Cite the legal dictionary citation of the founding era to that effect.
Unfortunately, I cannot link to a 200-year old volume of Black’s law dictionary - I can’t even link to a current version, because it’s behind a paywall.
Additionally, the definition of “person” in 1787 isn’t particularly relevant today.
This is the current definition, according to Black’s:
A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties
Nope illegal is illegal, but if there was only a couple hundred people a year coming in from south of the border no one would even notice (or care). But we all know that’s not the case. If you remember from our last discussion I have np with migration or immigrants themselves my worry is the numbers - the speed and amount of the migration.
Of course it’s relevant since that’s the term used in our constitution.
Are you trying to argue that “person” meant something different in 1787?
You appear to be doing so since you just stated the definition in 1787 is irrelevant today.
Additionally, the definition of “person” in 1787 isn’t particularly relevant today.
If the constitution and it’s amendments are not read in the language of the day and context of the times in which they were written the entire document becomes meaningless because you can make it then say whatever you want at any given time without following the amendment process.
I’ll ask again:
Are you claiming that the word “person” had a different legal definition in 1787 than it does now?
If that’s not what you’re arguing, what is your point?
You made the statement so it’s up to you to support your statement, not me.
I’ll pass on the pedantry games.
If you have a point, make it.
You’ve been playing a pedantry game since your first post on the subject and now it’s clear you can’t support your position.
Read the Constitution. The language is very precise for a reason.
The concept is the reason for the precise language in The Constitution.
Not all “people” are considered to be persons under The Constitution.
I’m not redefining anything.
In China it is a status symbol to have a child that was born in America.
U[quote=“CassandraJoe, post:40, topic:168462, full:true”]
“Redefining people”…now THERE’S a slippery slope.
[/quote]
Cherry picking words?
People are defined and categorized all the time.
False, if you go back and read the floor debates for the fourteenth you will find the principle authors saying “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant the complete jurisdiction thereof and didn’t apply to aliens.
from http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “ All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. ”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “ make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States, ” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “ every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. ” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.
The point isn’t to redefine people, only to redefine their legal status. Surely you can see that.
I have a lot more trouble with Russians taking advantage of our laws, as I believe their ultimate intent is to cause our country harm, than I have of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families.
That is exactly how slavery and abortion were both justified under the law. Both slaves and the unborn were denied personhood.
1 Like
China is a far greater threat than Russia and we just blissfully ignore them.
You bet they are, but if your party worships identity politics and intersectionality one has to conclude Russia = mostly white people…Strike One…Russia is mostly Christian…Strike Two…Hillary lost in 2016…Strike Three…
