Isn’t that most talking heads?
1 Like
Uh oh please let’s not go down this rabbit hole again. Mid noughties Thousands and thousands of posts on this very topic and it ended up with two posters going back and forth relentlessly echoing the same point again and again and again 
1 Like
If you want to change the Constitution, there is a process for that. Pass an amendment. Otherwise, that kid is an American.
7 Likes
I am curious as to why the idea that birthright citizenship… which has been established for over a century… should not be a thing?
What motivates this?
2 Likes
My daughter who lives in England is pregnant and I told her jokingly to come visit in August when she is due so baby can be a US citizen. Then she sent me reams of data on illustrating the really poor maternity outcomes in the US. Note to self no more jokes to my pregnant daughter.
The good news is that it will be grandchild #4
6 Likes
Our Supreme Court has been explicitly clear with regard to this issue.
Here is what our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”
“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.
And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
The bottom line is, Andrew Napolitano makes up crap about our Constitution, and has repeatedly ignored that part of the 14th Amendment which has the qualifying words “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The preponderance of the evidence confirms, Andrew Napolitano simply makes up ■■■■ to advance his anarchist libertarian views. And he pontificated the same crap regarding States being required to embrace homosexual marriages.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
But the reality is that children born here are citizens (yes I know that does not extend to foreign diplomats).
You can cite the constitution and previous SC cases as much as you want but it does not change the fact that in the real world these children are US citizens. No one can deny them their right to live here, vote and enjoy all the rights of citizenship as much as any other citizen.
The reality is, our Constitution’s is being trashed and ignored. And you seem to support that trashing.
Congrats!
2 Likes
In your opinion its being trashed. I get that you do not recognize them as citizens but the reality is they are. Nothing is going to change that short of a constitutional amendment to make it crystal clear.
You posting walls of text on an online forum does nothing to change the reality of what is happening which is they can work, live, vote, serve on a jury etc just like aby other citizen.
Though no one can deny you provide context, cite exames etc to support your opinions.
2 Likes
Ahhhhhhhh…so now you want the Constitution enforced or is it the lib eenie, meenie, mynie moe methodology that actually applies?
Here’s the Constituion that applies; Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
Now here they are here invading our country that the traitorous President you voted for…encouraged. I’ll wait for your intelligent response and thanks in advance. 
1 Like
Oh dear - I hope you’re not supporting Trump’s candidacy for president. After all, he has openly talked about terminating parts of the constitution.
Oh but that’s ok because it’s Donald, if he’s for it the sheepole are for it too.
1 Like
Why would I engage with someone who is so condescending to me?
My so-called opinion is in harmony with what our Supreme Court has stated, and I documented HERE
Here is what our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”
“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.
And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
The bottom line is, Andrew Napolitano makes up crap about our Constitution, and has repeatedly ignored that part of the 14th Amendment which has the qualifying words “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The preponderance of the evidence confirms, Andrew Napolitano simply makes up ■■■■ to advance his anarchist libertarian views. And he pontificated the same crap regarding States being required to embrace homosexual marriages.
The question is, why is Napolitano the go-to guy for NEWSMAX on constitutional issues when he makes up ■■■■■ ?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
You don’t have to agree with “me”. What you should agree with is the “truth”. Set personal emotions aside and comprehend…if you want the Constitution followed…THEN FOLLOW IT. ALL OF IT. You don’t pick and choose which aspects are to be followed and which are to be ignored based on personal feelings.
2 Likes
No one is buying what you are selling.
Birthright citizenship is a thing.
What is gained by railing against it?
1 Like
You will have to ask Napolitano on that. No one here can answer that, no matter how many times you ask the question.
He’s a shock jock of a judge
1 Like
I guess we have to accept there will always be those who are willing to cheat, when the game does not go their way.
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
