You need an “or” I think.
1 Like
You understand this is a transcript of a live debate, right?
I don’t think you can put much stake in the commas.
Considering Wong Kim Ark was born here and had to sue the government to try and get his citizenship even though he was born here…
Meaning he was born here to foreign parents after the 14th was passed and they didn’t give him citizenship…
Yeah I’m pretty sure.
No need to bray about it. Be nice.
No you dont know that. You guessed that.
Again I don’t have to name one. Even if I wanted to it would be a violation of the TOS.
So let’s swing back to you providing evidence of the claim you made or would you like to continue your argumentum ad ignorantiam?
I know the exact quote he’s talking about without looking at any link:
“This 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…”
It’s specifically talking of those born to diplomats. It’s not 3 separate groups he’s describing. It’s the equivalent of saying “Persons born in the US who are foreigners (I.e. aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors…”
This aligns with the views of Trumbull, whom Howard worked closely in support of the CRA of 1866 and the 14th.
I hate to do this to you, but on the grammar in your quote … I’m goi… aaaggghhhg! …I’m going to ha… damnit!.. Ah it burns!.. I’m going to have to agree wi… I CAN’T DO IT!!!
1 Like
Wong Kim Ark was a citizen upon birth.
The court didn’t “make” him a citizen they just ruled that the government was wrong to say that he was not.
I know that. No need to be rude about it.
No way in hell I’m going to admit it.
Ooo, this is an interesting argument.
The actions of a local official in San Francisco are reflective of the intent of the framers?
The background on this case is actually fascinating - it was basically a set-up by a bunch of activists who wanted the case to go all the way to the court (and, they hoped, rule the opposite of how they did).
I think there a few books on it.
While it would sound more correct with one, taking the side that they were just describing the diplomats makes the preceding part redundant and unnecessary.
Yes I do know it. It is an absolute fact. As much a fact as ever existed in history.
I’m not asking you to name one, we both know with 100% certainty that it is not possible for you to do so because there isn’t one.
In fact, nobody on this forum graduated summa cum laude in any subject from Temple.
Read it out loud.
I think that might help.
As is often the wont of politicians. I’m sorry brother, but the grammar supports their reading.
Shame they are incapable of doing the same with the 2nd Amendment.
1 Like
Our reading of it is redundant but saying foreigners and aliens are a distinct group isn’t? That’s hilarious. There’s no redundancy in the proper reading. “Foreigners (I.e. aliens) born to families of diplomats”. Zero redundancy, only talking about children born to diplomats.
Jus soli is and has been the law of the land. I would be loathe to give that up and there should be another way to address the issue. The land matters and I think far more than who the parents are.
When you look at the Latino children born here of immigrant parents, they are as American as you or I. Hell, a lot of them don’t even speak Spanish.
Any of you libs think you’re smarter about government than Levin need to check yourselves.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with this sentiment. Which is why I’m fine with citizenship granted to foreigners here legally.
Another principal to consider in regards specifically to illegal aliens. Is there any other law that a person can break where they are allowed to keep the benefit of the law breaking after the fact?
And I understand yours. The thing is, they aren’t being “granted” citizenship, they are citizens.
Not that I can think of.
