Equating women with farm animals

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Bunnies? Guinea hens?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't know what kind reading comprehension skills you have or how far you got in higher education, but that part is pretty straightforward and holds to this day - that children born to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not granted U.S. citizenship.

That was the argument made against Wong Kim Ark being granted citizenship because according to the Port of San Francisco,

...to which the Supreme Court responded with their ruling:

......

Once a fanboy, always a fanboy. Leave arguing over constitutional law to people who actually have the capacity to comprehend what they read.

Read Howard's entire statement and pay attention "Foreigners and Aliens" are in there. NOT TO RECEIVE CITIZENSHIP.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Read Howard's entire statement and pay attention "Foreigners and Aliens" are in there. NOT TO RECEIVE CITIZENSHIP.

Goddammit, you're thick. Go back and read it again.

And as for historical intent - here ya go: (written by a constitutional law professor....a real one, not a fanboy)

The Reconstruction Framers' intent to make citizenship dependent not on the favor of the majority or the favored status of a person's ancestors, but rather on neutral, fixed conditions is evident from congressional debates. In proposing the language that would ultimately be ratified as the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan explained that his proposed addition would declare "that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

Recognizing the sweep of this proposed language, both supporters and opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Citizenship Clause to grant birthright citizenship to children of aliens. In fact, this was a significant source of opposition: Senator Cowan lamented that the proposal would expand the number of Chinese in California and "Gypsies" in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit "trespass" within the country. No supporter of the Amendment rose to dispute Senator Cowan's view of the effect the proposed Amendment would have. To the contrary, Senator John Conness of California defended the proposed Citizenship Clause as sound policy, stating:

[With] respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, ... it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens .... I am in favor of doing so .... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

In sum, the Citizenship Clause was proposed, enacted and ratified with the understanding that it granted automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning that the expansive Citizenship Clause was not forged in some more enlightened era. As the remarks quoted above demonstrate, along with the grand statements supporting liberty and equality, ethnic stereotypes and racial hostility were also on full display in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. But our Reconstruction Framers wisely placed the conditions for automatic citizenship beyond the prejudices and politics of the day, intending to establish "a constitutional right that cannot be wrested from any class of citizens, or from the citizens of any State by mere legislation." Today's anti-citizenship advocates are therefore not just flouting the Citizenship Clause's text and history when they seek to deny birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrant parents, they are also disregarding the Fourteenth Amendment's guiding principles and purposes.

http://www.acslaw.org/node/13424

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where's your "original intent" argument now, Paul?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in any way modify "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," or is it simply redundant?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in any way modify "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," or is it simply redundant?

It came from English Common Law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

http://en.wikipedia....v._Wong_Kim_Ark

.....

As for original intent, any who reads the actual historical arguments made for and against the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, would see clearly that the intent was to grant citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, and all the ramifications that meant, including granting citizenship to Chinese (or "Mongol trespassers").

Edited August 6, 2010 by El Buscador