A legal analysis of the 14th Amendment
This is a really thorough article explaining the origins of the 14th Amendment and its understanding. It emphasizes that America can and should reverse our policies to deny birthright citizenship to anyone who has a muddied allegiance to the United States.
Interesting that the "give away" crowd is the same as the citizenship crowd. Obviously buying votes with government money and setting up a "forever" voting block.
Times have changed and naturalization laws must be tailored to reflect that.
As far as I know the court has not dealt with children of mothers here illegally.
There seems to be no disagreement that the children of foreign diplomats do not become citizens, however they do have the same constitutional rights as anyone else within the country.
I am troubled by the concept that setting foot in the country gives you the right to tie up the legal system for years prior to being deported, but I'm not quite comfortable over no legal protections whatsoever.
Remember, this only applies within the US and its territories. Anything outside that isn't covered by the Constitution at all. That's why spying on people in other nations is extra-Constitutional.
The other thing I question is: "a non citizens property"...personal property such as clothing etc is one thing but Land ownership is another thing. Does Anyone one not a citizen have the right to own property in the USA?
Great question and I'd love for someone to chime in. I only know that there are some kinds of real estate or other property holdings which are subject to government approval, but I know of foreigners who have vacation condos and such and I don't think they had to go to any lengthy means to secure such. On the other hand, my local water district got bought out by Suez - a wholly-foreign company. I know they had to go through a bunch of legal hoops before they could be approved since it covers the entire city...
(so, just by paying taxes on property or income here in the US when one is a citizen of somewhere else does not entitle them to Any rights under our constitution, including voting)???
I don't think it would become an enclave of the country the owner is a citizen of...right?
"I don't think it would become an enclave of the country the owner is a citizen of...right?"
I believe that is called an embassy and is actually a treaty negotiation as the property becomes sovereign territory of the other nation.
Good to know this.
I recall instances when illegal immigrants filed lawsuits, although I have no knowledge of the outcome.
How is it possible for them to do so?
If this rule did not exist, Dred Scott could not have filed suit against his master.
High time that Barr de-fangs them.
I'd actually be all for this being an automatic impeachment offense, but that would require Constitutional action - again something unlikely to take place outside a Convention of States, etc.
The chaotic and idle mess you are describing is the foundation of all irregularities and abuses we are witnessing these days. It is an "anything goes" environment, allowing the aggressive manipulations of the left.
The system is completely out of control and it takes someone with a sane, clear mind and strong character like Barr to crack down on the abusers.
I have actually proposed a different mechanism whereby if a judge is overturned by the Supreme Court, their status on the bench is immediately suspended and that judge would have to pass through the confirmation process again to return to the bench.
Times have changed and the law should be tailored to the different conditions.
I come from an immigrant family my grandparents came from Poland and Holland at the beginning of the early 1900s. They all took the Oath of Citizenshipship. Except for my grandmother who was an illiterate peasant from Poland, her older children contacted the Senator of Minnesota (where they lived) to intercede on her behalf to obtain her citizenship papers. Her children taught her English as they were going to school. All my aunts and uncles from Holland al learned to speak English and became citizens. Today's immigrant issue makes me very angry!
(That does not mean that people should be allowed to jump the fence to get in in the first place).
Clearly there is a distinction to being within the country and subject to its jurisdiction. The meaning of that is subject to interpretation.
In the days of clipper ships, getting here took time and was a level of commitment. In the jet age, one can arrive, give birth and leave within a week or so. It seems absurd that one would then be a citizen of anywhere other than the parent's country.
to obey the laws" (which apparently doesn't apply to diplomats and their offspring?)
This is not a new interpretation, either. The notes from the author of the Fourteenth Amendment were quite clear. See https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/nat...
Yes. Since the Founding Fathers put the Constitution in place, a lot of distortion was implemented by the left. They know exactly where to insert their abusive "changes" to their advantage.
Obama was an especially corrosive force to make that happen. I remember the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor in which her greatest "asset" was the "flexible interpretation" of the Constitution, which - according to Obama - outlived its usefulness and needs to be changed. To benefit the left, no doubt.