Posted on 08/21/2015 11:45:41 AM PDT by Half Vast Conspiracy
Last night, the wife and I were watching O’Reilly and he had Professor John Yoo on talking about the 14th Amendment.
He said (and I had to rewind to confirm) either:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ARE subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Or
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
I thought he said “OR”, but mom thought it might be “ARE”. Anywho….
Since it actually says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”, I have to wonder why he misquoted it.
Maybe he has never read the Constitution...
Yoo who?
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
I did watch O’Reilly for a few minutes during his rant about anchor babies not being official US citizens. I did not see the part with Professor John Yoo because I turned the channel. O’Reilly had wound up into his whining voice and I just could not take it. I left his rant while he was explaining there had been two cases that went to the Supreme Court, and both had shot down efforts to deny citizenship...so, he was convinced there was no way to deny anchor babies the right.
Not sure, but that clause of the sentence is the one that keeps the 14th amendment from granting “birthright citizenship”, per my reading at least.
If a citizen of another country gives birth here, their child is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because they are already subjects of their parents’ homeland.
C what a difference that makes in faculty? LOL
LOL!
Are Yoo series?
Both of the those changes of word would tend to make an interpretation supporting citizenship for anchor babies easier. Was Yoo supporting citizenship for anchor babies or not?
We don’t watch BOR because he thinks he’s right, even when he’s wrong. There has been no SCOTUS ruling on anchor babies, so he is wrong again.
This is why I stick to cut-and-paste!
Hat tip to freeper nathanbedford for the above link.
It’s okay to misspell that. LOL
Was Yoo supporting citizenship for anchor babies or not?
He was supporting O'Reilly's assertion that we COULD NOT deny citizenship to anchor babies.
Great link. Thanks
I changed the channel at exact time you did!!! Mark Levin I believe is a constitutional expert and attorney says BOR is full of CRAP!!!! Mark Levin is MORE than an expert when it comes to the constitution, I would like to hear from Jonathan Turley he is someone sort of from the liberal side but is fair and open minded also an expert on the constitution!!!!! As far as the Supreme court is concerned they are no more than political hacks anymore!!!!!
Anyone with half a brain can read the 14th Amendment and see that it does NOT grant citizenship to children born of criminal entrants. In order to protect his intellectual image, he therefore had to misquote it. He’s probably done it enough times that he now may even believe it.
I actually even sent it to Trump.
I watched it but didn’t notice the goof. He seemed to be pretty convinced the 14th makes anyone born inside US borders automatically citizens except those like ambassadors in embassies, Native Americans and such. Those are not under US jurisdiction. The phrase about jurisdiction seems to be also part of the argument.
It seems to me the 14th was a case of good intentions, but is being abused. When it was passed, it was primarily aimed at children of freed slaves, who were here through no fault of their own.
At that time, illegal immigration wasn’t even thought of, nobody even considered the possibility that people from bordering lands would come here illegally specifically to have babies so they could benefit from US policies.
Nobody is really covering that angle much, it obviously was not intended to automatically make citizens of people who came here illegally just to take advantage of that amendment, and of course now that it is, plenty want to confuse the issue to allow it to continue for their own political advantage...
The one thing that was discussed that is actually factual is that changing or removing the 14th would be a very long, drawn out process and probably would fail. Even a resolution to clarify it would probably take years and might still fail. We don’t have that much time. In another 2 or 3 years Americans might actually be a minority...unless it’s stopped.
Yes he was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.