In Under 5 Minutes, Mark Levin Debunks Anchor Baby Law by S. Noble • August 20, 2015

Independant Sentinel ^ | August 20, 2915 | S. Noble

[Skooz]

BFL

[Jim Noble]

At the time of Wong Kim Ark there was no such thing as illegal immigration.

[Sans-Culotte]

Moreover, the Supreme Court has never not yet ruled that illegal aliens are American citizens.

[sodpoodle]

*****Of course, William and Kate would renounce or refuse to accept the US citizenship for their child.*****

I understood that the option rests with the child/individual until the legal age - then they can opt to remain dual citizens or select/renounce one. (as Ted Cruz has done)

[chatham]

Dear Mr, OReilly take a moment to read the words and speak to Mark Levin and then stop Bullying all the poor guests who have to put up with Your Bull Poopy.

Remember: Empty Barrels make the most Noise.

[mtrott]

“I saw Carly Fiorina being interviewed on this subject yesterday. She completely eviscerated any possible perception of herself as a true conservative by her answers. She is a conservative poseur, nothing more. She had me fooled for a short period and I was erroneously thinking of her as possibly being a good running mate for Ted Cruz.”

I saw that, and was very disappointed in her comments as well. IMO, Carly was visibly rattled, and I think it may have had something to do with an article, which had just been released, that explained how CNN’s poll average methodology might result in her being again excluded from the main stage for the next debate. It was the worst appearance I’ve seen from her. I have also been thinking of her as a good VP candidate for Cruz.

[TomGuy]

A bunch of the Pubbie wannabes are jumping on the anti-anchor-baby train.

That raises the question: Who do you trust to actually stop it?

Jebster-for-open-borders?
Marco-for-amnesty?
Wallace-still-finding-his-footing-on-illegal-immigration?

etc.

==

The Donald is still setting the agenda and forcing the other wannabes to Twix themselves — pick a side.

[nathanbedford]

Even though I deplore birthright citizenship and find it when coupled with chain migration to be a real threat to the viability of the Republic I nevertheless believe that we ought not to deceive ourselves respecting the state of the law of birthright citizenship as defined by the fourteenth amendment and the likelihood of changing that law without a constitutional amendment. I am fully aware of the arguments adduced by Mark Levine and others and find them to be unpersuasive for the reasons expressed here

[nathanbedford]

“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.”

There are two ways to read those remarks but it is worthy of only a little bit of time because his remarks are certainly not dispositive of the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. There were several states and two houses of the federal legislature involved. But let's spend some time, your way is to read it as follows:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [and those] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

But this way of reading those remarks which were not prepared in advance is no more compelling than to read them this way:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [because they] belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Ambassadors and foreign ministers ex officio owe their loyalty to a foreign power. By treaty they are not subject to American laws, therefore they are not "subject to jurisdiction" as are children born of illegal aliens who most certainly fall under the power of American laws no matter where their actual loyalty might lie. The fourteenth amendment does not undertake to psychoanalyze babies born in the United States. It does not undertake to psychoanalyze the mindset of ambassadors and foreign ministers who are regarded by definition to have foreign loyalties. It states a simple rule.

For the record, before I am attacked for being a heretic, I deplore the fact of birthright citizenship and I fear it when coupled with chain migration. I simply have to say what I believe and go where logic and the rulings of the Supreme Court and other courts take me. I wish it were otherwise.

[ncpatriot]

Savage talked yesterday about Article I, Section 8 clause of 4th amendment. He was great.

By the time I got through listening to Levin on Hannity and Savage on AZ radio station, I was so thankful that the truth is finally coming out. BUT, there is nothing in news today about this truth. Quiet!

I am so very angry that the politicians and the media have NOT defended our Constitution all these many years! It was their job to know this and they have let us down BIG TIME! Better believe I will let them know how I feel about their ignoring the Law.

[V K Lee]

TEXAS has skin in the game already. Anchor baby dropped in state, State refuses to issue birth certificate to Mexican who dropped the infant. She sues —the game is on. This done just earlier this month and seen in the news just recently. Trump is in this to win this and has begun to get industrial brooms ready to sweep. Of course, this is just a po from a lowly smelly unintelligent redneck

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Correctly interpreting the 14th would mean Obama is not a citizen.... er, oops.

[conservative98]

And two hours before that, O’Reilly was on Fox shouting again that the 14th amendment makes “ANYONE, ANYONE” who is born here a citizen.....

[MamaTexan]

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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

This is known in English grammar as a series, (or serial) comma.
The comma that precedes the conjunction before the final item in a series: faith, hope, and charity.

Foreigners (visitors), aliens (temporary residents) and representatives of foreign governments are three separate classifications.

Here's more straightforward one -
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

[PCPOET7]

I always thought that the 14th amendment was so southern states could not denie citizenship to ex slaves and there children.

[manc]

Can’t stand watching him and have not done for the last couple of years. I record his show when I know Watters world is on and that is it.

[randita]

There may be an exception for heads of state and the like.

[vette6387]

“After seeing the way that they tortured language in the two Obamacare cases, do we REALLY expect that SCOTUS is ever going to concur with Levin?”

Then President Trump will have to “pack” the SCOTUS!

[itsahoot]

I simply have to say what I believe and go where logic and the rulings of the Supreme Court and other courts take me. I wish it were otherwise.

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of immigration policy, the congress is.

We will never retain the Republic while kneeling in submission to five robed thugs. Congress has a role, as do States, if they lay down like you suggest then of course the Republic is over.

[nathanbedford]

The Congress is the arbiter of immigration policy but the Supreme Court remains the arbiter of the Constitution. Citizenship by birth is not a matter of naturalization but of constitutional interpretation.

I share your distress about the Supreme Court, I do not believe in supinely accepting their misrule and that is why I have been such a strong advocate on behalf of of Article V. Congress has the power to control the federal courts' jurisdiction and that is a remedy that ought to be investigated. I believe that article 5 and regulating jurisdiction offer realistic if difficult avenues for reform. Stopping chain migration, especially as attached to anchor babies would also be an effective remedy. I do not believe that wishful thinking or blustering about what the Constitution says is the right way to proceed.