Posted on 08/20/2015 5:45:46 AM PDT by yoe
What the Constitution says is hardly relevant today because it says whatever they want it to.
My gripe is with the Shameful Congress and the witless Governors who refuse to assert their power to stop this tyrant. Juries will have to begin the nullification revolt and maybe encourage weak Governors to do the same.
Bttt
Further, at the time the amendment was debated and passed there was no such thing as illegal immigration. If the language was meant to deny citizenship to the children of non-diplomatic immigrants who had not yet naturalized, then how would those children ever achieve citizenship? How and when would they start the naturalization process? Could it be that their parents became citizens but they did not?
I don't think the people advocating a novel interpretation of the word 'jurisdiction' have really thought this through.
What about his Cuban citizenship?
I have observed our political class let the courts do the unpopular things they want done, for years. They have created agencies to do the things they really want done without passing legislation which outs them.
B1 Bomber Bob was thrown under the bus likely because he was the only one pushing congress to use their power to pass legislation that was not subject to judicial review. I caught a lot of guff here from lawyer types for pointing out that Congress has passed such legislation some 120 times according to Bob Dornan.
I note that you include the word 'and' which is noticably absent from the original quote.
I agree.
Your beef with the word 'and' is what, exactly?
Minor children are automatically naturalized when their parents become citizens
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/derivative-citizenship
Derivative Citizenship
Citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, to foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents, provided certain conditions are met.
Only that there's debate about what the quote means.
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 ...
Was he specifying three classes, as your inclusion of the word 'and', implies, or only one - that is children of ambassadors? It's an ambiguous phrase since it's lacking an and/or connector between 'aliens' and 'who'.
Also, why even include the diplomatic exclusion, since they would be captured in the 'foreigners/aliens' language, unless they were only class being excluded? I find it a puzzling phrase.
Thanks, I wondered about that but was too lazy to look it up.
It's not ambiguous at all - aliens include all aliens, but the 'who' restricts those 'aliens' to the ones listed.
----
Also, why even include the diplomatic exclusion, since they would be captured in the 'foreigners/aliens' language, unless they were only class being excluded?
Representatives of foreign governments are excluded because people who are 'in service' to their country carry their political tie of Allegiance with them - so it's like they never left it at all.
Just so I understand what you're saying, do you think the phrase refers only to the subset of aliens who are diplomats?
Representatives of foreign governments are excluded because people who are 'in service' to their country carry their political tie of Allegiance with them - so it's like they never left it at all.
Right, I understand why they were excluded from the birthright citizenship clause. I was asking why they would have been specifically called out in the phrase if the exclusion was to apply to all aliens.
I don't think we're disagreeing.
No, It applies to all aliens who come here on a temporary basis, (with NO intention of becoming citizens) and diplomats.
I was asking why they would have been specifically called out in the phrase if the exclusion was to apply to all aliens.
Because diplomats can be assigned to a country on a LONG-term basis...sometimes even for decades.
I don't think we're disagreeing.
I don't think we are either, but sometimes the rather archaic use of the language in historical documents can be confusing.
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.