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

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

[itsahoot]

I do not believe that wishful thinking or blustering about what the Constitution says is the right way to proceed.

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.

[moehoward]

Bttt

[semimojo]

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.

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.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Until recently, Cruz held dual citizenship. He renounced his Canadian citizenship and now holds sole US citizenship.

What about his Cuban citizenship?

[nathanbedford]

This emasculation has been done to us not by a single stroke but by a thousand cuts.

[nathanbedford]

For a discussion on the merits of birthright citizenship which supports the idea that it can be restricted to children of at least one parent with citizenship or domicile please see this Virginia Law Review article. It is better than bluster any day for those of us who are opponents of birthright citizenship coupled with chain migration.

[itsahoot]

This emasculation has been done to us not by a single stroke but by a thousand cuts.

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.

[nathanbedford]

They want unpopular things done so they can go to the victims and promise to relieve them of the pernicious effects of the regulations. Many concerns that are regulated want to be regulated to stifle competition. The symbiotic relationship goes on.

[semimojo]

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

I note that you include the word 'and' which is noticably absent from the original quote.

[Dante3]

I agree.

[MamaTexan]

I'd already given the quote for accuracy. My statement was a merely recap of the 3 classifications.

Your beef with the word 'and' is what, exactly?

[MamaTexan]

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?

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.

[semimojo]

Your beef with the word 'and' is what, exactly?

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.

[semimojo]

Minor children are automatically naturalized when their parents become citizens

Thanks, I wondered about that but was too lazy to look it up.

[MamaTexan]

It's an ambiguous phrase since it's lacking an and/or connector between 'aliens' and 'who'.

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.

[semimojo]

It's not ambiguous at all - aliens include all aliens, but the 'who' restricts those 'aliens' to the ones listed.

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.

[MamaTexan]

do you think the phrase refers only to the subset of aliens who are diplomats?

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.