Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

Oh no The days of the 'occasional black or Latino" have changed at your target? And now there's a lot of brown people that you're describing as not "clean cut". White equals lovely and brown equals chaos. Yikes.

I think that PP was trying to imitate what they think MAGA sounds like.

Whoosh .. that went right over my head... I guess they did a pretty good job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

Oh no The days of the 'occasional black or Latino" have changed at your target? And now there's a lot of brown people that you're describing as not "clean cut". White equals lovely and brown equals chaos. Yikes.

So you understand?! Is it like that at your local target? Maybe Trump can send his raid teams to Walmarts and targets! Wouldn’t that be a hoot?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Obviously not the brightest bulb in the strand here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

I highly doubt being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the same meaning as being subject to its laws. So no, they would not be able to do any of the horrible things you suggest with impunity. Frankly, the fact that you’re so gleeful about the prospect of illegal immigrants committing horrific acts against or impacting US citizens and others says a lot about you, and it’s not flattering.

Remember, all of these illegal aliens who have flooded our borders are *citizens of the country from whence they came* and subject to THAT country’s jurisdiction. It’s not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Ireland have all recently revised birth rite citizenship.

“A person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parents' citizenship status”

There are tens of thousands of rich Russians, Chinese, Koreans, South Americans amongst others who fly to the US tu have children then within weeks fly home. The children have US citizenship so can attend college in the US (often for free because it is so much easier to hide assets overseas) and come and work when they are adults.

This really shouldn’t be allowed. Australia’s law seems reasonable. If you are the child jf a citizen or permanent resident then you get citizenship. If your parents are undocumented you need to live in the US the first ten years of your life.

Fly in/fly out citizenship shouldn’t be allowed.

Trump won't change birthright citizenship because, otherwise, all his rich Ruskie friends wouldn't be able to have anchor babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Man you are stupid. Since when does jurisdiction imply laws follow you trans nationally? If I travel to Germany, do I automatically get access to their retirement plans for seniors simply because I exist within their borders? No. I am under the jurisdiction of the United States and get social security. They doesn't mean I can go out and break German laws. I am still subject to following local laws and ordinances, lol. Germany has rules that must be followed by all, because they're an autonomous country.

Really stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

I highly doubt being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the same meaning as being subject to its laws. So no, they would not be able to do any of the horrible things you suggest with impunity. Frankly, the fact that you’re so gleeful about the prospect of illegal immigrants committing horrific acts against or impacting US citizens and others says a lot about you, and it’s not flattering.

Remember, all of these illegal aliens who have flooded our borders are *citizens of the country from whence they came* and subject to THAT country’s jurisdiction. It’s not rocket science.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and has been interpreted as such for over 150 years. You're a message board rando. So what you consider rocket science is beyond irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

I highly doubt being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the same meaning as being subject to its laws. So no, they would not be able to do any of the horrible things you suggest with impunity. Frankly, the fact that you’re so gleeful about the prospect of illegal immigrants committing horrific acts against or impacting US citizens and others says a lot about you, and it’s not flattering.

Remember, all of these illegal aliens who have flooded our borders are *citizens of the country from whence they came* and subject to THAT country’s jurisdiction. It’s not rocket science.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and has been interpreted as such for over 150 years. You're a message board rando. So what you consider rocket science is beyond irrelevant.

Ok, hun, one of us will end up being right. Stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

I highly doubt being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the same meaning as being subject to its laws. So no, they would not be able to do any of the horrible things you suggest with impunity. Frankly, the fact that you’re so gleeful about the prospect of illegal immigrants committing horrific acts against or impacting US citizens and others says a lot about you, and it’s not flattering.

Remember, all of these illegal aliens who have flooded our borders are *citizens of the country from whence they came* and subject to THAT country’s jurisdiction. It’s not rocket science.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and has been interpreted as such for over 150 years. You're a message board rando. So what you consider rocket science is beyond irrelevant.

So you can’t counter the point I made and must resort to calling me a rando. Very compelling argument!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

Everyone in the United States right now is subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof except diplomats. That's why you should be careful of cars with diplomat plates.

This is not the good idea you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

I highly doubt being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the same meaning as being subject to its laws. So no, they would not be able to do any of the horrible things you suggest with impunity. Frankly, the fact that you’re so gleeful about the prospect of illegal immigrants committing horrific acts against or impacting US citizens and others says a lot about you, and it’s not flattering.

Remember, all of these illegal aliens who have flooded our borders are *citizens of the country from whence they came* and subject to THAT country’s jurisdiction. It’s not rocket science.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and has been interpreted as such for over 150 years. You're a message board rando. So what you consider rocket science is beyond irrelevant.

So you can’t counter the point I made and must resort to calling me a rando. Very compelling argument!

Yes, you're a rando.

"Thus, as with the first part of the clause, the drafting history confirms the pre-drafting ordinary meaning of the relevant language. "Subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. meant people under U.S. sovereign authority. That included everyone within U.S. territory, excluding only foreign diplomats, foreign armies and native tribes. (As shown by the Court's decision in Fleming v. Page, discussed in my last post, it was possible to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction outside U.S. territory; anyone in this category would be excluded from citizenship by the first part of the clause)."


https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/28/the-original-meaning-of-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yall funny. It’s is the darn constitution. Change that. Oh wait, there aren’t enough votes to do it.

With that said, something about immigration has to be done. My target use to be so nice and quiet. And clean cut people. You saw the occasional black or Latino. But now, it’s been overtaken by all these brown people that are likely illegal. And my lovely target feels like chaos every time I go!

The only thing needed is a re-interpretation of the amendment. Birthright citizenship only extends to people under the jurisdiction of the US. You can make an argument that foreign nationals here illegally or those who are here temporarily are not under our jurisdiction and are still the primary responsibility of the countries where they’re from.

No constitutional changes needed. Just get scotus to review the interpretation. Done.

So anyone who you deem not American becomes no longer subject to our jurisdiction. That means they are no longer subject to our laws. They can break traffic laws with impunity, steal, murder, without repercussions.

What a brilliant thing for SCOTUS to do! It'll be great!

Yep, if you come from Britain, you're now allowed to drive on the left side of the road because you're still under the jurisdiction of British, not American, law.

Please, oh enlightened one, show me a definition indicating that law and jurisdiction are synonymous.

The more I look into and think about the meaning of jurisdiction, the more I think this could end up being a successful bid to end BRC at the Supreme Court level.

Everyone in the United States right now is subject to the jurisdiction (laws) thereof except diplomats. That's why you should be careful of cars with diplomat plates.

This is not the good idea you think it is.

Show me a definition indicating that jurisdiction and laws are synonymous and interchangeable.

Hint: they’re not.