0
1

[–] Sitnikoff 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Where you have a culture who embraces undermining the spirit of the law as its flesh, bones and blood, you have literal anarchy.

1
-1

[–] GoatSufferage 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

“I have already said that in my opinion, birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

Post another garbage article from a follower of Zognald, Zionist trash.

0
0

[–] Ken_bingo2 ago 

This is true provided the parents are citizens. The reason for the 14th was to give the existing parents citizenship. The need for it ended with that generation of slaves.

0
0

[–] GoatSufferage ago 

The words of statesmen being misconstrued by zionists filth is the issue here. If we keep changing amendments that don’t ban alcohol it’ll be the same issue that the fucking Democrats have.

And almost all the issues stemming from these countries is because of the fucking drug trade that was used to fund paramilitary groups in the fucking first place. You can keep blaming illegals but it doesn’t fix the issue with our drug laws, neocon horseshit like this article makes me want to vomit because fucktards keep misconstruing basic fucking English.

If this amendment meant the children of foreigners were barred, it would have fucking said people born in this country with native born parents. But the only people who disagreed with this sentiment were the same people who imported people from other fucking countries to reap short term profits, then proceeding to ban them to keep money and land because they were fat lazy pigs. I’m so sick of fucking numb skulls preaching the words of the fucktards as the holy gospel

0
3

[–] getshanked 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My niece was born in the US while my sister and her husband were studying abroad. She moved back home within months. Now in future she can come and go as she pleases. Seems fucking absurd to me.

2
-1

[–] Amon-Goath 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

This article is wrong.

Birthright citizenship is historically "a given" with all nations and THAT is what the 14th Amendment is based on. I'm not saying this amendment isn't often misinterpreted but not in this way.

Here is a longer and more detailed explanation of it- What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

The article I posted goes on to explain how this tradition has been used by civilizations since civilizations began. You have to belong to someone and typically it is the country you're born into or one that your parents(father) belong to.

It also explains how subject to the jurisdiction of doesn't apply to illegals or ANYONE here in any illegal manner whatsoever. You have to be in the US "legally" before the US government has "jurisdiction" over you, otherwise you can simply be shipped back to your own country.

Again, this article is just plain wrong. sorry.

0
0

[–] Damnpasswords ago 

If a camp follower of a hostile army shat out a kid, it wouldn't be considered a citizen. If a traveling merchant tried to get citizen rights by plopping one down, they'd both be thrown out. It wasn't a given.

0
0

[–] Amon-Goath ago 

If a camp follower of a hostile army shat out a kid, it wouldn't be considered a citizen. If a traveling merchant tried to get citizen rights by plopping one down, they'd both be thrown out. It wasn't a given.

  • Damnpasswords

yeahhh, you didn't read my post or the article. Which makes you a dumbass.

0
2

[–] RoundWheel 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Except it's not true for the US. If the native American Indians do not qualify, illegals sure a fuck don't either.

It's mental to believe shiting out a kid in a place you've invaded provides citizenship. It's profoundly stupid to even imagine such a thing is true. Worst are the people who believe this lie. Dimwits.

Birthright citizenship, as the name clearly implies, it given to citizens, not invaders.

Every anchor baby is an alien invader and should be treated accordingly. The fact that their parents are scum doesn't excuse they are the product of a crime and a fraud upon the American people.

0
2

[–] CheeseboogerHimself 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Its time we change israel's policies.

0
1

[–] ALIENS2222 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We MUST undo this.

1
1

[–] Korinthian 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Semitic semantics.

0
4

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

You know how many fucking dual citizen kikes and fucking mudslim pieces of shit have a greater alligence the. Their citizen ship alligence to the united states? Muslims think our goverment is below a shiity joke. Many jew kike parasites openly have care more have more loyalty to israel then the united states we need to start revoking citizenship.

0
0

[–] Ken_bingo2 ago 

This is not true. "subject to the jurisdiction" is more general than "owing allegiance to". What it means is that some other authority outside of the USA was able to subject the person to their laws. This is much more broad than "owing allegiance to". So Sen. Lyman is being taken out of context, just like they kikes do with the 'jurisdiction definition.

Where the kike trickery comes in is using a definition of "jurisdiction" that is preposterous in context. I let you check the dictionary for the details, but the key point is that the US being sovereign is a given i.e. taken for granted.

0
0

[–] GoatSufferage ago 

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

0
0

[–] Doglegwarrior ago 

Ok lets chang it no anchor babies at all. Put it in clear english???

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)