• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Migrant Scales Border Wall, Gives Birth in US

Pregnant Migrant Scales Border Wall, Gives Birth in US
Click to expand...

i'd like to see Orange Julius climb a wall and do anything afterwards, much less birth a child. let them both stay.
 
sangha said:
We need more of those genes in our gene pool
Click to expand...

Good point. Years ago I worked with a priest who lived in a town in central Mexico. He had a slide show he used to show folks to discourage them from migrating to the US or Mexico City, showing the pitfalls and dangers of the journey. He noticed that the most ambitious and skilled were the most likely to risk those journeys, and had hoped that they would stay close to home and improve the local community with their talents.

So, Donald, Mexico does send us some of "their best people."
 
Excon said:
By the language used in the Constitution, the child is not a citizen.
Click to expand...

You'd better make some 'phone calls, set the Supreme Court straight on the constitution. The White House, too- they all seem to think 'anchor babies' are a concern.
 
Grand Mal said:
You'd better make some 'phone calls, set the Supreme Court straight on the constitution. The White House, too- they all seem to think 'anchor babies' are a concern.
Click to expand...
That the law is not being enforced should be a concern of everyone.

But I have no need to make such calls.
I am aware of what the Framers of the 14th say the language means. No one can change that it actually means those not owing a foreign allegiance.
 
Excon said:
That the law is not being enforced should be a concern of everyone.

But I have no need to make such calls.
I am aware of what the Framers of the 14th say the language means. No one can change that it actually means those not owing a foreign allegiance.
Click to expand...

Hm. Can you make it retroactive? I bet millions and millions of Americans owe their citizenship to an anchor baby in their family tree. Lots that you admire, I bet.
Might be worth looking closer at by someone with some time on their hands.
 
Grand Mal said:
Hm. Can you make it retroactive? I bet millions and millions of Americans owe their citizenship to an anchor baby in their family tree. Lots that you admire, I bet.
Might be worth looking closer at by someone with some time on their hands.
Click to expand...
Hopefully when the issue finally makes it to the Court, it decides not to disregard what the language means.

Excon said:
"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

What many folks think it means, and what it actually means, are two different things. The only reason for that is ignorance of the topic.

This is Senator Trumbull the author of the language inserted into the 14th's citizenship clause.

The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'
[...]
What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.​

The Congressional record proving that.
​

A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.

​



This Senator Howard, the author of the 14th.


I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.​

The Congressional record proving that.



A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.




They didn't mean something other that what they said it meant.

And what they agree they meant is the following.

A full and complete jurisdiction that meant, Not owing allegiance to anybody else.


This is a definitive. There is no rebuttal to it.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
Hopefully when the issue finally makes it to the Court, it decides not to disregard what the language means.

​
Click to expand...

Well, you're never going to see a more right-leaning Supreme Court than this one. I'm saying that whatever they decide, and I'm pretty sure they won't be asking anyone named Trumbull or Howard or even Excon, whatever they decide, you're gonna find a way to live with it. Unless the wording gets changed. Is that an option?
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, you're never going to see a more right-leaning Supreme Court than this one. I'm saying that whatever they decide, and I'm pretty sure they won't be asking anyone named Trumbull or Howard or even Excon, whatever they decide, you're gonna find a way to live with it. Unless the wording gets changed. Is that an option?
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you are making sarcastic commentary as it is pretty foolish to do.
Did anyone say they would consult me? Of course no one said they would. So how about knocking the bs off, because you are speaking nonsense to what I pointed out.

That is the Official record where they are telling you exactly what the words they used meant.
This is what was known when the Amendment was approved.

This interpretation is what a previous Atty Gen (while in Office) agreed with.

The Court has already recognized that the word jurisdiction has many a meaning.
So if it got to Court they are going to have to ascertain what the Framers meant by the word.
They need look no further than that of the Official record.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I dont know which immigrant is more resourceful or determined - this pregnant woman who climbed over the wall, or the immigrant who climbed all over Trumps body.
Click to expand...
DAYUUUUUUUUUUUM!
a2dqmfU.gif



YvH43PS.jpg
 
Excon said:
I have no idea why you are making sarcastic commentary as it is pretty foolish to do.
Did anyone say the would consult me? Of course no one said they would. So how about knocking the bs off, because you are speaking nonsense to what I pointed out.

That is the Official record where they are telling you exactly what the words they used meant.
This is what was known when the Amendment was approved.

This interpretation is what a previous Atty Gen (while in Office) agreed with.

The Court has already recognized that the word jurisdiction has many a meaning.
So if it got to Court they are going to have to ascertain what the Framers meant by the word.
They need look no further than that of the Official record.
Click to expand...

If your argument is based entirely on this...

The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'
[...]
What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

I'd have to say you're wrong. First off, there's no reason to say that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"
There's no reason or justification for adding a word to the phrase. Second, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not, by any stretch, mean "not owing allegiance to anyone else". Not close, not in the same ballpark. Those are two completely different matters that do not conflict. Anyone visiting the United States is subject to it's jurisdiction no matter where their allegiance lies. That's obvious to anyone. I could prove it by sparking up a doobie in front of a cop in Alaska.
Here's what 'jurisdiction' means according to Merriam-Webster...

Definition of jurisdiction
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction
2a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : CONTROL
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

The word is rooted in 'juris' which has to do with law. Jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with allegiance.
 
Grand Mal said:
I'd have to say you're wrong. First off, there's no reason to say that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"
Click to expand...
I'm wrong?
iLOL ****ing hilarious.
No. And I am not the one telling anyone what the language means in order to be "wrong". The authors are telling you what the words they chose mean.
Do you really not understand that?


Who are you to tell the authors of the language that it doesn't mean what they say it means?
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
I'm wrong?
iLOL ****ing hilarious.
No. And I am not the one telling anyone what the language means in order to be "wrong". The authors are telling you what the words they chose mean.
Do you really not understand that?


Who are you to tell the authors of the language that it doesn't mean what they say it means?
Click to expand...

Anyone who presumes to write law had better get the language right. It doesn't do to say afterward, "No, what I really meant was..."
Lemme give you an example of how that works. A few years ago here a judge released a prisoner who had been charged under a new law having to do with internet child porn. The judge said that the way the law was written he couldn't make it work. Never mind the outpouring of public rage, never mind that the people who wrote the law were still in the legislature, the prisoner walked and the law went back to be corrected.
You either follow the law as written, no matter how many times the author protests what he really meant, or you change it. Anything else is just a kind of anarchy.
 
Grand Mal said:
Anyone who presumes to write law had better get the language right. It doesn't do to say afterward, "No, what I really meant was..."
Click to expand...
I see you fail to pay attention.
They did not say what it meant after the fact.
They said what it meant on the floor prior to passage. Not after the fact.
Secondly the Court, absent known meaning, would not interpret things by today's definitions they would look to the meaning "at common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers" "were familiar," Wording taken from Minor v. Happersett.
But they do not have to do that because the Framers of the 14th already provided what is meant. That means the Court does not have to interpret, as the meaning is already known.
And again as already pointed out,We have a previous Atty Gen stating it should be interpreted that way.
It is what was meant and there is no rebuttal to that.


Grand Mal said:
Lemme give you an example of how that works. A few years ago here a judge released a prisoner who had been charged under a new law having to do with internet child porn. The judge said that the way the law was written he couldn't make it work. Never mind the outpouring of public rage, never mind that the people who wrote the law were still in the legislature, the prisoner walked and the law went back to be corrected.
You either follow the law as written, no matter how many times the author protests what he really meant, or you change it. Anything else is just a kind of anarchy.
Click to expand...
You, give me an example?
ilOL Hilarious.

This is a Constitutional clause. Intent matters.
Are the laws in accordance with the Constitution or not. You have to know what the Clause means to enforce it and to ensure the laws abide by it.

And we know what is meant by the wording used.

Not owing allegiance to anybody else.​
 
Excon said:
I see you fail to pay attention.
They did not say what it meant after the fact.
They said what it meant on the floor prior to passage. Not after the fact.
Secondly the Court, absent known meaning, would not interpret things by today's definitions they would look to the meaning "at common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers" "were familiar," Wording taken from Minor v. Happersett.
But they do not have to do that because the Framers of the 14th already provided what is meant. That means the Court does not have to interpret, as the meaning is already known.
And again as already pointed out,We have a previous Atty Gen stating it should be interpreted that way.
It is what was meant and there is no rebuttal to that.


You, give me an example?
ilOL Hilarious.

This is a Constitutional clause. Intent matters.
Are the laws in accordance with the Constitution or not. You have to know what the Clause means to enforce it and to ensure the laws abide by it.

And we know what is meant by the wording used.

Not owing allegiance to anybody else.​
Click to expand...

Those words aren't in the constitution, not to my knowledge.

So, you're saying that 'in the jurisdiction thereof' means 'not owing allegiance elsewhere'. Have I got that right? Does that mean that 'owing allegiance elsewhere' means 'not in the jurisdiction'? And it's not at all clear that 'owing allegiance elsewhere' means any citizen. I'd have said it means not diplomatic personnel or trade delegates or military envoys, etc.
At the very least, this controversy is the result of sloppiness. Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking. Be honest, if you had the responsibility of writing that amendment would you make it so ambiguous?
 
Grand Mal said:
Those words aren't in the constitution, not to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
:lamo And yet the wording of the 14th is exactly what those words mean. You keep trying to deflect from that.
You can't. It is what the words used mean.
The authors of that language tell you exactly that and is even confirmed by a previous Atty Gen.

Your failure to accept reality doesn't change that.


Grand Mal said:
So, you're saying that 'in the jurisdiction thereof' means 'not owing allegiance elsewhere'. Have I got that right?
Click to expand...
How many time do you need to be told it is not me, it is the Authors of, the Framers of, the 14th telling you that.


Grand Mal said:
Does that mean that 'owing allegiance elsewhere' means 'not in the jurisdiction'? And it's not at all clear that 'owing allegiance elsewhere' means any citizen. I'd have said it means not diplomatic personnel or trade delegates or military envoys, etc.
Click to expand...
I made the record available to you, avail yourself of it.


Grand Mal said:
At the very least, this controversy is the result of sloppiness. Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking. Be honest, if you had the responsibility of writing that amendment would you make it so ambiguous?
Click to expand...
Hilarious. You are trying to judge this by today's language usage, not that of the time.

Your ignorance of the language does not mean it is sloppy wording. Was the previous Atty Gen not be able to interpret exactly what they meant? Of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom