Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 05, 2018

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear that the United States is one nation, with one class of citizens, and that citizenship extends to everyone born here.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties," James Madison wrote in 1785.

President Donald Trump confirmed Tuesday that he plans to move from experimentation on liberty into widespread application of the tyrant's playbook.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And has since 1982, when birthright citizenship was created by a single supreme court justice in an unrelated case.

Jesus.

Get a fact. Damn.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-11-05 04:42 PM | Reply

"But over and over in the Fourteenth Amendment debates, the framers of the amendment made clear that there would be no other exclusions from the clause. Children of immigrants? They were citizens. Even children of Chinese immigrants, who themselves weren't eligible to naturalize? Yes, them too. Mysterious foreign "Gypsies," who supposedly spoke an unknown language and worshipped strange gods and observed no American laws? Yes, the sponsors explained, it covered them too."

Garrett Epps
Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore

or the fact-free furry rodent with the squeaky high voice?

Decisions, decisions.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-06 12:52 AM | Reply

And if Trump were to get his way and he did revoke the birthright clause of 14 Amendment, what would be the legal status of children who were born in the US of immigrant parents? Would they be 'stateless', citizens of NO country? After all, the country of origin of the parents would have no legal obligation to accept these children as citizens of their country unless they had explicit laws covering that situation, like we have here in America.

These are issues which no one seems to be even be talking about let alone trying to define what the consequences might be of something like this.

OCU

#3 | Posted by OCUser at 2018-11-06 01:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2 You ignorant idiot. The 14th was about slavery, not giving illegal immigrants the right to make anchor babies. And it never was, until that little clause in 1982. Learn some God damned history. Hell, even some facts would be nice. And don't you have a sky to scream helplessly at somewhere?

Jesus.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-11-06 04:39 AM | Reply

#4

Try reading the Fourteenth Amendment debates, as the article author did. Otherwise you are just bloviating rwing memes... as per usual.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-06 11:16 AM | Reply

"And it never was, until that little clause in 1982. Learn some God damned history. Hell, even some facts would be nice. And don't you have a sky to scream helplessly at somewhere?"

"Throughout the history of the United States, the dominant legal principle governing citizenship has been jus soli -- the principle that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers automatic citizenship, excluding slaves before the American Civil War.[10][11][12] Although there was no actual definition of citizenship in United States law until after the Civil War,[13] it was generally accepted that anyone born in the United States was automatically a citizen.[14][15] This applicability of jus soli, via the common law inherited in the United States from England, was upheld in an 1844 New York state case, Lynch v. Clarke, in which it was held that a woman born in New York City, of alien parents temporarily sojourning there, was a U.S. citizen.[16]"

en.wikipedia.org

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-06 12:19 PM | Reply

"#2 You ignorant idiot. The 14th was about slavery, not giving illegal immigrants the right to make anchor babies. And it never was, until that little clause in 1982"

The 14th was about slaves so why is it used to justify "corporate personhood?"

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-06 12:20 PM | Reply

"The 14th was about slavery, not giving illegal immigrants the right to make anchor babies."

Because that already existed you ignorant idiot!"

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-06 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 Who immigrated legally. Look deeper. Dammit!

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-11-06 12:24 PM | Reply

- you ignorant idiot!"

That would be progress for him.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-06 12:58 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Citizenship is not given as a birthright for enemy aliens in hostile occupation.

So, since we don't declare wars, we just declare enemies, illegal aliens could be enemy aliens.

#11 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-11-06 01:07 PM | Reply

"So, since we don't declare wars, we just declare enemies, illegal aliens could be enemy aliens."

But they aren't any we all know it. They could be aliens from outer space but they aren't and we all know it. You could actually have a real idea but you don't and we all know it.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-06 01:20 PM | Reply

I can't believe it. You people are God damned ignorant! If people from a foreign county have a baby on American soil, it's a citizen of their country. Before 1982. Jesus! It's not that hard to look up.

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-11-06 09:09 PM | Reply

I'm generally more on the pro-immigration side, but I think in the case of illegal/undocumented immigrants the child should not be granted citizenship. If your here on asylum, work visa, travel, basically anything legal then sure. I feel like at some point during that process you've agreed to come in and understand that you must follow our laws and that matches up with the jurisdiction piece. Illegal/undocumented immigrants skipped that process. That may leave the child stateless, and I'm not sure if other countries allow you to report the birth abroad to get the parents home country citizenship. I think the Supreme Court needs to rule on a case specific to the child of undocumented immigrants.

#14 | Posted by Undecided at 2018-11-07 08:32 AM | Reply

So Helium, how are things in Russia these days? Are they paying you people enough?

#15 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-11-07 10:46 AM | Reply

"I think the Supreme Court needs to rule on a case specific to the child of undocumented immigrants."

It already has. It is settled law. Precedent and all that. It has never seriously even been questioned until now.

" Before 1982. Jesus! It's not that hard to look up."

Now you're just lying. I gave you the case and the link showing that it has been settled law at least since 1844 and by precedent long before that. The utter mean spiritedness of those who want to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. is rather disgusting. How do those babies harm you? Why are you so afraid of brown babies?

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-07 12:11 PM | Reply

and that citizenship extends to everyone born here.

That is pure BS!!!!

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-07 12:56 PM | Reply

Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-07 01:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort