Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (80)
sorted by:
Irrelevant, the purpose of that part of the amendment was to extend citizenship to the recently freed and the tribes living on US soil only.
It's very relevant. If you say that what the 'purpose' was, limits the amendment, then that means that only blacks are entitled to equal protection - if only they are entitled to citizenship by birth.
No, because the sentence fragment you're hyper-focusing is part of a sentence that clearly specifies 'citizens' in the part of the sentence you're ignoring. Meanwhile, a totally different sentence adresses the anchor babies question. You're twisting things like a lawyer here.
This?
What exactly am I ignoring?
The part where men creating a nation never thought things would get so retarded that they would have to painstakingly detail basic concepts like nation and citizen. No one arguing your side of this debate legitimately thinks that any author of the constitution would ever condone birthright citizenship. It's a disingenuous debate hinging upon tortured semantics, and it is doubly infuriating coming from people who flout the constitution itself at every turn. Why are we even entertaining traitors who declare whole cities to be sanctuaries from the very laws they abuse?
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This excluded citizens of other nations, who were subject to those jurisdictions. By the understanding of the time, it was a means to avoid having a bunch of stateless residents.