Texas man explodes with rage at Confederate monument protestors

[rjhenn]

Hello rjhenn,



Please show where it says that in the 14th?

It says that in the Wong Kim Ark, 14th Amendment case. And that's the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. As the comments made at the time of the adoption of the amendment make clear, it was not meant to make a citizen of the child of every person who happened to wander into the U.S, and give birth. That phrase explicitly excludes those who are here as employees of a foreign power, such as diplomats. It also excludes tourists, whose loyalty is to their own country, not the U.S.

[rjhenn]

You are right about parents in the employ of a foreign government (if they fit into the categories of federal law). That is the only exception.
There are resorts for tourists (Chinese, Russian) who come to the U. S. just to have their children and those kids are citizens ("birth tourism").

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

Which is a misapplication of the law.

[rjhenn]

Which is protected freedom of speech.

Which is also treason.

[Flash]

Which is a misapplication of the law.

It is not a misapplication. There is no exception made for the children of tourists or illegal aliens born in the U. S. either in the 14th or current federal law. Any exceptions are included in current U. S. citizenship laws and it defines who is included as children of foreign diplomats. Originally it also included Indians but that was changed by federal law in 1924(?). Otherwise, any child born in the U. S. is a citizen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

[Adolf_Twitler]

Don't look at it!!!!!

Don't have an abortion Motherfucker- if you don't want one! LOL!

[Adolf_Twitler]

Aw shit, I read the title and expected to see video of a dude exploding.

Fake News!!!!!

Watch this Republican Gun-toting idiot!

[PoliTalker]

Hello rjhenn,

Good to hear from you. This place is so big it's easy to lose track of familiar posters.

It says that in the Wong Kim Ark, 14th Amendment case. And that's the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. As the comments made at the time of the adoption of the amendment make clear, it was not meant to make a citizen of the child of every person who happened to wander into the U.S, and give birth. That phrase explicitly excludes those who are here as employees of a foreign power, such as diplomats. It also excludes tourists, whose loyalty is to their own country, not the U.S.

Does it say it excludes tourists?

Or is that an interpretation.