United States, Wong Kim Ark, TIA discussed on Joe Pags
Get the book cop under fire all great stuff right there at the website. Make sure you stop by. Let's let's talk about the fourteenth amendment. I don't know if you and I agree me encapsulate. What I think about the fourteenth amendment the birthright part of the fourteenth amendment. I believe is in there. It says if you're born or naturalized in this country and you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. You're a citizen people are are confusing. The jurisdiction there of to mean for the parents, I say it means. The child wants to Childs born into citizen the fourteenth amendment is written horribly. I think you, and I agree that the birthright for somebody who's bringing up coming over illegally and dropping anchor baby should go away. But we have to make it go away by by warning that amendment better the original intent by the Senator Howard was not for aliens, not for for foreign dignitaries. Not for anybody who wasn't already a citizen or under the jurisdiction thereof. But they wrote it horribly. I think it has to be changed. Do you think that it has to be changed or do you think the way that it's worded right now doesn't confer birthright citizenship to the children? No, we don't need to change it. We don't need to change a constant some people second amendment is poorly written what we need to do is clarify congress and is court never ruled on a birthright citizenship. Illegal aliens. They've never ruled out. There have been other court cases, what is L Wilkins. I think one is slaughterhouse in any other one is the the Wong Kim ark. Which dealt with people permanently residing in the United States legally. I think the long cases one the hang their hats on because that was from eighteen ninety something and it did say, well, he's a citizen because and you're saying that that's still doesn't go far enough. We haven't really ruled on this. All right. So we need to have this discussion of Dennis land up in a supreme court. And that's okay. But there's a misunderstanding. I think I think it's a misinterpretation to think that the way the thing is written means all persons born in the United States. But it says that second part is the second Claus and subject to the jurisdiction of here's what that means. My understanding short of illegal concept is it means that you have an allegiance to the United States. If you're in the country legally, you don't wanna leave. Agency, United States you have an allegiance to the nation entered came from. So it says or the United States so the early legal aliens child can say or they could say on child is born in the United States. The second part you have an allegiance to the United States in the country illegally. Yeah. That's what the court is gonna. I think focus on that and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not going to focus on the born in the United States clause, or you know, part of it. And that's what they'll decide, but the fact is president has made it clear, this is part of the problem, by the way this birthright citizenship universal. Best of race people using universal birthrights that right here exists in the constitution. However, at least a chain migration. Does. You and I could agree to that. The mother has to go back whether the kid is a citizen or not you're going back to you broke the law. Dad can't come grandma can't come te'o and Tia can't come. I you and I agree wholeheartedly on that let me just say one bit about the jurisdiction thereof. And I'm not as smart as you are you're you're law enforcement guy, and I'm willing to to to hear your side night that we need a lot of sense but the jurisdiction thereof..