Feds bring first-ever charges against 'birth tourism' scheme

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The key word in the amendment is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

This does not include illegal aliens. The problem we see today with the invasion of these folks were not a "problem" when the Amendment was written and their abuses were not in view when the Amendment was written and passed.

The original intent of the amendment was to rectify the abuses associated with Dred Scott decision related to citizenship of X-slaves and other U.S. born persons subject to our tax system.

Every Constitutional scholar knows this as should any Supreme Court Judge who is in the slightest bit concerned with original intent. (snip)
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17595754/birthright-citizenship-trump-14th-amendment-executive-order
and say, this might be a good article to read about that very subject. :wave:
tulc(hopes it helps) :)
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure how this could be construed as illegal activity. What law exactly is it violating?



Indeed. I also am concerned about the racist implications of prohibiting Chinese people from visiting the US merely because they are foreigners who wish to have children here. White nationalism is not something the US government should be espousing.
This amounts to fraud.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: His student
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People visiting the US are not illegal aliens if they enter with a tourist visa.
Of course not - unless of course they lied in some way on their visa application or overstay their visa.:)
I do not understand where this xenophobia comes from. America is for more than WASP people.
It's always been around in every country and every culture. That includes the U.S.

I sure hope I never catch it. Do you know someone here in particular who has it?
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17595754/birthright-citizenship-trump-14th-amendment-executive-order
and say, this might be a good article to read about that very subject. :wave:
tulc(hopes it helps) :)
I hope you will be good to your word and leave it there.

I won't get into an internet liberal vs. conservative cut and paste war with you.

You are simply wrong when it comes to the intent of the 14th Amendment and all Constitutional scholars and students of history know it.

We have ample evidence recorded in the words of those involved in it's creation as to intent.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Actually I'm comparing two rights that are in the Constitution, one of which has led to the deaths of thousands of people over the years and one that doesn't. :wave:
tulc(thought the comparison was quite accurate) :)

If a killer wants to kill, he doesn't need a gun.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Indeed. I also am concerned about the racist implications of prohibiting Chinese people from visiting the US merely because they are foreigners who wish to have children here. White nationalism is not something the US government should be espousing.

Get over it! No one here to my knowledge has said they are white supremacists. I'm extremely offended just as I am about racism! My family has so many races and nationalities you wouldn't believe it if I told you!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
It does make it easier though. :wave:
tulc(thought that should be pointed out) :)

And laws don't stop criminals from having guns. People get strangled, stabbed, poisoned, pushed over cliffs, smothered, drowned, beaten with baseball bats, having their cars tampered with, killed by homemade bombs, driven over by automobiles, etc.
I must have left something out.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I hope you will be good to your word and leave it there.
Okay, let me look (looks up) Yep, it's still there. :wave:

I won't get into an internet liberal vs. conservative cut and paste war with you.
I guess not, since I'm the only one who provided support for what he thinks. :)


You are simply wrong when it comes to the intent of the 14th Amendment and all Constitutional scholars and students of history know it.
...all of them? That seems...unlikely given how it's been understood for many years now. and the people quoted in the link I provided. :sorry:

We have ample evidence recorded in the words of those involved in it's creation as to intent.
Did I miss where you provided any evidence let alone ample evidence? That's sort of how it works in these threads. ;)
tulc(hopes that helps) :coffee:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Earth18

Seeking
Mar 27, 2018
59
43
USA
✟34,732.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am against building that dumb wall but I am not ok with this for so many reasons. Balance is definitely key in the human existence. I do believe Jesus would bless this country and uphold our laws if we Christians would put pressure on our 1% to end slave labor. China abuses its people to make the computers and phones you and I are on this very moment to post comments here. Just a thought...
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, let me look (looks up) Yep, it's still there.
I was hoping that you were an honest man of your word rather than a troll.
I guess not, since I'm the only one who provided support for what he thinks. :)
I was assuming that the people interested knew how to internet search and would do so if they wanted to follow up.

But you are right. I should have posted something here fort hose who do not have the skills or do not have the time for searches.

Original Intent Treatise - 14th Amendment Clarified

Original Intent Treatise - Constitutions

Original Intent Treatise - Constitutions

...all of them? That seems...unlikely given how it's been understood for many years now. and the people quoted in the link I provided.
It has indeed been understood wrongly for many years now - ever since liberals have dishonestly pursued this agenda (and other figments of liberal thought like so called "abortion rights" as well) in the court of public opinion.

The article you provided itself admits that the understanding as currently practiced is a “century-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment” and not the original intent of the amendment.

The article very quickly falls back on typical liberal emotional charges of “xenophobia”, No surprise there.

It also inadvertently lays out the chief difference in their approach to the subject between conservative thinkers and knee jerk liberals when it says:

“The arguments made in favor of ending birthright citizenship are arguments about the text of the Constitution, American history, and the rule of law — a comfortable register for elite conservative thinkers to speak in. But its urgency as an issue relies on fears about irreversible cultural change — that continuing to grant birthright citizenship will result in the loss of something irreducibly American. That’s exactly the undercurrent that the left associates with restrictionism itself — and makes liberals especially attuned to any attack on birthright citizenship, even as the issue makes conservatives wary.”

The article you provided include no statements related to original intend. The quotes provided are from some time after the writing and adoption of the amendment. For instance:

“At first, the Supreme Court interpreted the citizenship clause narrowly; in 1873, for example, it clarified that it did not apply to children of “citizens or subjects of foreign States” and include comments about the even later 1894 Wong Kim decision (where the parents of the plaintiff were U.S. citizens not illegal aliens as the situation we encounter now in the U.S.

The article even clearly admits and states that “The Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled that the children of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens.”

Interestingly the article says “Looking to historical texts, in the originalist tradition, isn’t terribly helpful because Congress appears to have been split on what “jurisdiction” meant.” I would remind you that the opinion of any current congress has no bearing on the situation since the opinion of the Constitutionally separate Supreme Court is what matters in this situation.

In the article - they make the bold statement that, “Even if the Supreme Court has never explicitly said that US-born children of unauthorized immigrants are birthright citizens, they currently are — they’re covered by extension by the precedent in Wong Kim Ark.” I would remind them of the obvious point that Wong Kim Ark was not the offspring of illegal non citizens of the United States and has no bearing on the situation we are currently facing.

Well – enough of this. The article you refer to is there for all to carve and digest if they want to.

I’ll just state again the obvious fact that liberals must fall back to ad hominem attacks and emotional appeal and are sorely lacking when the conversation touches on “original intent” should be the deliberation of any Supreme court decision.

That’s all I have time for now. I’ll leave you to the last word if you must (even though you promised before that the posting of the article you provided would be your last word and backed out on that).

I’m hoping that those with a truly open mind and an interest in the subject will pursue this subject for themselves.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was hoping that you were an honest man of your word rather than a troll.
I haven't been dishonest so far, but it does seem a little...odd that you claim "liberals must fall back to ad hominem attacks" I might point out I'm not the one calling people "trolls or dishonest" in this thread. :)

I was assuming that the people interested knew how to internet search and would do so if they wanted to follow up.
...you wanted other people to prove your point? I don't think that's how it works.

But you are right. I should have posted something here fort hose who do not have the skills or do not have the time for searches.
Or for the simple fact that it's your job to support your argument. :wave:



It has indeed been understood wrongly for many years now - ever since liberals have dishonestly pursued this agenda (and other figments of liberal thought like so called "abortion rights" as well) in the court of public opinion.
So I was right, it isn't "all Constitutional scholars and students of history know it.". Thanks for admitting it. :)

The article you provided itself admits that the understanding as currently practiced is a “century-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment” and not the original intent of the amendment.

The article very quickly falls back on typical liberal emotional charges of “xenophobia”, No surprise there.

It also inadvertently lays out the chief difference in their approach to the subject between conservative thinkers and knee jerk liberals when it says:

“The arguments made in favor of ending birthright citizenship are arguments about the text of the Constitution, American history, and the rule of law — a comfortable register for elite conservative thinkers to speak in. But its urgency as an issue relies on fears about irreversible cultural change — that continuing to grant birthright citizenship will result in the loss of something irreducibly American. That’s exactly the undercurrent that the left associates with restrictionism itself — and makes liberals especially attuned to any attack on birthright citizenship, even as the issue makes conservatives wary.”

The article you provided include no statements related to original intend. The quotes provided are from some time after the writing and adoption of the amendment. For instance:

“At first, the Supreme Court interpreted the citizenship clause narrowly; in 1873, for example, it clarified that it did not apply to children of “citizens or subjects of foreign States” and include comments about the even later 1894 Wong Kim decision (where the parents of the plaintiff were U.S. citizens not illegal aliens as the situation we encounter now in the U.S.

The article even clearly admits and states that “The Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled that the children of unauthorized immigrants are US citizens.”

Interestingly the article says “Looking to historical texts, in the originalist tradition, isn’t terribly helpful because Congress appears to have been split on what “jurisdiction” meant.” I would remind you that the opinion of any current congress has no bearing on the situation since the opinion of the Constitutionally separate Supreme Court is what matters in this situation.

In the article - they make the bold statement that, “Even if the Supreme Court has never explicitly said that US-born children of unauthorized immigrants are birthright citizens, they currently are — they’re covered by extension by the precedent in Wong Kim Ark.” I would remind them of the obvious point that Wong Kim Ark was not the offspring of illegal non citizens of the United States and has no bearing on the situation we are currently facing.
Uhmm...you kind of gloss over the whole point of Wong Kim Ark, which was the Chinese at that point weren't permitted to even be US citizens. :sorry:

Well – enough of this. The article you refer to is there for all to carve and digest if they want to.
I agree. People should look at it and come to their own conclusions, that's why people should provide support for the things they say. :)

I’ll just state again the obvious fact that liberals must fall back to ad hominem attacks and emotional appeal and are sorely lacking when the conversation touches on “original intent” should be the deliberation of any Supreme court decision.
There's a lot of irony in that post. ;)

That’s all I have time for now. I’ll leave you to the last word if you must (even though you promised before that the posting of the article you provided would be your last word and backed out on that).
Oh dear, I think you may have misunderstood something I said in one of my posts if you think that's what I said. I've literally never done one of those posts in my life. :wave:

I’m hoping that those with a truly open mind and an interest in the subject will pursue this subject for themselves.
On that we can agree. :oldthumbsup:
tulc(hasn't been called a "troll" for a few days now, so thanks for that) :swoon:
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh dear, I think you may have misunderstood something I said in one of my posts if you think that's what I said. I've literally never done one of those posts in my life.
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17595754/birthright-citizenship-trump-14th-amendment-executive-order
and say, this might be a good article to read about that very subject. :wave:
tulc(hopes it helps) :)
My apologies sir!

I took this post to mean that you were just letting this be your last word on the subject and I've referred to that view of the post a couple of times now.

In review now - I see that it could have been meant in a different way than I took it. Troll or not :) - my apologies again for saying that you have been going back on your word. Such charges by me were uncalled for.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My apologies sir!

I took this post to mean that you were just letting this be your last word on the subject and I've referred to that view of the post a couple of times now.

In review now - I see that it could have been meant in a different way than I took it. Troll or not :) - my apologies again for saying that you have been going back on your word. Such charges by me were uncalled for.
No harm, no foul! And I apologize for not being more clear in my post! :wave:
tulc(is raising this cup of coffee to you!) :coffee:
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No harm, no foul! And I apologize for not being more clear in my post! :wave:
tulc(is raising this cup of coffee to you!) :coffee:
Let's really make up.

You vote for Donald Trump when he runs in 2020 and I'll consider voting for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez if she runs in 2032 after she finishes puberty.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JCFantasy23

In a Kingdom by the Sea.
Jul 1, 2008
46,723
6,385
Lakeland, FL
✟502,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Women were charged up to $100,000, were arranged visitor visas, then kept in apartments here in order to give birth. Under U.S. birthright policy almost anyone born on American soil — no matter if it’s to an illegal immigrant, a legal visitor or a citizen — is automatically an American citizen.

This is sad. Considering this is being done with Chinese women and their circumstances in their own country, I understand. They are paying a lot of money and risk in order to let their children live. China's one child policy, and the outlook of some in control over there if that child is born a female (many are killed), makes these valid fears.

The mothers are risking much to ensure the child survives and has a chance over here. More than anything, I find it a courageous and selfless move.
 
Upvote 0