Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 3 days later[^][v]#1,375,218
Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
boof joined in and replied with this 6 days ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,247
it always seems like an asshole move to kick some guy out who's well into adulthood and never even been anywhere else in his life, can't speak the language, and the land doesn't even have anything you would call a good government
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 days ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,275
@1,375,218 (B)
It was clarified a long time ago. Two years after the 14th amendment passed, the senate judicial committee declared that the intent was to remove any language referring to "three fifths of a person". End of story.
> Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
AI Overview
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case affirmed that anyone born within the U.S., regardless of the parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen. This ruling is based on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 days ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,306
@1,375,275 (G)
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment does that, but it's Section 1 that contains the Citizenship Clause. One could say that Section 2 is support for Section 1 (since "any person" could be argued not to include those who are legally considered three-fifths of a person), but not the reverse, since Congressional representation is based on "persons", not specifically citizens. So the definition of citizenship seems to be a separate intent from overturning the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 days ago, 48 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,307
People are really arguing over the constitution like the government cares what the outcome of this debate is. They’re just gonna do whatever they’re gonna do and there’s nothing we can do about it. If they’re nice they’ll follow the paper, but if they don’t, then… well… that’s just how it be.