Birthright Citizenship and what lawmakers intended
We are now engaged in a national debate over President Trump's announcement that he will use an executive order to end the "birthright citizenship" clause in the 14th Amendment. There is no doubt by anyone that an executive order alone could end the current practice of allowing citizenship to those born within the country from illegal aliens. Everyone knows that as soon as the President signs such an order there will be legal challenges. Then what? Well, it is not like the birthright citizenship clause is settled concise law. This has been a very controversial issue for some time now. Even Harry Reid once questioned the wisdom of the clause, while others have questioned what was truly intended by it's vague wording.
The 14th Amendment was passed 3 years after the Civil War and the section in question was added to make certain than the newly freed slaves would have their citizenship rights. The controversial sentence enabling birthright citizenship is this:
"E very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. "
The Senator who argued for including the obtusely worded phrase ("and subject to their jurisdiction") was the Republican Senator from Michigan, Jacob M. Howard. Though it seems to be forgotten, he also said this:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person".
https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf
An Executive Order cannot by itself correct the serious problem America faces via birthright citizenship. It has no legal authority to change what is arguably the law, but the legal challenges to the President's order will eventually lead to the SCOTUS. There the Justices at the very least will finally interpret what was meant by "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
A correct interpretation by the Court may spare the nation from the vague language of the law and the way it has been implemented
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
78 visitors
I submit a law that requires interpretation
LOL. Only the white nationalists in the GOP think it's a debate. It's been their wet dream for years. The rest of us are just laughing at them.
.
LOL. Not even the GOP leadership in Congress is dumb enough to believe that.
Then I guess Harry Reid was a "white nationalist". It's hard to tell. [Deleted]
[Deleted]
[You cannot make a statement like "Harry Reid is a white nationalist"]
[and then declare the white nationalist topic as off topic.]
Since Illegal Immigrants are breaking the Law by being here then Citizenship for the children they birth here should be considered Ill Gotten Gains or Proceeds of a Crime. The same should be true of Birth Tourists who come here to steal citizenship by Illegally birthing their children in the USA, Birth Tourism is Illegal. If I stole or obtained money by fraud and gave it to my children it still does not legally belong to them, the money is the proceeds of a Crime. Citizenship for the Children of Illegal Immigrants or Birth Tourists is the Proceeds of a Crime so they are not legally entitled to it.
Well said. Agreed.
Why not READ the link you posted for that interpretation? Judge Ho makes a perfectly cogent and annotated argument.
An EO from Trump would stop NOTHING. As you acknowledged in a latter comment, an injunction would be immediate. Based on the amicus briefs written by Sessions' DOJ, their argument would fall apart pretty fucking quick.
An EO from Trump would NOT bring a question of interpretation before the Court. The question will be whether Trump has the unilateral authority to repeal a Constitutional Amendment.
Rather than just cherry pick quotes that you think support your posit, you should actually READ your linked article. It will confirm that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
There are valid arguments on both sides. That is why we either need the Court to interpret, which should have been done long ago or we get behind Lindsey Graham and have Congress do something about it.
An EO from Trump would stop NOTHING. As you acknowledged in a latter comment, an injunction would be immediate. Based on the amicus briefs written by Sessions' DOJ, their argument would fall apart pretty fucking quick.
And? Would it not be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court?
An EO from Trump would NOT bring a question of interpretation before the Court. The question will be whether Trump has the unilateral authority to repeal a Constitutional Amendment.
Even if it is argued that the statute does not apply to illegal aliens offspring?
Rather than just cherry pick quotes that you think support your posit, you should actually READ your linked article. It will confirm that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
My prediction is this goes to the SCOTUS
Do you have a link to an argument that cogently refutes the one that Judge Ho wrote? I'd love to read it...
It WAS done long ago, READ US v. Ark.
You said there is 'no doubt' that an EO would 'END' the practice. It will NOT.
The EO will be appealed, NOT the Amendment. Sheesh.
It doesn't matter what it argues. What matters is Trump's claim to have the authority to repeal a Constitutional Amendment. That is what the ACLU will argue for the injunction and that is the suit they will file against Trump.
Trump's EO most definitely will get to the SCOTUS. They will rule on whether he is a king...
And the government's lawyers are just gonna stand by and not make an argument on the wording? It will be a limited decision, strictly on the President's authority to end birthright citizenship? Funny, how the left was against such a limited decision when they challenged the travel ban. And the idea that the eccentric wording of the statute will be ignored by all 9 Justices is truly amazing. I say that in the end the 4 liberal justices read it exactly as our own Judge Ho read it. Maybe some of the other 5 would too. Maybe not. I don't expect a unanimous vote on that wording. I'm hoping that 5 justices read it as not applicable to illegal aliens. If not at least we get it settled. Why wouldn't anyone want that the issue settled?
E.A 2.1.22 Eagle Averro replied to Dulay @2.1.21
See that and meditate why he used " Chinese and Gypsies " in the example and why what was relevant back then is no longer So!
EVERY SCOTUS opinion states the QUESTION before the Court. So while Sessions' DOJ came pontificate on whatever the hell they want, anything not relevant to that question is viewed as the deflection that it is.
Since the EO precipitated the case, YES.
Bullshit. The QUESTION was whether Trump's EO contravened the Immigration and Nationality Act and if it violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. That a pretty fucking limited argument.
Who posited that idea?
I say that YOUR question will NOT be precipitated by Trump's EO.
Paul Ryan already told Trump, "NO CAN DO OLDE BUCKAROO"...
He is entitled to his opinion. Obviously Ryan believes the law is specific, many disagree and the disagreement began the moment the law went into effect over a century ago.
Well, the Fourteenth Ammendment settled it plain enough for me...
And the man who put the wording into birthright citizenship said;
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person".
So you choose to ignore
It's the Comma's that that show that this statement describes three different classes of People. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are - foreigners - aliens - who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person". If they meant it to only mean the children of the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers it would not have contained comma's. The Comma's stand for "or" or "and" as in "Born to foreigners or aliens or the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". Seems to me the guy who insisted on including "and subject to their jurisdiction" in the Amendment would know better than anyone what it meant, and He told us in that statement.
I think you found a way to say it. Much appreciated
If the words don't suit you as written propose an amendment...
Try as Trump might he cannot sign away our rights with a pen.
If so Presidents could nix our freedom of speech or gun rights.
Have you read one word of what this article is about?
It is NOT about the President's right to change anything. It is about this:
Legal experts have debated for years how to interpret the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The first section of the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Some legal scholars argue that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems to give the government some leeway to restrict the right, just as other constitutional principles can be limited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-again-raises-much-debated-but-rarely-tested-question-of-birthright-citizenship/2018/10/30/79f9e59e-dc3c-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?utm_term=.b88ca94ffa70
Like how I can't have certain classes of "Arms" even though the 2nd Amendment isn't specific or limiting. I'd like to have a few Claymore anti-personnel mines in case of the Zombie Apocalypse but they're not allowed.
If the damned gop retains the house yours, the republican's and Trump's worst impulses will be unleashed which is why all good decent Americans must vote by Tuesday. Because, our sacred Republic depends upon it. Anyone who believes our Constitutional rights and freedoms can be just signed away by a dictatorial madman needs a good lesson on just how Democracy works. You should expect a rude awakening next Tuesday...
Then why did you post a WaPo link entitled:
Which is all about whether Trump has the authority to unilaterally repeal birthright citizenship?.
Correct! There are limitations on the 2nd Amendment and obviously we need them here.
.
You've been brief lately.
I heard law professor Jonathan Turley, yesterday, say that we really should have understood what was meant by "subject to their jurisdiction". He went on to say that we may be 150 years too late.
[deleted]
[[][You] have been [provided with several groups][]] and [[][several articles to complain in, please take advantage of them][]]
[deleted]
Maybe you have some thought on the President's Executive Order actually being a vehicle to get the Court to interpret birthright citizenship?
Agree or disagree?
Then we see it the same way. The point is not about whether the President's Executive Order is legal, but if it can get the Court to finally address the language of birthright citizenship.
E.A Right, and hence how the POTUS can Force a Quick SCOTUS response and in the meantime stop all pending questionable Birth certifications and reduce the " Push , Pull Factors for refuges "
g'morning EA and Vic.
as I stated yesterday in another discussion, I feel the only real question to birthright citizenship is the jurisdiction part of the clause, what level of jurisdiction by the government be it state or federal is needed for citizenship to be a an unquestionable fact. so to my mind , it is that particular thing that needs clarification and definition in order for the law or any laws to be effective and do what they are suppose to and designed to do.
Vic , I think you are on to something about the admin using an Eo as a vehicle to get the issue before the court to fast track it to get that particular definition. But they could just as easily without an EO ask the court for clarification of that particular definition and then write an EO or let congress come up with legislation that fits the definition and make it part of immigration code.
Like I said in other places , it will hinge on exactly what subject to the jurisdiction actually means , we do have records of the debate to what those that created and passed the amendment said they believed it meant and it also followed what the CRA of 1866 stated as well .
It has never been dealt with at the high court level to be decided as it pertains to illegals, it has been kicked down the road now not just for decades , but generations.
My prediction ? with the current make up of the high court?
I think we may see that before birthright citizenship is granted to the children of illegals , that there will have to be some form of legality for the parents to have been in the nation in the first place , Wong Ark kim is presedent for that .
I also see to avoid creating a vast number of stateless persons , a grandfather clause in any legislation that leaves current citizenship for some , and denying it to others , and there is presedent for that as well, think wet foot dry foot in regards to the Cubans , or the fact that phillipinos were denied US citizenship even though they had been born during the time the Phillipines were a US territory and protectorate early in the last century.
It shall be interesting to watch unfold.
AS a case of first impression, (what exactly is birthright citizenship and how one is awarded it) the Supreme court will reach to all the supporting documentation as to it's creation and the final ideals of what they intended....
Then, does it fit within the constitution as it has been currently applied. (illegal alien children born within the territory of the US being automatic citizens)
Lot of history there......
Only the real narrow minded believe this is some sort of "Imperial" decree, it is a strategy to get the issue before the court.
Of course the liberal takes every opportunity to spread lies, this one being a biggie cause it hits directly at one of their beloved policies, just like Judge Kavanaugh did.
E.A Hi, And Yes we are living in particularly interesting times!
How do you come up with that? The Court not address any 'form of legality for the parents to have been in the nation' though they did in fact address the FACT that Ark's parents could not LEGALLY become citizens.
The Ark decision addresses the meaning of "subject to their jurisdiction" in excruciating detail. It includes dozens of annotations, starting with the debate on the Amendment and going through every decision that touched on the meaning of that phrase. You should READ it.
Then check out the article that Vic linked. The author makes a cogent argument, again with annotations, that children of 'illegal aliens' are indeed citizens.
As I said to Vic, I disagree that a Trump EO would cause the Court to address the question of the meaning of the 'subject to their jurisdiction'. I for one, especially after carefully reading Ark, don't think their IS a question about what it means in our jurisprudence.
And do you know what one of the beauties of our system is?
I've heard a lot of people claiming precedent for 200 years, 150 years, 50 years whatever... CANNOT BE CHANGED.
The law, under the constitution, is what those nine persons wearing the robes say it is.... (precedent be damned)
And the leftists understand this implicitly as it was the entire basis if their attack on Judge Kavanaugh, to keep him off the bench.....
The real issue, once either he (T-rump) or the congress acts, is to get it before the court.
Hopefully this is the start of a long string of precedents that need to be revisited...
It's simply asinine to allow illegal aliens to control citizenship.
Possible
True. Lindsey Graham is introducing legislation to do just that:
"Graham, a former Air Force attorney and judge who is in the middle of a cross-country tour campaigning for Republican candidates for Senate and other key races, went further, announcing that he would be filing corresponding legislation in the Senate.
“The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth,” Graham said. “This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end.”
“I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President,” the South Carolina Republican said in a statement."
It has never been dealt with at the high court level to be decided as it pertains to illegals, it has been kicked down the road now not just for decades , but generations.
Correct
It shall be interesting to watch unfold.
Very
You know why he is doing it?
Cause amongst others the WA State Attorney General has come out directly saying that he is preparing to sue T-rump in federal court over any EO that stops alien birthright citizenship. Some of the other state AG's are pissed at him for giving away their opening salvo in the battle about to be fought....
They cannot sue congress.
I really think Graham wants to put an end to terrible practice. The Executive Order won't stop anyone. It will be immediately challenged
Yeah, the EO is a shortcut and I don't think a very well though out one. (bound to fail)
But consider this, it was a serious kick in the ass to congress, which is right up T-rump's alley... (and where this challenge to the precedent actually should come from, cause they created the issue in the first place)
Right, just burn the fucker down!
E.A Here is the KEY Question::
Would that Placate the Screaming Hordes? :-)
Nope, clarify, that is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do....
My thinking is simple , even though arks parents could not become citizens legally the courts recognized that they could and were in the country legally, they simply could not be citizens and pass on citizenship to any children through inheritance , you are correct that arks case fit the parameters of being eligible for citizenship because even being subject to the emperor of china's will or were in the employ of the Chinese government the child was not, even after the case was brought when Ark reached age of majority/ maturity . people tend to forget ark was NOT a child when the case was brought. another little known fact was arks oldest child was denied citizenship yet 2 younger brothers were granted citizenship with one serving in the US military in WW2. I see a couple of precedents being set there.
The Ark decision addresses the meaning of "subject to their jurisdiction" in excruciating detail. It includes dozens of annotations, starting with the debate on the Amendment and going through every decision that touched on the meaning of that phrase. You should READ it.
I took your advice and went back and double checked Ark And read the link by Ho.
the only thing Ark points out to me is that the plaintiff was not part of those excluded classes with diplomatic immunities , thus not eligible for citizenship.
As for the linked article , I am of the impression that Ho did a fine job of writing it , and his reasoning is sound, EXCEPT, he ignores a couple things relevant to the timeframe the amendment was written.
One of them was the CRA of 1866 which states : ."all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
this was again reiterated 2 years later during the debate over the 14th amendment, In the words of Senator Trumbull, author of the 13th amendment when asked about what under the jurisdiction there of meant at the time of the clauses writing "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Then we have to deal with "original intent of the amendment itself , not how it has been applied .
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) as to how and whom the amendment applies ,
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Citizenship had been gone over in the CRA of 1866, but needed strengthening for former slaves. that is what the honorable senator meant when he said it had already been decided at length in the senate chamber .
So IMHO , even given Ho's bon ifides, he ignored the original intent and the words of the people whom crafted the amendment itself . in other words he twisted the history to fit his own agenda which some are buying as gospel and some are not.
And in order to correctly enforce the amendment or any laws one first has to have the definitions of what is actually meant , thankfully we have bot trumbull and howards statements to help fill us in .
I would say it WOULD be a bitch to find out that it has been applied wrongly for some time now . but that is why I stand by my statement that it is most likely something that the USSC will eventually have to end up clarifying with what definition they use for under the jurisdiction of, what level is the bar that THEY set when it comes to the amendment. is it as low as Ho sets? or as high as the authors origianally intended?
Like I said , it will be interesting to watch it unfold.
There is NOTHING in the Ark opinion about his parents being here legally or illegally.
Ark's parents ran a business, they were NO employed by the Chinese government. Sheesh how could you say that if you READ the opinion?
The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is cited in the Ark opinion 33 times.
Actually, Judge Ho DOES address the CRA of 1866 AND the quote from Trumbull. Perhaps you only seeing what you want to see...
IMHO, you are reading Howard's statement wrong. Judge Ho addresses your interpretation of the statement.
Judge Ho:
Yep, good we've got that confirmation from Trumbull...
E.A LOL Gypsies are known as " Stateless People " so much for that!
E.A See what I mean Soon we will have the " Sedition Law " and
never heard of typos huh? yes I know his parents were NOT connected to the Chinese government , yes I know that his parents immigrant status was not discussed in the actual verdict , No I do not agree with ho's assessment and conclusion , that's is what opinion is about ,he gave his , you have given yours , and I as everyone else discussing this has given theirs.
some are of the opinion a single case is precedent enough to cover all aspects while others don't, I am of the opinion that Ark also set a precedent even though the parents status was not mentioned that the parents legality even as aliens though incapable of becoming citizens is important , the same has not been said about illegal parents at this level of the court. Some think the definitions given are enough at the lower level such as ho believes, some don't , all opinions , until the high court is asked for clarification of a definition , or a case is accepted that a ruling will further clarify the definition I myself have questions about we remain where we are , It is as I said something the court may be forced to decide, and in factuality, it is what those 9 members of the court say , their opinion and the definitional bar they use that is what will actually matter , and since the question has not been broached in regards to illegals at this level of the court , it is a first time thing in regards to illegals , with the make up of the current court , I think those that believe the children of illegals gain citizenship should be worried , because it might be a whole different set of precedent that gets set if it is brought to the court , personally I think its a crap shoot and COULD go either way . it would not be the first time in the courts history that precedent was reversed or changed.
as I said , just have to wait and see and it would be interesting to watch if it happens.
have a good night , Im off to bed.
I think it has been well thought out. It seeks a resolution either through Judicial clarification or Congressional action and is timed politically for next weeks election. We have two political parties which have not done a thing about this problem. One man is taking it on.
It failed the Roman Republic
E.A and ALL else that tried to use intimidation to Silence Truth, as this " site " will also " fail "!
Yet as Judge Ho citations prove, there are MANY SCOTUS opinions that bolster that precedent.
Most of the citations by Ho are from SCOTUS opinions.
BTW, thanks for illustrating that all of Kavanaugh's BS about following precedent was irrelevant and just Kabuki theatre.
G morning Dulay.
I will leave it to vic to decide if this is on or off topic but it is part of the over all discussion ,well all I have illustrated is that I view precedent in my own way and I am not Justice Kavanaugh. actually in my view how a justice decides what is or is not precedent is basically up to them, and I believe that even though it can be used to guide one in making a ruling , it is also up to that individual to weigh whether or not it applies to any case at hand dependent on the facts presented in any case . if precedent alone is to determine the outcome of a ruling then current justices sit with their hands tied by long dead justices the precede them and that is not how the court works.
When it comes to discussions such as this one , I take them and view them as basically a chance to listen to and express opinions , because none here unless they are members of the judiciary will be making any binding or lasting rulings on any of the subjects discussed, I take it as a chance to learn from others and accept that others will have different views or opinions than myself ,and that I if I choose, to have the chance to learn from those different opinions even if I eventually end up disagreeing . either way I like the food for thought. thanks for the exchange.
Well if you think that Trump is 'seeking' clarification or Congressional action, it would follow that you'd think it was 'well thought out'. Unfortunately, there is not one iota of evidence that Trump seeks anything but a YUGE diversion from the ACTUAL issues before the electorate in 5 days.
The GOP has stood steadfast against any immigration reform, even when their own wrote the statute. Ask Rubio.
Here is a Question tho::
Under " National Security " Could he Put a Stay of " Birth right Citizenship " making the Claim that it Draws Refuges as the " Caravan " that puts undue pressure on the Nations Security Services, and then Direct the SCOTUS for an " Emergency Ruling "?
No. There would be an immediate injunction
E.A An Injunction based on what?
The Presidential Decree will still Gain priority and hence the Court will have to adjudicate IMHO.
The interpretation of the law based on some Circuit Court Judge.....You can expect an Obama Judge to be among the first to act.
E.A Yes but that can be " postponed " for Years while the POTUS Submission will go through! :-)
[Removed]
[Removed]
I already know who she is going as,
[Removed]
Well, yeah, I guess so, he is better looking.
[Removed]
Conway is off topic
This is another well-researched and well-documented article:
Thank You
Taken from the Congressional Records -
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14 th Amendment by stating:
" Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
the 14th amendment has nothing to do with illegal entries.
this stuff was covered in civics 101
former slaves "resided" here... people entering illegally, do not "reside" here.
LOL, I submit that if our RW members thought that birthright citizenship created RW voters they would have no problem with it...
Just a guess.
That's the way politics run - which is another reason I try to stay away from them.
I am thinking that if birthright citizenship did create right wing voters .. the left would not support it..
Just a thought
Not at all. The proof is in our recent history. Barely a decade ago, both parties understood that border control was important. Both countries understood that you couldn't just grant citizenship to anyone who could sneak across the border. That's common sense.
But about a decade ago, Democrats figured that if they could be the party to grant amnesty (i.e. citizenship) to millions of illegal aliens, they would probably vote Democrat out of gratitude. They have been trying to accomplish this ever since. Talk about putting party over country!
Meanwhile, Republicans have never moved in that direction, even with control of both houses of Congress and the White House.
"Both countries" should be "both parties"
Why would anyone bestow citizenship upon people who entered a country illegally and without permission or extend the same privilege to their children? If countries and citizenship worked like that, you could literally walk the globe and you or your children would become a citizen of every country. If we do that, what is the value of citizenship? For that matter, what value is there to having a nation with a system of laws? Taken to an absurd extreme, the entire population of China could walk the Earth, become citizens of every country and turn Earth into the Planet China.
And yes, that is stupid and silly - because it's based on a stupid and silly idea, i.e. that you can sneak into a country and you and/or children get to be citizens of that country.
The US and Canada are the only developed nations which allow birthright citizenship, and the US Constitution's description is vague and certainly debatable. Here's a map and a breakdown of nations allowing/not allowing:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
Sorry, but I'm going to close this down. It seems we have a radical "moderator" who deletes Conservatives for bogus reasons but allows his hate spewing buddies to derail and call people names. I will file a complaint with the boss forthwith.