The Myth of Birthright Citizenship

[C-Mag]

Have there been any 14th Amendment cases argued in the SCOTUS ?

Hundreds. It's a very broad amendment.

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, look at the articles I put up in the OP for cites and QRD discussion.

That's what I had in mind with the OP.

Of course I read your links before commenting in this thread...…………. just like everyone else

I'm game to see it argued before the SCOTUS again.

[C-Mag]

Good Summary from Fifes links

There were therefore many important principles written by the very man from whom the Left erroneously gleans the “right” of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens:

1) The political branches unquestionably can exclude anyone for any reason, even, unfortunately, for hateful reasons.(<<<< he means Evil Trump)

2) The courts have no jurisdiction over the issue of sovereignty.

3) Someone not admitted lawfully cannot be considered domiciled in the country.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... tizenship/

[jediuser598]

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.

Children of illegal immigrants are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, thus they are citizens of the United States.

It's funny when situations like this come up, what evidence could I present, what arguments could I put forth? You're going to believe what you're going to believe. You want children who were born here with parents of illegal aliens (or perhaps legal?) to not be citizens. I disagree, I think that qualifies for citizenship via the 14th amendment.

[Speaker to Animals]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof


This is what senator Jacob Howard said about it at the time:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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 issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Senator Howard was the man who wrote the amendment and co-sponsored it in the Senate.

Get fucked.

[jediuser598]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof


This is what senator Jacob Howard said about it at the time:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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 issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Senator Howard was the man who wrote the amendment and co-sponsored it in the Senate.

Get fucked.

Facts of the case
The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen.

Question
Could the government deny citizenship to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
No. The government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. To reach this conclusion, Justice Gray's tedious majority opinion managed to traverse much of western civilization.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649

[Speaker to Animals]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof


This is what senator Jacob Howard said about it at the time:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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 issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Senator Howard was the man who wrote the amendment and co-sponsored it in the Senate.

Get fucked.

Facts of the case
The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen.

Question
Could the government deny citizenship to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
No. The government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. To reach this conclusion, Justice Gray's tedious majority opinion managed to traverse much of western civilization.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649

Exactly, genius. Birthright citizenship is not a thing. It was created by an activist judge. Guess what authority the judiciary has in determining how citizenship is granted.. ZERO.

The Supreme Court would obviously dump cold water all over your birthright citizenship farce. It's not a real right. Judges are not supposed to do the job of Congress.

You don't get to redefine what words mean to alter the Constitution. Ridiculous.

Get fucked.

[jediuser598]

6 "activist" judges, it was a 6-2 decision.

[Speaker to Animals]

Okay.

Let's break down the flaming zeppelin crash that was Jedi's performance here tonight..

(1) Jedi claims the Constitution creates "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of foreign invaders on American soil.

(2) I point out that the 14th amendment does no such thing, even providing evidence from the man who wrote and sponsored the amendment that explicitly rejects exactly that notion.

(3) Instead of admitting he was wrong, he goes on to quote a lower court ruling that some offspring of Chinamen was a US citizen, inventing "birthright citizenship" from the bench. Note the goalpost was moved drastically here.

(4) I point out that Constitution he just appealed to nowhere allows for judges to create such law. This ruling was never tested in the Supreme Court and is unlikely to prevail there if ever tested (which apparently might be soon).



Remember what I said earlier about these liberals. They will NEVER engage honestly. They are not here to debate the truth. They want to control and manipulate you. If they need to lie to do that, they will, and you can clearly see this particular specimen lying and changing goalposts constantly to try to salvage this policy.

Why would he want to save birthright citizenship? I'd argue because he is psychologically and emotionally committed to annihilating the American people with mass migrations of nonwhite people.

[MilSpecs]

It’s not like there was negotiation between the founders as amendments were drafted because that would imply that they behaved like civilized human beings, and looking at their political descendants clearly negates that theory.

What a strange endorsement of the Dred Scott case and Justice Taney.

I guess we all have our own tastes in heroes.

:goteam: :drunk:

Well done, but the process eventually worked. Go Founders.

[jediuser598]

Okay.

Let's break down the flaming zeppelin crash that was Jedi's performance here tonight..

(1) Jedi claims the Constitution creates "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of foreign invaders on American soil.

(2) I point out that the 14th amendment does no such thing, even providing evidence from the man who wrote and sponsored the amendment that explicitly rejects exactly that notion.

(3) Instead of admitting he was wrong, he goes on to quote a lower court ruling that some offspring of Chinamen was a US citizen, inventing "birthright citizenship" from the bench. Note the goalpost was moved drastically here.

(4) I point out that Constitution he just appealed to nowhere allows for judges to create such law. This ruling was never tested in the Supreme Court and is unlikely to prevail there if ever tested (which apparently might be soon).



Remember what I said earlier about these liberals. They will NEVER engage honestly. They are not here to debate the truth. They want to control and manipulate you. If they need to lie to do that, they will, and you can clearly see this particular specimen lying and changing goalposts constantly to try to salvage this policy.

Why would he want to save birthright citizenship? I'd argue because he is psychologically and emotionally committed to annihilating the American people with mass migrations of nonwhite people.

You support a man who wants to do away with 2nd amendment rights without due process. Want to play back the tape? Your intellectual honesty is 0. How someone could say they support the constitution and support Trump at the same time is telling.

As towards the 14th:

The 14th Amendment holds that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Most legal scholars take that as an explicit protection of birthright citizenship — and think it will take much more than an executive order to change that.

"Trump may have a lawyer who is telling him the 14th Amendment means something else, but that lawyer is like a unicorn," said Rebecca Hamlin, a professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Trump's proposal seems to rely on the work of a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars who argue the 14th Amendment has long been misread. In particular, they argue, five key words — "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — have been misread and that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not intend to give citizenship to the children of temporary visitors and other noncitizens.

"We've got this notion that just kind of developed over the last 40 or 50 years that is completely without any sort of legal authority," said John Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Most legal scholars say the Supreme Court settled this debate more than a century ago, holding that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to anyone present in the U.S., except for the children of diplomats and enemy soldiers (and, at the time, Native Americans).

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/66233561 ... enship-wit

To quote fox news at you:

Congress did not draft this language to alter the concept of citizenship, but to affirm American practice dating from the origins of our republic. The United States follows the rule of jus solis (citizenship defined by birthplace), rather than the rule of jus sanguinis (citizenship defined by that of parents) that prevails in much of Europe.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-i ... reserve-it

Jus solis is American Policy.