Bai Lan
Let It Rot
can you arrest people you don't have jurisdiction over?
Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
You never “argue”with anyone, rather regurgitate what you heard and create your own factsThis is why I say to never argue with a lying leftist halfwit. It will only end up in a never-ending circle of stupidity.
And we’re still waiting for you to explain “how something can be constitutional if it is not in the Constitution” as you claim
moon
Satire for Sanity
You losers should stay dead and quit trying to resurrect yourselves;
These are recent ' Into the Nightsoil's' statements ;
"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "
" There is no such thing as an unwritten Constitution "
" There were WMD in Iraq "
"There is no "weaponization of the dollar"
"Covid does not kill ."
"It is not possible to have a variant of a variant. "(Subvariants do not exist )
"Israel doesn't want to eradicate Palestine "
"The Arctic isn't melting "
"I don't need to seek attention"
"The age of the earth is unknown "
Dumbass or troll ?
Both.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
neocons are fucking stupid.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Arsecheese is lying. He already proved himself wrong earlier in the thread.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
"Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."
Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.
www.whitehouse.gov
That statement reflects an unconstitutional position, But when has The felon ever respected the constitution."Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."
Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.www.whitehouse.gov
What if Biden had published a statement about what firearms were to be banned?
You see a president in the United States is not an absolute king, he is limited by the Constitution. This is 6th grade civics !
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Then go ahead and try to debunk it instead of whining.
That will be the job of the Courts…
But debunking it is easy, read the 14th amendment.
“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.“
Nothing to do with status of mother or father.
The president does not have the power to change that!
6th grade civics class!
The felon is making a fool of you!
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
So you can't debunk it.
Legal Opinion from NYT ...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
Please reference this with a link? The drafters of the Constitution did not add Dicta. They knew every word had legal meaning and consequence as the supreme law if the land.So you can't debunk it.
Legal Opinion from NYT ...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
This is akin to claiming the word “arms” in the second Amendment really only means Muskets, or was not intended to protect ownership of arms.
The silliness of the devotees of the Felon is astounding to me.
Link?
Link?
Foreign people traveling in the US that happen to deliver a child while here owe their allegiance to their country as do illegal immigrants and invading armies. None of them can vote in our country or fight in our military to defend our country. They do not have birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment say differently.
You realize the ruling in Wong Kim Ark states that your post is dead wrong!So you can't debunk it.
Legal Opinion from NYT ...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center
National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
constitutioncenter.org
Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller (Dissent)
“By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside. . . .”
This may be the majority opinion with this court.
In a 6-2 decision your position lost.
Yes they do…. Since 1898.