Yes, Congress has the power to grant citizenship through its naturalization power, as established in the Constitution. This power allows Congress to define the rules and requirements for individuals to become citizens after birth, essentially through a process called naturalization.
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP
- Thread starter Dachshund
- Start date
Yes, the Snyder Act, officially the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, granted citizenship to all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States. It was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
Attachments
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... as have I, and you err.
You're too quick for me to pull the Constitution over your eyes.
Let's see, the Constitutional Amendment that was ratified in 1868 ... was never Constitutional. You are wise beyond your years.
It does not matter how long SCOTUS requires to make the decision to leave birthright citizenship intact, we already know today what that decision will be.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I stand corrected. Yes. I was not considering naturalization. Thank you for keeping me honest.
I was referring to Congress' inability to grant inalienable rights that precede the Constitution, e.g. citizenship by birth.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I do. History shows me to be correct.
Yep. Congress had to step in and correct the mistake.
History stands against you.
History says the SCOTUS says people born owing allegiance to another country are not US citizens.
I did??? Sure looks like you err. What did the SCOTUS mean when they said:
.
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
I am not going to believe your lies about what you twist the Constitution to say.
It excludes those born owing allegiance to other governments.
Yes it will be the same as the decision SCOTUS made in Elk v Wilkins if Roberts sticks to his guns..
Illegal Aliens don't have an inalienable right to be an American. It is a privilege for some aliens to become Americans not an inalienable right.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the child born in the US who does have that inalienable right.
By the way, why are both you and Into the Night incapable of distinguishing between parents and children. Neither of you can go two sentences without confusing the zhit out of yourselves and mistakenly conflating the child with parents.
Last edited:
Elk's parents were members of an independent political community and Elk at the time of his birth owed his allegiance to that community. The lower courts had ruled on similar cases that Indians were not US citizens by virtue of their birth. The SCOTUS agreed with the lower court. Congress had to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to confer citizenship on Native Americans.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Good for them. Membership has its privileges.
This tells me that this particular child was a US citizen by birth.
Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment when they should have.
Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment and reverse the lower court's decision when they should have.
It wasn't the Snyder Act that bestowed citizenship; the act clarified the correct status so that all future court cases would get it right instead of erring as previous courts did.
And Elk wasn't a member of the US and neither were most other Native Americans prior to 1924.
This tells me you are ignoring the SCOTUS and the Constitution.
So you think you are smarter than the SCOTUS. Remind me where did you go to law school. And how long were you a judge?
Odd. Most Native Americans did not have citizenship prior to the Snyder Act then after it they all had citizenship. In fact the Act says it authorizes citizenship for Native Americans.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes.
Law school is for those who don't want to study anything difficult. Stay focused. In what way am I not smarter than SCOTUS? I never err with regards to the Constitution. SCOTUS does, however, as was the case with Elk.
They have a right to due process.
And?
Final facts.
1. Ark was a citizen because his parents had legal domicile in the US when he was born.
2. Elk's parents were members of a tribe that had its own political allegiance. So Elk wasn't a citizen.
3. Congress recognized most Native Americans were not citizens so Congress passed the Snyder Act and granted all Native Americans citizenship.
So if IBDaMann is correct SCOTUS and Congress who have to be wrong. They were not wrong.
If I am right SCZOOTUS gave Ark citizenship because his parents had legal domicile in the US when he was born. And Elk was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe at the time of his birth. And Congress was correct when they passed the Snyder act.
1. Ark was a citizen because his parents had legal domicile in the US when he was born.
2. Elk's parents were members of a tribe that had its own political allegiance. So Elk wasn't a citizen.
3. Congress recognized most Native Americans were not citizens so Congress passed the Snyder Act and granted all Native Americans citizenship.
So if IBDaMann is correct SCOTUS and Congress who have to be wrong. They were not wrong.
If I am right SCZOOTUS gave Ark citizenship because his parents had legal domicile in the US when he was born. And Elk was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe at the time of his birth. And Congress was correct when they passed the Snyder act.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Ark was a citizen because he was born in the US.
Right on cue. You just conflated Elk with his parents ... AGAIN. You really can't distinguish between them.
The parents are irrelevant. Stay focused on the child born in the US.
You are incorrect. You once again conflated Ark with his parents. Ark was born in the US, thus he was a US citizen.
No newborn has any allegiance.
Ark was a citizen because at his birth his parents had permanent domicile in the US. SCOTUS said:
"That, at the time of his (Ark) said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, ......
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
I know this concept is hard for you to grasp with your limited cognitive resources but try hard to stay focused.
Parents are relevant. If Elks parents were two American citizens Elk would have been an American citizen. If two El Salvadoran citizens have a child (Pedro) in the US then he (Pedro) is not an American citizen.
The SCTOUS said Ark was a US citizen because his parents had permanent domicile in the US when he was born.
Stay focused
Again you disagree with the SCOTUS
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
The SCOTUS does not agree with your understanding of the 14th amendment.