I told you sycophants the constitution was clear!

FastLane said:
Elk v Wilkins was decided by the SCOTUS in 1994
Click to expand...
In 1884, not 1994. You are literally 110 years off. In 1924, Native Americans all became subject to our laws, so it would have made no sense in 1994.

FastLane said:
Elk who was born within the territory of the United States was not given birth right citizenship because he owed his allegiance to another government.(the Winnebago reservation)
Click to expand...
Elk had an absolute right to stay in the USA due to his birth, and citizenship in the Winnebago Reservation. Winnebago's could not be deported, or even charged with most crimes, due to them not being subject to our laws.

FastLane said:
The is no difference to a baby born in America of two Mexican parents.
Click to expand...
First off, very few new Mexicans coming to the USA. For 25 years, we have had negative net Mexican migration. Somewhere along the line, the alt right has missed the current situation.

If you are arguing that Mexicans are not under US jurisdiction, they can no more be deported than Native Americans can. The same would go for all illegal aliens. Your argument would just prevent their children from voting, but would mean they all had a right to stay in America.
 
FastLane said:
A person here illegally cannot vote and cannot be drafted.
Click to expand...
The first part is correct, but the second part is incorrect. Undocumented permanent residents are legally required to register for the draft, and would be drafted if it came to having a draft. It is illegal for them to fail to register for selective services.

They are also subject to our laws. They can even be deported... Which Native Americans who were not subject to our laws could not be.
 
Walt said:
In 1884, not 1994. You are literally 110 years off. In 1924, Native Americans all became subject to our laws, so it would have made no sense in 1994.


Elk had an absolute right to stay in the USA due to his birth, and citizenship in the Winnebago Reservation. Winnebago's could not be deported, or even charged with most crimes, due to them not being subject to our laws.


First off, very few new Mexicans coming to the USA. For 25 years, we have had negative net Mexican migration. Somewhere along the line, the alt right has missed the current situation.

If you are arguing that Mexicans are not under US jurisdiction, they can no more be deported than Native Americans can. The same would go for all illegal aliens. Your argument would just prevent their children from voting, but would mean they all had a right to stay in America.
Click to expand...
this is why you lost.

utterly demented by globalist indoctrination.
 
Jarod said:
In the modern structure, this is true. Things are different today than when Elk was decided.

You do not have to be allowed to vote or be drafted to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Even a few of the Conservatives will go against The PP on this one.
Click to expand...
The Federal Marshal could still enforce federal laws on reservations in Elk's day. Plus even the land of the reservation was owned by the United States. So Elk was subject to our federal laws but he had intelligence to a foreign government. If Elk's parents who were born on US soil and yet their child also born on US soil were not American citizens the child of two temporary illegal aliens are not American citizens.
 
FastLane said:
The Federal Marshal could still enforce federal laws on reservations in Elk's day. Plus even the land of the reservation was owned by the United States. So Elk was subject to our federal laws but he had intelligence to a foreign government. If Elk's parents who were born on US soil and yet their child also born on US soil were not American citizens the child of two temporary illegal aliens are not American citizens.
Click to expand...
It boils down to how this was seen in the late 1800's. Indian lands were considered sovereign, so being born in one and living on one, did not make a person subject to the jurisdiction.

However a person visiting the United States when a baby is born IS subject to the jurisdiction at that time of their birth.

It is as simple as that.
 
Jarod said:
It boils down to how this was seen in the late 1800's. Indian lands were considered sovereign, so being born in one and living on one, did not make a person subject to the jurisdiction.

However a person visiting the United States when a baby is born IS subject to the jurisdiction at that time of their birth.

It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Indians born off the reservations were still not US citizens. It required an Act of Congress in 1924 to grant them citizenship. If an American Indian wasn't an American citizen after the passing of the 14th Amendment the child of two illegal Mexican sure as hell is not an American Citizen.

AI Overview



Before 1924,
most Native Americans, including those not born on a reservation, were not automatically U.S. citizens. While they were born within U.S. territory, the Supreme Court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. due to tribal allegiances, effectively excluding them from the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship

 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
It boils down to how this was seen in the late 1800's. Indian lands were considered sovereign, so being born in one and living on one, did not make a person subject to the jurisdiction.

However a person visiting the United States when a baby is born IS subject to the jurisdiction at that time of their birth.

It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Only legal residents can have American citizens. It is as simple as that.
 
FastLane said:
Indians born off the reservations were still not US citizens. It required an Act of Congress in 1924 to grant them citizenship. If an American Indian wasn't an American citizen after the passing of the 14th Amendment the child of two illegal Mexican sure as hell is not an American Citizen.

AI Overview



Before 1924,
most Native Americans, including those not born on a reservation, were not automatically U.S. citizens. While they were born within U.S. territory, the Supreme Court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. due to tribal allegiances, effectively excluding them from the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship

Click to expand...
Exactly because Elk was born in a separate sovran land (the reservation) when he was born. (not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA)

However, non-citizens when here are not born in a separate sovran land, they are born in a place where they are subject to the jurisdiction.

Its SO simple, but you do not want to understand.


This is why Elk was not a citizen and Kim Ark Wong was a citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top