Tobytone
Verified User
I don't know, a couple them seem a little shaky sometimes. I hope you are right, for sure.
Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes it is, Wally.
Into the Night
Verified User
Why?
Into the Night
Verified User
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. You don't get to claim 'original intent' by anyone. NOTHING in the Constitution confers citizenship on illegal aliens or their offspring.
Into the Night
Verified User
Any opinion can be a fact, but any opinion does not necessarily mean it's also a fact. Go learn what 'fact' means.
Go learn what a subject of jurisdiction is, Pretender.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG! The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY over the Constitution. They are REQUIRED to conform to the Constitution, just as any other branch of the federal government!
Good question!
Into the Night
Verified User
Nothing in the Constitution confers citizenship on illegal aliens or their children.
Yes, but how many will do each? That is the real question.
ZenMode
Well-known member
What Does the constitution say about people here illegally as it relates to birthright citizenship?
They don't get it.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
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."
Into the Night
Verified User
Nothing. RQAA. Stop repeating the question mindlessly.
It will as long as Trump has the Congress. It's an idiotic argument to suggest there is this birthright, almost as inane as the similar claim that there is a "separation" clause instead of the "Establishment" clause.
They really are THAT fucking stupid. But alas, they wouldn't be Democrat if they had a brain.
We can be comforted by the fact that you are seldom, if ever, right about anything.
That is a moronic lie.
Cite the case halfwit.
Trumps SCOTUS.,....
Cite their decisions brainless wonder.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right. Besides the fact that we don't have true jurisdiction over those who are here illegally, there's also the reality of the purpose of birthright citizenship. A) grant the children of slaves, who were brought here against their will, citizenship and b) grant the children of immigrants citizenship.
People who participate in birth tourism or waddle 100 feet across the southern border to squeeze out a kid in the desert aren't migrating here LIKE people were in the early years of our country. Those people were given citizenship at the shore.
Translation; I was caught in another dumb lie and now need to run away from the discussion.
Run lying little leftist coward, RUN!
