"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

[FastLane]

Your king is tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.

Now you are trying to be funny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

American Indians always were citizens under the 14th Amendment depending on how the "jurisdiction" phrase was interpreted.

You are quite ignorant.

It's why you're a Stalinist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is only one way it should be interpreted. The SCOTUS studied the 14th and decided what the correct interpretation meant and 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."

And that utterly destroys the Stalinists - IF the SCOTUS follows the law.

But there is a 4-4 split between the constitutionalists and the leftists. With Barrett as a tiebreaker. The question is will she follow the law, or be part of the girls club?

 

[FastLane]

And that utterly destroys the Stalinists - IF the SCOTUS follows the law.

But there is a 4-4 split between the constitutionalists and the leftists. With Barrett as a tiebreaker. The question is will she follow the law, or be part of the girls club?

She has two adopted kids from Haiti. I suspect she will not follow the law on this one.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ark was a citizen because at his birth his parents had permanent domicile in the US.

This wasn't the reason he was a citizen. It was simply a fact of the case, and an irrelevant one at that. This particular fact of the case happened to be mentioned.

The reason Ark was a citizen was because he was born in the US. His parents were examined to see if they were 1) diplomats or 2) hostile military occupiers, because those are the only exceptions. Lo' and behold, his parents were neither, ergo Ark was a citizen by birth in the US per the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS agrees with me because I am merely citing SCOTUS.

 

[FastLane]

This wasn't the reason he was a citizen. It was simply a fact of the case, and an irrelevant one at that. This particular fact of the case happened to be mentioned.

The reason Ark was a citizen was because he was born in the US. His parents were examined to see if they were 1) diplomats or 2) hostile military occupiers,3) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof because those are the only exceptions. Lo' and behold, his parents were neither, ergo Ark was a citizen by birth in the US per the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS agrees with me because I am merely citing SCOTUS.

FIFY​

​

Justice Horace Gray wrote the decision on Ark. He specifically said Ark's parents had permanent domicile AND residence in the US. The fact that they had permanent domicile is a separate issue from a temporary residence. Illegal Aliens can never have permanent domicile. Elks's parents did not have permanent Domicile and Elk wasn't a US citizen by birth.​

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.” . . .

 

[Into the Night]

Correct. There were many people with many misconceptions.


They were born in the US, were citizens per the 14th Amendment, and yet somehow still required clarification of their status due to the many people with their many misconception.

You are still locked in this paradox, IBD.

They were also in the same situation as Ark.


There is no such thing as Salvadoran children born in the US. You are referring to American citizens being born in the US.

No, he isn't.

No act of Congress can grant citizenship.

Congress creates immigration law, IBD. They determine the path to citizenship.

 

[Into the Night]

This wasn't the reason he was a citizen. It was simply a fact of the case, and an irrelevant one at that. This particular fact of the case happened to be mentioned.

The reason Ark was a citizen was because he was born in the US. His parents were examined to see if they were 1) diplomats or 2) hostile military occupiers, because those are the only exceptions. Lo' and behold, his parents were neither, ergo Ark was a citizen by birth in the US per the 14th Amendment.

You are still locked in this paradox, IBD.

SCOTUS agrees with me because I am merely citing SCOTUS.

"You don't get to speak for SCOTUS" - Your own words.

 

[Into the Night]

... as have I, and you err.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You're too quick for me to pull the Constitution over your eyes.

Don't try to hide behind the Constitution you deny.

Let's see, the Constitutional Amendment that was ratified in 1868 ... was never Constitutional. You are wise beyond your years.

Mantra 40a. Lame.

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.

The phrase 'birthright citizenship' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, IBD. You are still locked in your paradox on this.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Not an inalienable right.

 

[Into the Night]

I do. History shows me to be correct.

History is not your paradox, IBD. Your paradoxes are your OWN problem.

Yep. Congress had to step in and correct the mistake.

What 'mistake'?????

History stands against you.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

Correct, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the child born in the US who does have that inalienable right.

No such right.

By the way, why are both you and Into the Night incapable of distinguishing between parents and children.

We both do, IBD. Fallacy fallacy.

Neither of you can go two sentences without confusing the zhit out of yourselves and mistakenly conflating the child with parents.

Fallacy fallacy. No conflation.

 

[Into the Night]

Your king is tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Damocles]

American Indians always were citizens under the 14th Amendment depending on how the "jurisdiction" phrase was interpreted.

Yet they were not, until a law was passed in 1924, because of the "jurisdiction" wording, which was explained by the guy who wrote it.

 

[Into the Night]

This wasn't the reason he was a citizen. It was simply a fact of the case, and an irrelevant one at that. This particular fact of the case happened to be mentioned.

The reason Ark was a citizen was because he was born in the US. His parents were examined to see if they were 1) diplomats or 2) hostile military occupiers, because those are the only exceptions. Lo' and behold, his parents were neither, ergo Ark was a citizen by birth in the US per the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS agrees with me because I am merely citing SCOTUS.

You are still locked in your paradoxes, IBD. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[archives]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Don't try to hide behind the Constitution you deny.

Mantra 40a. Lame.

The phrase 'birthright citizenship' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, IBD. You are still locked in your paradox on this.

Hilarious how this poster ^ can’t even come up with new deflections, I think I’ve seen the same lame “stone fallacy, “don’t try to hide behind the Constitution,” and similar aborted attempts to employ his Google list of fallacies

 

[Into the Night]

Hilarious how this poster ^ can’t even come up with new deflections, I think I’ve seen the same lame “stone fallacy, “don’t try to hide behind the Constitution,” and similar aborted attempts to employ his Google list of fallacies

You can't blame your fallacies on me or Google, anchovies.

 

[IBDaMann]

... and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.” . . .

So, what do you predict will be the Supreme Court's decision and do you believe birthright citizenship will change any?

I predict that nothing will change because the Supreme Court's hands are tied, i.e. there is only one possible decision when applying the law (and precedent). Your misreading of precedent will carry no weight.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are still locked in this paradox, IBD.

You're not saying anything and you aren't going anywhere.

What do you predict will be the Supreme Court's decision and how will birthright citizenship change any? I claim that nothing will change because the Supreme Court has only one possible decision in this case, and that is to leave everything as is, which means Trump will have to acknowledge the citizenship of all people born in the US unless the parents are diplomats or are hostile military occupiers.

 

[FastLane]

So, what do you predict will be the Supreme Court's decision and do you believe birthright citizenship will change any?

I predict that nothing will change because the Supreme Court's hands are tied, i.e. there is only one possible decision when applying the law (and precedent). Your misreading of precedent will carry no weight.

If they vote the law they will deny birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens but given to children of green card holders.

But with Barrett and Roberts I don't have a lot of confidence.