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

[IBDaMann]

Oh really?

Really. You apparently need quite a bit of educating on these matters.

Indian reservations have ALWAYS been subject to American Federal laws.

Let me know when you return to the topic of children born in the US.

In fact the Federal Government owns the very lands of the reservations.

Peat moss absorbs water and nutrients directly through its porous, sponge-like cells.

Yes, Indian reservations are owned by the federal government,

The native Americans themselves are what we are discussing, not the reservations on which they lived. The Federal government did not own the native Americans. Are you aware that there is a difference between native Americans and their reservations?

The native Americans were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US prior to 1924, irrespective of who owned the reservation.

 

[FastLane]

There are two errors in the above, one that is stated and one that is not. Your stated error is that illegal aliens somehow have diplomatic immunity. I'd like to correct your misunderstanding. If an illegal is suspected of a crime, he must explain himself in court ... because the US has the jurisdiction to which the alien is subject.

Your unstated error is that a child born in the US is somehow an illegal alien like his parents. I'd like to correct your misunderstanding. He is a citizen of the United States.


Correct. Just for your edification, today's date is after 1924.


Incorrect. Two Salvadorans are quite able to produce a child, and if that child is born in the US, the child is a US citizen, i.e. nothing about the parents matters, which is why there is no mention of parentage in the 14th Amendment.

II that were true Elk would have been an American citizen because he was subject to American lFederal law. He wasn't and American citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe and THAT is what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Two El Salvadorans owe allegiance to El Salvador not to the United States. We can't trial them for treason but El Salvador can we can't draft them but El Salvador can.

 

[FastLane]

Really. You apparently need quite a bit of educating on these matters.


Let me know when you return to the topic of children born in the US.


Peat moss absorbs water and nutrients directly through its porous, sponge-like cells.


The native Americans themselves are what we are discussing, not the reservations on which they lived. The Federal government did not own the native Americans. Are you aware that there is a difference between native Americans and their reservations?

The native Americans were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US prior to 1924, irrespective of who owned the reservation.

Native Americans have always been subject to Federal laws. Federal marshals have always enforced federal laws on Reservations. They owed their allegiance to their tribe and that means they did not owe allegiance to the US prior to the Snyder Act of 1924. Therefore Elk was not a US citizen and an Al Salavdoran baby born in US territorial boundaries is not an American citizen.

Bingham wrote the 14th and was politically active for years after writing it. He never once said "Hey Elk is a citizen as are all Native Americans because they are subject to our federal laws"

 

[IBDaMann]

BTW : The SCOTUS gets to decide if your interpretation of the 14th is correct or not.

SCOTUS has to apply both 1) the 14th Amendment and 2) the legal precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, leaving SCOTUS absolutely no options other than the very birthright citizenship we have. There is no reason for SCOTUS to even hear any case on the matter because the ONLY possible decision is what is currently in operation today.

In the case of Elk they have already decided what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" . It means "owes allegiance to."

Nope. The case United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies this particular clause, i.e. "to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, ...children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

That's right, no wiggle room. Children born in the United States of illegal aliens are immediately US citizens.

 

[IBDaMann]

Native Americans have always been subject to Federal laws.

This has a lot to do with the change in native Americans' status.

Were you planning on returning to the topic of children born in the US of illegal immigrants, or are you going to remain on the topic of children born in the US of US citizens?

Federal marshals have always enforced federal laws on Reservations.

Today, native Americans are considered US citizens.

They owed their allegiance

Allegiance is a factor in acquiring a security clearance, not in citizenship.

 

[IBDaMann]

II that were true Elk would have been an American citizen because he was subject to American lFederal law.

Since this was during the "Native Americans are not subject to US jurisdiction"-era, Elk was not considered a US citizen. This condition has changed. Today, Native Americans are citizens.

Allegiance has nothing to do with citizenship.

 

[FastLane]

Really. You apparently need quite a bit of educating on these matters.


Let me know when you return to the topic of children born in the US.


Peat moss absorbs water and nutrients directly through its porous, sponge-like cells.


The native Americans themselves are what we are discussing, not the reservations on which they lived. The Federal government did not own the native Americans. Are you aware that there is a difference between native Americans and their reservations?

The native Americans were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US prior to 1924, irrespective of who owned the reservation.

Why could US Marshals arrests them on their reservation for violating federal laws.

SCOTUS has to apply both 1) the 14th Amendment and 2) the legal precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, leaving SCOTUS absolutely no options other than the very birthright citizenship we have. There is no reason for SCOTUS to even hear any case on the matter because the ONLY possible decision is what is currently in operation today.

Wong's parents had legal permanent Domicile in the US and had the protection of the US government much like current day green card holders. THAT is the reason SCOTUS gave Wong birthright citizenship. Illegal Aliens do not have permanent legal Domicile within the United States their kids don't have birthright citizenship.

Nope. The case United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies this particular clause, i.e. "to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, ...children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

That's right, no wiggle room. Children born in the United States of illegal aliens are immediately US citizens.

See above.

 

[FastLane]

Since this was during the "Native Americans are not subject to US jurisdiction"-era, Elk was not considered a US citizen. This condition has changed. Today, Native Americans are citizens.

Allegiance has nothing to do with citizenship.

Could an American Indian be arrested and trialed for murdering a American Citizen and then executed. Could they be punished for leaving the reservation by our government? YES. So they were subject to our laws. They owed their allegiance to their tribe not the US. Two Salvadorans can be trialed for murder and executed. They can be punished for illegally entering the US. They owe their allegiance to El Salvador not the US

 

[FastLane]

Really. You apparently need quite a bit of educating on these matters.


Let me know when you return to the topic of children born in the US.


Peat moss absorbs water and nutrients directly through its porous, sponge-like cells.


The native Americans themselves are what we are discussing, not the reservations on which they lived. The Federal government did not own the native Americans. Are you aware that there is a difference between native Americans and their reservations?

The native Americans were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US prior to 1924, irrespective of who owned the reservation.

Why could US Marshals arrest them on their reservation for violating federal laws.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why could US Marshals arrests them on their reservation for violating federal laws.

Prior to 1924 or after 1948? How is this issue relevant to children born in the US?

Wong's parents had legal permanent Domicile in the US

Irrelevant. Nothing about the parents of children born in the US is relevant if they aren't diplomats or hostile military occupiers. Really. Read the 14th Amendment. Parentage is not a factor.

 

[IBDaMann]

Could an American Indian be arrested and trialed for murdering a American Citizen and then executed.

Is "yes" the answer you seek?

So they were subject to our laws.

If you are asserting that it was wrong for the US to ever consider native Americans as "not subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" then I agree.

They owed their allegiance to their tribe not the US.

Irrelevant.

Two Salvadorans can be trialed for murder and executed.

True, but irrelevant.

They can be punished for illegally entering the US. They owe their allegiance to El Salvador not the US

Possibly, but irrelevant.

 

[FastLane]

Prior to 1924 or after 1948? How is this issue relevant to children born in the US?

Prior to 1924

Irrelevant. Nothing about the parents of children born in the US is relevant if they aren't diplomats or hostile military occupiers. Really. Read the 14th Amendment. Parentage is not a factor.

Being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" American Indians were subject to our laws and their kids ARE NOT CITIZENS. They owed their allegiance to their tribe not to the US. Two El Salvadorans illegal aliens are subject to our laws but they owe their allegiance to El Salvador Their kids ARE NOT CITIZENS.

 

[FastLane]

An excerpt from the Elk V Wilkins decision. Note the issue is who was owed allegiance. As we have already proved Indians could be punished for violating our laws.

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."


McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer 118, 134. And in a later case, he said:

 

[FastLane]

Is "yes" the answer you seek?


If you are asserting that it was wrong for the US to ever consider native Americans as "not subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" then I agree.

So you are suggesting that the SCOTUS was wrong in not giving Elk birthright citizenship.

Irrelevant.


True, but irrelevant.


Possibly, but irrelevant.

Relevant and in fact the court learned on that fact to make their decision. See the post above.

You lost the debate.

 

[IBDaMann]

Prior to 1924

Federal authorities obviously felt differently. Regardless, rightly or wrongly, native Americans were not considered citizens, and the reason cited was the "sovereignty" of their respective nations. Of course, all this changed later.

Being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" American Indians were subject to our laws and their kids ARE NOT CITIZENS.

Their children are now all citizens.

They owed their allegiance to their tribe not to the US.

You are now chanting. "Allegience" has nothing to do with citizenship, nor does anything about the parents if they are not diplomats and not hostile military occupiers.

Unless the parents are diplomats or hostile military occupiers, I will be disregarding anything you have to say about the parents of any child born in the US.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you are suggesting that the SCOTUS was wrong in not giving Elk birthright citizenship.

First and foremost, citizenship is not for SCOTUS to give. The Constitution holds that birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th Amendment, is a right that precedes the Constitution, and this is emphasized in the legal precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

As to your question, yes, SCOTUS erred in Elk v. Wilkins by legislating from the bench, i.e. by declaring that the States intended to exclude native Americans when that was not SCOTUS' place to do so. The correct decision would have been to note that Elk did, in fact, appear to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US (for the reasons you cited) and to require the States to amend the Constitution for clarity if they did, in fact, want something else.

You lost the debate.

You sure do like to declare things to be true, apparently out of sheer desperation. Do you have any support at all for your anti-birthright-citizenship argument?

 

[Nordberg]

Back to the subject, I doubt the Supremes will ignore the Constitution and change the laws for Trump's stupid dreams. Unlike Trump. They know what the Constitution says. They will not let Daffy Donald win against the Constitution. The process for changing amendments is clear and deliberately difficult.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, the 14th Amendment is the 14th Amendment.

You are not quoting the 14th amendment.

Correct. You should ask what is meant by the term "birthright citizenship" if you are confused.

Irrelevant. The phrase does not exist in the Constitution.

For your edification, the term "birthright citizenship" means "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,"

Not a definition. The phrase "birthright citizenship" does not appear in the Constitution. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their originating nation. While here, they must follow U.S. law. That DOES NOT MEAN they are subjects of jurisdiction of the United States. It DOES NOT MEAN they are citizens of the United States.

Neither are their offspring.

and stands under the legal precedent decision "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization," with the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" holding the same aforementioned legal precedent that the only exceptions are children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

The United States is not England, IBD. You justlocked yourself into another paradox.

There is no wiggle room around this. Birthright citizenship isn't going away.

No such such phrase in the Constitution. There is nothing to "go away".

 

[Into the Night]

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide.

Correct.

Only the States get to decide whether the 14th Amendment stays or goes, and as long as the States don't decide anything, the 14th Amendment will remain intact.

Irrelevant. The 14th amendment is not going anywhere.

The last laugh is on you. You should familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you comment on it.

You are not even quoting the Constitution, and you are ignoring Articles I, II, and the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.

I'm glad you asked. Whether native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the US has changed from "not subject" to "are, in fact, subject." The case Elk vs. Wilkins occurred when native Americans were considered "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Strawman fallacy. This has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. What everyone is forgetting is that SCOTUS does not have the power to alter the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make the 14th Amendment "mean" anything other than what the States wrote.

The only way that the 14th Amendment will ever go away is if the States decide to abolish it. I don't see that happening.

The 14th amendment was not written by the States. It was written byJohn A. Bingham, a representative of Congress, while he was a member of the Reconstruction committee. He wrote it to unify the slaves access to citizenship. It was ratified by the States in 1866. It effect was to remove the 3/5ths enumeration and to grant slaves in the United States full citizenship privileges. It also affected indians on federal land (reservations) full citizenship privileges.

BOTH are subjects of jurisidction of the United States and always were.

Illegal aliens are not subjects of jurisdiction of the United States. They have no right to remain in the United States. They are immediately subject to deportation.

Only Congress can initiate any law concerning immigration procedure. They do this under the authority of Article I and the Presidents enforces this law under the authority of Article II.

SCOTUS has NO say in the matter.