Illegal Aliens can't have a legal domicile in the US. Only aliens who have green cards can have a legal domicile in the US. Illegal Aliens are temporary residents only. They owe their allegiance to the country that they are citizens of. Illegal Aliens are in the same situation as Elk's parents and like Elk their children are not US citizens.
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP
- Thread starter Dachshund
- Start date
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
LBDaMann. I know stupid right?Who said it was?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I explained that. That has changed. Please keep up.
I take it that you have run yourself into a brick wall and don't know what to do or say.
The 14th Amendment says he is a US citizen.
I notice that you used the pronoun "they", referring to the illegal alien parents. We now turn the topic back to the child born in the US who is a US citizen.
That's not what you showed because that is not the reason citizenship was decided.
Nope. Parentage doesn't matter.
Children born in the United States are exactly the same situations as Ark's.
They are US citizens. Read the 14th Amendment.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I can just insert any phrase I want into my post.
Great, we agree. Now let's get back to the child born in the US.
Illegal aliens in the US are absolutely 100% completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You need a refresher course on the jurisdiction of the US.
Ascaris suum primarily infects pigs, not humans.
That's your forfeit right there. Have a great day.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The last time I checked, I determine what points I'm making. You just made my point as well. It would seem you agree with me.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You do little more than agree with me. The one thing missing is your specifying of the crime of which you are accusing the child born in the US.
Look at that, you agree with me again. You're on a roll.
Keeping the streak alive!
According to your interpretation of the 14th Amendment but not according to SCOTUS' interpretation AS PROVEN by Elk v Wilkins and by Congress passing Indian Citizenship Act which would have not been needed if your interpretation was correct. You are saying Congresss and SCOTUS were both wrong.
Elk had two alien parents and yet he wasn't an American citizen by birth despite the fact he was born within the territorial boundaries of the US.
The SCOTUS in Elk v Wilkuns 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."
See above
Then why weren't Native Americans born prior to 1924 American citizens?????
I read it and so did SCOTUS and they said Elk was not a citizen because he owed his allegiance to another independent political community. Pesky details.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
The ruling hasn't changed.
Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
No, it doesn't.
You are still locked in this paradox.
You are still locked in this paradox.
You are still locked in this paradox.
You are still locked in this paradox.
You are still locked in this paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Nothing in the 14th amendment grant citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.
Into the Night
Verified User
But into the Constitution, which is what you are trying to claim.
WRONG. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their originating country. They are NOT citizens of the U.S. The ARE subject to U.S. law while here, and they are immediately subject to abortion.
Random phrase ignored.
Assumption of victory fallacy. Termination fallacy.
Into the Night
Verified User
You aren't making any points, IBD.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA.
Contextomy fallacy. YOU made the claim the States were Congress. They aren't.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I don't interpret the 14th Amendment. I read it. It's written in simple, straightforward English. No interpreters are necessary.
He was, but the Supreme Court erred, as you noticed. Nonetheless, that situation has changed. You need to stop living in the 1920s.
Well SCOTUS and Congress disagrees with your reading comprehension.
Not only Elk wasn't a citizen of the US almost every Indian born prior to 1924 were not citizens and Congress agreed that the Snyder Act was needed to give them citizenship.
You need to stop living in fantasy land.
On one hand he believes the SCOTUS in what he thinks the Ark decision was about. Then he does not believe the SCOTUS with the Elk decision . And he believes the entire Congress was wrong when they passed the Snyder act.
He is very confused.
You're perhaps confused yourself.
The Snyder Act closed a possible loophole in The Constitution that arguably failed to recognize native Americans as citizens owing to the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. Some argued that meant native Americans, being subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes, were excluded from the amendment's Citizenship Clause.
BINGO! Just like Elk and other Indians were born being subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes the children of two El Salvadorans are subjects to the jurisdiction of the government of El Salvador. For them to have birthright citizenship they would need their own "Snyder Act".
You see I'm not confused and neither was the SCOTUS or Congress.
Different question. You're still confused. With the El Salvadorans there's no ambiguity to be resolved.
Why are they different?