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

[FastLane]

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.


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 act of Congress can grant citizenship.

Yes, Congress has the power to grant citizenship through its naturalization power, as established in the Constitution. This power allows Congress to define the rules and requirements for individuals to become citizens after birth, essentially through a process called naturalization.

can congress grant citizenship - Google Search

 

[FastLane]

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.


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 act of Congress can grant citizenship.

Yes, the Snyder Act, officially the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, granted citizenship to all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States. It was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.

 

[IBDaMann]

Because I have read their reasons for doing what they did.

... as have I, and you err.

No, I'm too smart to believe your lies.

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

Well it does not need to be repealed since it was never Constitutional in the first place.

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

The SCOTUS will be hearing arguments beginning May 15th. How long it takes for their decision I don't know.

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, Congress has the power to grant citizenship through its naturalization power, as established in the Constitution.

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you say.

I do. History shows me to be correct.

You think the SCOTUS made a mistake with the Elk decision.

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

I think the educated and experiences Justices got it right and you are full of shit.

History stands against you.

 

[FastLane]

I do. History shows me to be correct.


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


History stands against you.

History says the SCOTUS says people born owing allegiance to another country are not US citizens.

 

[FastLane]

... as have I, and you err.

I did??? Sure looks like you err. What did the SCOTUS mean when 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."

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

I am not going to believe your lies about what you twist the Constitution to say.

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

It excludes those born owing allegiance to other governments.

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.

Yes it will be the same as the decision SCOTUS made in Elk v Wilkins if Roberts sticks to his guns..

 

[FastLane]

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.

Illegal Aliens don't have an inalienable right to be an American. It is a privilege for some aliens to become Americans not an inalienable right.

 

[IBDaMann]

Illegal Aliens don't have an inalienable right to be an American.

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

By the way, why are both you and Into the Night incapable of distinguishing between parents and children. Neither of you can go two sentences without confusing the zhit out of yourselves and mistakenly conflating the child with parents.

 

[FastLane]

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

By the way, why are both you and Into the Night incapable of distinguishing between parents and children. Neither of you can go two sentences without confusing the zhit out of yourselves and mistakenly conflating the child with parents.

Elk's parents were members of an independent political community and Elk at the time of his birth owed his allegiance to that community. The lower courts had ruled on similar cases that Indians were not US citizens by virtue of their birth. The SCOTUS agreed with the lower court. Congress had to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to confer citizenship on Native Americans.

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."

 

[IBDaMann]

[people other than Elk] were members of an independent political community

Good for them. Membership has its privileges.

[The child born in the US] at the time of his birth [gibberish deleted].

This tells me that this particular child was a US citizen by birth.

The lower courts had ruled on similar cases that Indians were not US citizens by virtue of their birth.

Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment when they should have.

The SCOTUS agreed with the lower court.

Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment and reverse the lower court's decision when they should have.

Congress had to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to confer citizenship on Native Americans.

It wasn't the Snyder Act that bestowed citizenship; the act clarified the correct status so that all future court cases would get it right instead of erring as previous courts did.

 

[FastLane]

Good for them. Membership has its privileges.

And Elk wasn't a member of the US and neither were most other Native Americans prior to 1924.

This tells me that this particular child was a US citizen by birth.

This tells me you are ignoring the SCOTUS and the Constitution.

Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment when they should have.

Correct. They erred. They did not apply the 14th Amendment and reverse the lower court's decision when they should have.

So you think you are smarter than the SCOTUS. Remind me where did you go to law school. And how long were you a judge?

It wasn't the Snyder Act that bestowed citizenship; the act clarified the correct status so that all future court cases would get it right instead of erring as previous courts did.

Odd. Most Native Americans did not have citizenship prior to the Snyder Act then after it they all had citizenship. In fact the Act says it authorizes citizenship for Native Americans.