Birthright Citizenship - Supreme Court Precedent

Jarod said:
Elk was not a US citizen because he was born on a reservation that was not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...
Which does not change that they actually said "reside in the US with the permission of the government"... the piece you seem to ignore.

This would make it so that tourists, literal tourists, would not quite make it. So, if your mother traveled here and while she was on vacation she pushed out a kid that later became you, since your mama didn't reside here this ruling would not automatically make you a citizen.
 
Damocles said:
Which does not change that they actually said "reside in the US with the permission of the government"... the piece you seem to ignore.

This would make it so that tourists, literal tourists, would not quite make it. So, if your mother traveled here and while she was on vacation she pushed out a kid that later became you, since your mama didn't reside here this ruling would not automatically make you a citizen.
Click to expand...
While the Supreme Court said that in Dicta, not as a part of their ruling, they were wrong. Much like when the Supreme Court said in Roe versus Wade that we have a right to privacy for personal decisions, such as procreation, apparently they were wrong.
 
Jarod said:
Elk was not a US citizen because he was born on a reservation that was not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...
It was 1884 when tensions were high against Native Americans due to some continuous hostilities, and the whole thing was settled in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Law passed by Congress
 
Jarod said:
While the Supreme Court said that in Dicta, not as a part of their ruling, they were wrong. Much like when the Supreme Court said in Roe versus Wade that we have a right to privacy for personal decisions, such as procreation, apparently they were wrong.
Click to expand...
lol. Jarod says, "While they said exactly what you say they said, they were wrong." As I said, this is why I would never confirm you as a judge, you are entirely incapable of hearing an argument outside your bias, if something doesn't confirm what you want it to confirm you say it is "wrong". I'll bet you think the Constitution is "wrong" when it says "shall make no law" that restricts our right to arm ourselves, that you think that "some laws" are good. Not because you understand what was written, but because you think it is "wrong"....
 
Damocles said:
Which does not change that they actually said "reside in the US with the permission of the government"... the piece you seem to ignore.

This would make it so that tourists, literal tourists, would not quite make it. So, if your mother traveled here and while she was on vacation she pushed out a kid that later became you, since your mama didn't reside here this ruling would not automatically make you a citizen.
Click to expand...
Not quite, they interpreted some Native Americans as foreigners as per se today an embassy’s staff, and if a tourist did swear loyalty to another nation their children born here wouldn’t earn birthright citizenship.
 
FastLane said:
Nope....This is why the court ruled in Ark's favor.:

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.
Click to expand...
Good, even strengths my case
 
archives said:
Not quite, they interpreted some Native Americans as foreigners as per se today an embassy’s staff, and if a tourist did swear loyalty to another nation their children born here wouldn’t earn birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
This was in the Ark ruling, and you are repeating what I said rather than saying something other than what I said in regard to the tourists.

In the Ark ruling that Jarod has presented, the SCOTUS ruled that folks that reside here legally (with permission) count and their children are citizens, therefore Ark was a citizen. The argument others are making here is that because they are not here legally and do not have that permission, their children would not fall under that particular ruling.

Jarod's position was, "Yes, that was what the SCOTUS said, but they were wrong."
 
Jarod said:
Do you not understand the word jurisdiction? Allegiance and jurisdiction are two different things. An individual has allegiance to something, a nation has jurisdiction over something........
Click to expand...
This is what the SCOTUS says it means.


"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired....

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."
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It's in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Not a good answer.
E.g., the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution but I don’t agree with it. It was valid in 1780 but not now IMO.

Don't you think we should abide by the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Of course. But the constitution is constantly interpreted.
Look at how the left wants to ban guns. According to strict terms of the constitution all guns should be legal.
Or do you think whoever is in power can ignore the parts they don't like?
Click to expand...
I don’t but it seems that’s what’s been happening with at least the last four presidents. At least.
 
Damocles said:
This was in the Ark ruling, and you are repeating what I said rather than saying something other than what I said in regard to the tourists.

In the Ark ruling that Jarod has presented, the SCOTUS ruled that folks that reside here legally (with permission) count and their children are citizens, therefore Ark was a citizen. The argument others are making here is that because they are not here legally and do not have that permission, their children would not fall under that particular ruling.

Jarod's position was, "Yes, that was what the SCOTUS said, but they were wrong."
Click to expand...
Ark Wong Wong Ark, this is all cherry picking clause and phrases from two cases while there exists three centuries of precedent law endorsing the common understanding of birthright citizenship, and although this Court often disregards precedent law, the history presents too much of an embedded law
 
Damocles said:
This was in the Ark ruling, and you are repeating what I said rather than saying something other than what I said in regard to the tourists.

In the Ark ruling that Jarod has presented, the SCOTUS ruled that folks that reside here legally (with permission) count and their children are citizens, therefore Ark was a citizen. The argument others are making here is that because they are not here legally and do not have that permission, their children would not fall under that particular ruling.

Jarod's position was, "Yes, that was what the SCOTUS said, but they were wrong."
Click to expand...
Jarod thinks the SCOTUS was right about Ark and wrong about Ark and that Congress did not need to pass the Snyder Act.
 
archives said:
Ark Wong Wong Ark, this is all cherry picking clause and phrases from two cases while there exists three centuries of precedent law endorsing the common understanding of birthright citizenship, and although this Court often disregards precedent law, the history presents too much of an embedded law
Click to expand...
There are likely Indians still alive today that did not have birthright citizenship even though they were born within the territorial boundaries of the US.
 
FastLane said:
Jarod thinks the SCOTUS was right about Ark and wrong about Ark and that Congress did not need to pass the Snyder Act.
Click to expand...
Yeah, both right and wrong...

First he wanted to know if "trumppers" wanted them to overturn Ark, then when it comes down to what they actually said in the ruling they were "wrong".
 
anonymoose said:
Not a good answer.
E.g., the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution but I don’t agree with it. It was valid in 1780 but not now IMO.


Of course. But the constitution is constantly interpreted.
Look at how the left wants to ban guns. According to strict terms of the constitution all guns should be legal.
Click to expand...
Not to resurrect an old argument, but the Second Amendment is not absolute, in fact, no Constitutional right is absolute, and strict constructionism isn’t possible
 
FastLane said:
What is your opinion on Wong Kim Ark and Elk v Wilkins in the OP?
Click to expand...
I have read both Wong Kim Ark and Elk and you are misrepresenting what they actually say. Ark includes much of the history of the legislation and shows that the authors knew that it would include all persons born in the US who were not children of ambassadors or foreign troops.
Elk also talks about how Indians not taxed were a separate group from other persons. Foreigners in the US are not Indians not taxed and cannot be included in Indians not taxed.
 
FastLane said:
This is what the SCOTUS says it means.


"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired....

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."
Click to expand...
Born in an Indian reservation at a time and when the US, had no jurisdiction Indian reservations that was true, because there was was no jurisdiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top