There’s a significant difference, abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Birthright citizenship is.
Birthright Citizenship - Supreme Court Precedent
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
I’m not commenting on what I want. I’m commenting on what the constitution says.
I think the idea of limiting citizenship for people whose parents were here illegally warrants consideration. The downside is creating an under class of people who grow up here by no fault of their own, and then cannot attain citizenship.
There are border communities that no longer have a hospital because so many illegals have crossed over to drop a baby and the hospital has gone bankrupt.
Why did the SCOTUS say Elk was not a citizen . They said Ark was a citizen because:.
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.
Not really.
Yes, my Son-in-Law is gathering data on this now.
He is an E-Con PhD. (Health) and has access to a ton of data.
Yes it is mentioned but just not how you define it.
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.
That is the parent's fault.
Yes do you?
Do I what?
In the Elk case, children of those Native Americans whose parents didn’t swear allegiance to the US were still members of a foreign entity like an ambassador so weren’t automatically granted birthright citizenship. The case was in 1884 when there were some hostilities, and later negated with passage of an Indian Citizenship Law some time in the 1920’s. Understandable
In Wong, case was decided based upon precedent law, and the Court felt California didn’t present enough evidence to overturn such, again, no problem
As I stated there is three centuries of precedent law supporting birthright citizenship, and although this Court often dismisses such, this time it is too embedded
In Wong, case was decided based upon precedent law, and the Court felt California didn’t present enough evidence to overturn such, again, no problem
As I stated there is three centuries of precedent law supporting birthright citizenship, and although this Court often dismisses such, this time it is too embedded
I have a very funny story a gynecologist told me about a 16 illegal that dropped in to have a baby. No prenatal nothing. He didn't speak Spanish and no one in the family spoke English. He was trying to teller to push in Spanish and ended up calling her a whore in Spanish. It didn't go over well.
No, but EO’s are easily overturned by the next President or Congressional action
Elk was not a US citizen because he was born on a reservation that was not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Your question is as stupid as if I asked you why you support elementary school children being murdered with A.R. 15’s.
Regardless, their often just kids, can’t punish them for the shortcomings of the parents
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.