Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[Unkotare]

" Best To Know Where You Are And Where You Are From "

* Diplomatic Rules Of The Road *

What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio?
Thanks for playing.

The country of origin is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for an individual sojourning and without being within jurisdiction of a foreign country as a subject of its immigration system .

The us can do whatever it wishes with a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant and steals a car , including extraditing the individual for prosecution and incarceration in their country of origin grinding them into mulch .

If a us citizen were to kill a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant , then the us is diplomatically obligated to prosecute said perpetrator except upon request by the country from which the victim originated as it is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties , and not necessarily obligated to prosecute one of its citizens at all .

The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

* Wasting Time Until Some Won Gets Up And Does Some Thing A Bout It *

* Subject To Contract Clause *

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "anchor babies." They would not exist.

As for " anchor babies " , there has not been a case heard upon which to render a judgment through stair decisis that a child be given citizenship when born of a migrant without a legal status as a subject in us immigration system .

The closest contest to any judgment on the " anchor babies " matter is United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia and it does not come near to establish precedence that children of illegal migrants be given citizenship as the court clearly considered that wong was a registered subject of the us immigration system and upon that clear understanding the court ceded to the claim for citizenship by birth .

Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause within us 14th amendment , and consequently their children are not eligible for us state or federal citizenship .

Contractual term - Wikipedia


* State Auspices Beyond Ineptitude *

The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state. So, in 1875, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners. It's funny. I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.

To begin a case requires a state legislature to authorize a state magistrate not to process state citizenship for any child born of an illegal migrant and therefore not initiate filing a petition for federal citizenship as well ; a state attorney general needs to be prepared to forward opposing litigation as necessary .

Perhaps figure out who or whom a state attorney general could charge with granting state citizenship to children born of illegal migrants may be a means to have a case heard before courts ,

With most admonition , us diplomacy should ensure that children born of illegal migrants receive the citizenship from the country of origin from which the mother originates , so as not to create a humanitarian issue of individuals without citizenship in some nation of origin , and so as to shore up an understanding that a state has an ability to deny citizenship of individuals and that includes not granting state citizenship to individuals from another state .

Individual citizens are entitled to sojourn between states under federal protections .

State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia
Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislature, meaning that the legislature consists of two separate legislative chambers or houses. In each case the smaller chamber is called the Senate and is usually referred to as the upper house. ... Members of the smaller chamber represent more citizens and usually serve for longer terms than members of the larger chamber, generally four years. ... Members of the larger chamber usually serve for terms of two years. The larger chamber customarily has the exclusive power to initiate taxing legislation and articles of impeachment.

Prior to the United States Supreme Court decisions Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the basis of representation in most state legislatures was modeled on that of the U.S. Congress: the state senators represented geographical units, while members of the larger chamber represented population. In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court decided upon the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. (The ruling does not affect the U.S. Senate, because that chamber's makeup is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.)

I have no idea what you just said. If someone is born in the United States, they are given a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number" which is the de facto National ID Card. They are issued a birth certificate. They are a citizen.

No matter what country a person hails from; no matter what their immigration status is, they are subject to the jurisdiction (which has nothing to do with "subjects" as if you could tell us the name of our alleged king.) The only people the 14th Amendment cannot apply to is foreign diplomats and maybe military personnel.

If you eliminate the 14th Amendment, you end the "anchor baby" argument, but states would then retain their rights... and liberalism is antithetical to the principle of states rights.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here. If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".

Then we will disagree then. Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law. So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.

I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity. The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........

Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is no case where anyone in local law enforcement has been convicted of "obstruction" for failure to detain someone suspected of commiting a federal crime., so I guess that the law of the land is interpreted the same way that I interpret it.Get back to me if they start convicting local officials for "obstruction".

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here. If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".

Then we will disagree then. Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law. So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.

I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity. The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........

Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.

The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this. I know. I donated legal research time and money to the case that established the precedent.

The feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.

 

[bluzman61]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.

YAWN..............

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.

What do you see being the problems that need to be addressed? Trump's policy was never really Trump's. Listen to this guy (and we wasn't the first either):

 

[Monk-Eye]

* Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate *

* Sought Sighted Direct Argument *

The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.

The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " as an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
3 . It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction was relevant to jus sangiunis ; and , both opinions disqualify children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant without being a subject with registered title in the us legal immigration system .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]

 

[Unkotare]

Wikipedia -

 

[Porter Rockwell]

* Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate *

* Sought Sighted Direct Argument *

The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.

The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " as an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
3 . It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction was relevant to jus sangiunis ; and , both opinions disqualify children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for being without being a subject with registered title in the us legal immigration system .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]

Dyslexic maybe? Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all. Found your article. You sly fox; you omitted this:

"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted..."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind. So, we have to look at the facts. And the facts are that we are now entering THREE generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!! Let me translate this for you in plain English:

There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation. It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners. Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.

Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified. That stops the issue from that point, forward. Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest - right or wrong, that's reality.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Propaganda Rookie Convenient Omissions "

* Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception *

Dyslexic maybe? Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all. Found your article. You sly fox; you omitted this:

"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted..."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] " ?

* Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd *

I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind. So, we have to look at the facts. And the facts are that we are now entering THREE generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!! Let me translate this for you in plain English:

There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation. It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners. Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.

Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified. That stops the issue from that point, forward. Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest - right or wrong, that's reality.

" It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .

 

[The Professor]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

“Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Propaganda Rookie Convenient Omissions "

* Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception *

Dyslexic maybe? Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all. Found your article. You sly fox; you omitted this:

"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted..."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] " ?

* Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd *

I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind. So, we have to look at the facts. And the facts are that we are now entering THREE generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!! Let me translate this for you in plain English:

There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation. It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners. Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.

Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified. That stops the issue from that point, forward. Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest - right or wrong, that's reality.

" It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .

* Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception *

Dyslexic maybe? Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all. Found your article. You sly fox; you omitted this:

"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted..."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] " ?

* Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd *

I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind. So, we have to look at the facts. And the facts are that we are now entering THREE generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!! Let me translate this for you in plain English:

There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation. It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners. Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.

Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified. That stops the issue from that point, forward. Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest - right or wrong, that's reality.

" It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .[/QUOTE]

What the Hell? You're mad that I didn't highlight the rest of the summary??? I addressed it, didn't I? So what is the difference??

If people were granted citizenship and such a grant were illegal, the government would then be compelled to rescind such grant. Secondary to that, those who were born here and their parents were undocumented established a precedent that would be damn near impossible to reverse. Even if it were possible, it would be decades in the courts and by that time, the undocumented, their families, and supporters would outnumber you and vote you into oblivion.

There are other issues out there you fail to consider. There is that part of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, your view is some people were illegally granted citizenship and get to stay while others in the same, exact predicament should be treated differently???

Now, let us carry your logic a little further. We deport all the undocumented foreigners who have American born children that you admit are American citizens. There are two things that happen here:

First, the parent (s) leave and the children become wards of the state. Start thinking massive welfare for these MILLIONS of what are now, essentially, orphans.

The second option is that these deported adults take their children with them. Well, in a few years, those people you admitted are American citizens start becoming of age and want to come to the United States. How in the Hell are you going to deny them entry? They are citizens. And, now they will be entering the United States as citizens who have probably forgotten the language, have no family support system, have no job skills, no money, no education, no resources to draw from... what is your brilliant plan now??? What are you going to do with them?

I'm surprised the dullards at the Southern Poverty Law Center or some Latino organization has not filed a lawsuit claiming that deportation is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. But, there is a reason that the undocumented are not being more vigorously defended. It's a different thread, but food for thought as we examine the flaws in your rationale.

 

[Vandalshandle]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

“Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.

Your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

“Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.

I spent six years working in immigration law. I've worked all sides of the law - the defense side, prosecution side, expert witness,etc. One thing is obvious: you are NOT an attorney. Let's listen to Donald Trump's personal attorney as he refutes your position. Listen carefully because you will find it impossible to put the predictable spin on this that you are trying:



Shall I cite what the United States Supreme Court ruled? You also ignored the FACT that the United States Supreme Court ruled that the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Speculative Supposition Searching For Travails "

* How To File A Binding Petition Able To Maintain Itself Through US Court System *

You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

“Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.

Would it be possible through legal proceeding to convene a grand jury to prosecute or at least establish an injunction to proscribe the action of granting state citizenship to children of illegal migrants , where sufficient cause is available to provide citizenship from the country of origin via jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship from a parent ) ?

Would it be possible for a state district attorney to accept a task of enforcing that citizenship at the state level not be granted to children of illegal migrants ; and would the action block a petition of registration for citizenship at the federal level ?

A state district attorney could stipulate that magistrates implement the " subject to jurisdiction " clause and provide that citizenship be inherited from a parent for children of illegal migrants ; noting , it is necessary that individuals not be without a nation of origin .

Certainly , diplomatic constituents should be circumventing the motivation to compromise us immigration and social welfare systems and mitigate the constraints in manners similar with social security Totalization agreements - Wikipedia ( Social Security Totalization Agreements ) that also is to include an agreement that citizenship from the foreign jurisdiction be provided to children of its citizen migrants sojourning without legal standing of being a subject of us jurisdiction .

There are fiscal realizations concomitant with subsuming sojourning citizens of foreign jurisdiction and countries of origin should be accountable to order as are those individuals allowed and committed to completing the us legal migration process .

There are clauses in visa programs that traveling to us with intent to have a child that is a us citizen is a violation of the visa ; and yet , conceivably , such a condition could be prosecuted , even as it continues to occur , even as citizens are compelled by absent reason of political pundits and legal magistrates to entreat even more egregious acts with the same purpose through the illegal immigration process .

 

[Andylusion]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

 

[Vandalshandle]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

 

[Andylusion]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

I know jhow easily confused you get Andy, I suspect that you slept through 8th grade Civics class. Maybe you can get a federal judge to explain why sanctuary cities are legal