BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
Maybe, but the verbage they used is stupidly open ended.The 14th was never meant to be anything other than the children of slaves it was designed for.
Allegiance is what its all about and if the SC ever hears the case that's what will decide it.
Yup but its all about which country you owe your allegiance to.
One guy on this board explained it quite well. Can't remember who but he had it down pat.
The keys to understanding Birthright Citizenship:
- The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment means that one must BOTH be born in United States AND be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Since there are two explicit requirements, they both cannot be met by simply being born on U.S. soil.
- The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power.
- The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are automatically citizens.
- Because the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mandate automatic birthright citizenship, the Congress can pass a law to correct the current misguided and incorrect policy of automatically granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
The key to your lies:
1. The 14th Amendment says 'under the jurisdiction of". It says nothing about allegiances. These people can be held accountable for their actions under the jurisdiction of individual state laws and federal laws.
2. Thank you for proving point 1. If they can be charged then they are under the jurisdiction of the US. The bottom line is the language is simple. If they meant something else then they should have worded it differently.
3. The Supreme Court has done exactly that. In "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" in 1989, the Supreme Court held,
"the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
4. The Congress cannot pass a law nor can Trump issue a EO to end birthright citizenship.
It’s awfully peculiar that you can’t wrap your head around the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. It’s odd that you hate that it was written with the intent to be of clear benefit to AMERICANS, to We The People ONLY; It was never intended to benefit We The People Of Wetbackville. The current interpretation of the 14th does nothing but fuck Americans over while benefiting wetbacks..that makes no sense to sane, real Americans.
While some have discussed birthright citizenship as if it is settled law that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen, the Supreme Court has never ruled as such. In the famous 2004 Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered to have been born in the United States to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though he was born in the United States, the Court never called him a citizen and the Court made no declaration in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen.
In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”
Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.
Try again bud..and by the way, what part of that filthy shithole Mehico are you from and how long have you and your family of 40 been fucking real Americans over?