Mark Levine showed his ignorance on today’s Sean Hannity show! (anchor baby debate)

[OKTexas]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

 

[Jackson]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

Well, uh, you didn't quote anyone. So, what was wrong about the first part, and if it is "contact" the Ambassador, and not go there, the potential criminal say, "I called my embassy, so you can't charge me." The Embassy is where his jurisdiction is, not a phone call.

Maybe you should educate yourself on that little "click to expand" function.

Look at post #27. There is nothing to expand, smart ass.

I looked, there is, dumb ass. It includes the posts from PMH and my response to PMH.

He is on "ignore" on my side.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

 

[Stephanie]

that's funny, some nobody on a message board saying Mark Levin is ignorant. and on FOX news no less.

snip:

Mark Reed Levin was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and grew up in Erdenheim as well as Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. His father, Jack E. Levin, is the author of several books.[1] He graduated from Cheltenham High School after three years in 1974.[2][3] After high school, Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler including summer classes and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Political Science in 1977 at age 19, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.[4] Levin won election to the Cheltenham school board in 1977 on a platform of reducing property taxes.[3] In 1980 Levin earned a juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.[5] Levin worked for Texas Instruments after law school.[3]

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as an adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming the associate director of presidential personnel and ultimately chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran–Contra affair; Levin also served as deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education, and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.[6][7]

Levin has participated in Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid families of fallen soldiers, and uses his radio program to promote aid to military families.[8][9] Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity that sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.[10]

all of it:
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[amrchaos]

I think "textualist" reading must mean to understand what is written, word for word. That is the normal way to read non-fiction.

Boy, is that not an open door for a critical reading of In Defense of Anarchism !! Is law 'fiction"? Depends on what you actually want!!

 

[paddymurphy]

that's funny, some nobody on a message board saying Mark Levin is ignorant. and on FOX news no less.

snip:

Mark Reed Levin was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and grew up in Erdenheim as well as Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. His father, Jack E. Levin, is the author of several books.[1] He graduated from Cheltenham High School after three years in 1974.[2][3] After high school, Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler including summer classes and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Political Science in 1977 at age 19, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.[4] Levin won election to the Cheltenham school board in 1977 on a platform of reducing property taxes.[3] In 1980 Levin earned a juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.[5] Levin worked for Texas Instruments after law school.[3]

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as an adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming the associate director of presidential personnel and ultimately chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran–Contra affair; Levin also served as deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education, and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.[6][7]

Levin has participated in Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid families of fallen soldiers, and uses his radio program to promote aid to military families.[8][9] Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity that sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.[10]

all of it:
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with all of that education you would not expect him to be so wrong on so many things.

In Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very 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.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

You clowns can practice you amateur legal analysis all you want but the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court, and every other Court in this nation, accept as settled law that any person born in the United States, regardless of the legality of the Mother's presence, is natural born United States Citizen. Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it. Today, there will be children born to illegal immigrants. They will be given birth certificates that identify them as American Citizens. They will eventually get Social Security Numbers. When they are 18, they will register to vote and register for selective service. Should they desire to travel abroad, they will get passports identifying them as US citizens. For all of the mental masturbation you and your like minded friends have engaged in on this thread and others the last couple of says, that remains a fact that you cannot change. You cannot take away from the millions of native born Americans whose parents happen to have entered here illegally their citizenship. And there is no support in Congress for either passing a law to see of the Supreme Court is willing to revisit and overturn a precedent that has lasted for over 120 years or seeking to amend the constitution. So, go ahead and pretend to have a clue about Constitutional law while illegal aliens will continue to give birth to American Citizens who are likely, when grown, to have far better understanding of and appreciation for the things that make this nation great than you do.

 

[johnwk]

that's funny, some nobody on a message board saying Mark Levin is ignorant. and on FOX news no less.

snip:

Mark Levin? Or Mark Levine?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

I find John's post very compelling. I agree with him. That's of course if you can't find links that say otherwise. I'll wait for that.

I have always been amused by those who stalk me to see where I post, and then attack me for posting my views in several other forums and then they charge me with being a “spammer” while they embrace our bleeding heart syndicated news columnists like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and the alleged “no spin” guy, O’Reilly, who spew their unsubstantiated opinions in countless mediums across the country.


Seems those who have a problem with me really have a problem with me attempting to level the information playing field and exposing these alleged fountains of all knowledge for the liars and propagandists they really are.



JWK



To support Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[jon_berzerk]

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

 

[paddymurphy]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

I find John's post very compelling. I agree with him. That's of course if you can't find links that say otherwise. I'll wait for that.

I have always been amused by those who stalk me to see where I post, and then attack me for posting my views in several other forums and then they charge me with being a “spammer” while they embrace our bleeding heart syndicated news columnists like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and the alleged “no spin” guy, O’Reilly, who spew their unsubstantiated opinions in countless mediums across the country.


Seems those who have a problem with me really have a problem with me attempting to level the information playing field and exposing these alleged fountains of all knowledge for the liars and propagandists they really are.



JWK



To support Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

How far on the right wing fringe does one have to be to think that Will or Krauthammer are leftists?

 

[paddymurphy]

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Then explain this:
n Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very 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.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

 

[johnwk]

Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it.

In regard to United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the question before the Court was:


"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"


Those circumstances, addressed by the court, are entirely different than asking the court if citizenship is bestowed upon a child born to an alien who has entered our country illegally and gives birth on American soil who has no allegiance to the United States. The fact is, Wong is not applicable, nor is INS v. RIOS-PINEDA. Apparently you are not familiar with the maxim of law expressed by Chief Justice Marshal, in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821):


"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."

JWK




To support Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Those with diplomatic immunity, among others, are "not subject to". There are a few exceptions, but damn few, and being here illegally isn't one of them. Study up.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Then explain this:
n Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very 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.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens,

you are miss quoting the opinion

and it has been miss applied since

 

[jon_berzerk]

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Those with diplomatic immunity, among others, are "not subject to". Study up.

yeah also legal aliens

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Those with diplomatic immunity, among others, are "not subject to". Study up.

yeah also legal aliens

If you drop a baby here, with very few exceptions, and it doesn't how mom got here, it's an American. You'll just have to deal with it until you can amend the Constitution.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Then explain this:
n Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very 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.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens,

you are miss quoting the opinion

and it has been miss applied since

n INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

it also needs to be noted that this was

in dicta

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Those with diplomatic immunity, among others, are "not subject to". Study up.

yeah also legal aliens

If you drop a baby here, with very few exceptions, and it doesn't how mom got here, it's an American. You'll just have to deal with it until you can amend the Constitution.

wtf

 

[ogibillm]

in the case of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship the intent and the language are not in conflict.

those born here are citizens.

 

[paddymurphy]

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.

Yep, like I said, they got it wong [sic] the first time, but it could be reversed just like other court errors.

The text is pretty fucking clear eh?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a lot of wiggle room in that...

you are obviously wrong

had you been right

there would be no need for (and subject to the jurisdiction )

Then explain this:
n Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very 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.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens,

you are miss quoting the opinion

and it has been miss applied since

Sorry, but those are verbatim from the opinions.