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

[paddymurphy]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

dumbest. post. ever.

 

[OKTexas]

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...

Keep saying it, won't make it any more true when you consider the explicit definition the framers gave "jurisdiction". But hey, feel free to carry on, your redundancy is funny.

 

[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 )

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

Didn't matter a damn, then or now.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

Didn't matter a damn, then or now.

it did then

 

[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...

Keep saying it, won't make it any more true when you consider the explicit definition the framers gave "jurisdiction". But hey, feel free to carry on, your redundancy is funny.

I know what the Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, which is against you...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

Didn't matter a damn, then or now.

it did then

Nope, only where was he born, of two Chinese Nationals.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

Didn't matter a damn, then or now.

it did then

Nope, only where was he born, of two Chinese Nationals.

except they came and stayed legally as the opinion states

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sorry, but those are verbatim from the opinions.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

Didn't matter a damn, then or now.

it did then

Nope, only where was he born, of two Chinese Nationals.

except they came and stayed legally as the opinion states

Which mattered not a damn, and why would it? They were Chinese nationals. Read the dissent.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

 

[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...

Keep saying it, won't make it any more true when you consider the explicit definition the framers gave "jurisdiction". But hey, feel free to carry on, your redundancy is funny.

But the text of the Citizenship Clause requires “ jurisdiction,” not “allegiance.” Nor did Congress propose that “all persons born to U.S. citizens are citizens of the United States.” To the contrary, Senator Cowan opposed the Citizenship Clause precisely because it would extend birthright citizenship to the children of

“people who … owe [my state] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own …; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.”[30]

Moreover, Cowan’s unambiguous rejection of “allegiance” formed an essential part of the consensus understanding of the Howard text. By contrast, the stray references by Trumbull and others to “allegiance” were made during the debate over tribal sovereignty, not alienage generally. Indeed, Trumbull himself confirmed that the Howard text covers all persons “who are subject to our laws.”[31]
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

That is the conservative Federalist society. The consensus among legal scholars on the left, middle and right, except for those who make a living on TV, radio and writing books that appeal the the large number of uneducated, ignorant fools not the far right, I.e. "Trump supporters", is that the 14the established birthright citizenship.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

So that is your explanation? Pretty pathetic. Try again. Explain why the three Supreme Court decisions, two of the, unanimous on the issue of birthright citizenship, are not controlling. Explain how the court's holding that the child in Rios was a citizen is not controlling. Explain why the unanimous declaration in Plyler that Wong Kim provides for birthright citizenship is not controlling.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

So that is your explanation? Pretty pathetic. Try again. Explain why the three Supreme Court decisions, two of the, unanimous on the issue of birthright citizenship, are not controlling. Explain how the court's holding that the child in Rios was a citizen is not controlling. Explain why the unanimous declaration in Plyler that Wong Kim provides for birthright citizenship is not controlling.

as stated earlier in kim wong it was legal for the parents to be here

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

It also said they were Chinese. Is that a fact that was relevant to the decision? Who do you think has a better grasp of the constitution, the nine justices in Pyler and the nine in Rios who agreed that the only requirement for citizenship is being born on our soil or you? Be careful here or you will demonstrate complete and utter arrogance?

 

[paddymurphy]

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

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.