A successful shift in legal tactics to class action suits has the desired result.

[WorldWatcher]

"aliens"

That specific mention by the writers means what it says—anyone not a citizen of the United States.

Now you are taking one word out of context. To repeat your quote by Senator Howard, primary author of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

He clearly was only talking about aliens (foreigners) who belonged to diplomatic missions. All other persons were not included in that limitation.

WW

 

[berg80]

I don't know what success you're talking about.

Simple. Having the plaintiffs certified as a "class" and the imposition of a national injunction.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Judges aren't plaintiff's in cases.

The review cases filed by plaintiffs for civil cases and prosecutors for criminal cases.

WW

So ,WHO FILED?
It seems that these disillusioned judges are arbitrarily striking down the Executive branch.

 

[berg80]

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was intended to secure citizenship for freed slaves

The authors of the 14th A had every opportunity to limit who was addressed by the citizenship clause with language specific to freed slaves. Instead, it said people. In so doing it makes Dotard's EO unconstitutional.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So ,WHO FILED?
It seems that these disillusioned judges are arbitrarily striking down the Executive branch.

Attorney's for pregnant women whose children would be impacted by being denied citizenship as per the Constitutional mandate of the 14th Amendment.

WW

 

[Care4all]

By naturalization, or in Ark's parents' case, legal permanent residence

Who gave them legal permanent residence? What was the law that gave them this status of legal permanent resident, that you or A/I claims they were given or had? Did every foreign alien immigrating here to live have legal permanent status once they got a job and found a place to live?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He clearly was only talking about aliens (foreigners) who belonged to diplomatic missions.

Incorrect. Read the sentence carefully. He was delineating groups of people. He made four distinctions as to which persons he and the writers were excluding.

"will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,"


The use of 'persons' in this statement means those born to:

1. Foreigners
2. Aliens
3. Families of ambassadors accredited to the Government, or
4. Foreign ministers accredited to the Government.

That was frankly a dishonest argument on your part. Aliens can be a distinct group of people, or they can belong to 3 or 4. He did not mean what you said he meant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who gave them legal permanent residence? What was the law that gave them this status of legal permanent resident, that you or A/I claims they were given or had? Did every foreign alien immigrating here to live have legal permanent status once they got a job and found a place to live?

Is... there a point to these questions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The authors of the 14th A had every opportunity to limit who was addressed by the citizenship clause with language specific to freed slaves. Instead, it said people. In so doing it makes Dotard's EO unconstitutional.

Given that the author's statements were recorded in the Congressional Globe, they did. The writers' intent was spelled out there.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Attorney's for pregnant women whose children would be impacted by being denied citizenship as per the Constitutional mandate of the 14th Amendment.

WW

Oh, are they former slaves from the 19th century?
If not, no me jodas mas.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Incorrect. Read the sentence carefully. He was delineating groups of people. He made four distinctions as to which persons he and the writers were excluding.

"will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,"


The use of 'persons' in this statement means those born to:

1. Foreigners
2. Aliens
3. Families of ambassadors accredited to the Government, or
4. Foreign ministers accredited to the Government.

That was frankly a dishonest argument on your part. Aliens can be a distinct group of people, or they can belong to 3 or 4. He did not mean what you said he meant.

Actually what is dishonest is to attrempt to remove context:

Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

The identification of foreigners and aliens is CLEARLY tied to those present as part of a diplomatic mission.

For it to say what you are attempting to have it say it would have to read: "foreigners, aliens, * * OR * * who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,..."

His description of applicability clearly shows that his intent was not an "OR" function, but that foreigners and aliens are descriptive terms of those he identifies as part of diplomatic missions.

WW

 

[22lcidw]

Ahhhhh... and there's the rub...

Paying for it all is the reality in a high tax nation with a mature abused fiat currency that seems to struggle at times.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually what is dishonest is to attrempt to remove context:

Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

The identification of foreigners and aliens is CLEARLY tied to those present as part of a diplomatic mission.

WW

You are attempting to add context, not preserve it.

He identified four separate groups of people who were excluded from the Amendment. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't insult my intelligence, that's quite irritating.

 

[martybegan]

What does that phrase mean to you? At first blush, it just looks like the person is subject to the laws of the country.

That question has never been asked in the context of people here illegally. The only real precedent is the case from a century ago but that involved legal immigrants.

 

[martybegan]

The authors of the 14th A had every opportunity to limit who was addressed by the citizenship clause with language specific to freed slaves. Instead, it said people. In so doing it makes Dotard's EO unconstitutional.

The authors never contemplated people getting into the country illegally.

 

[Delldude]

I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

Not altering it in any way, asking for clarification.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are attempting to add context, not preserve it.

False.

He identified four separate groups of people who were excluded from the Amendment. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't insult my intelligence, that's quite irritating.

No he didn't. He identified ONE group of people, those associated with diplomatic missions which were outside US jurisdiction which has roots going back to and functioning the same British Common Law which was the original basis of the United States law.

WW

 

[TemplarKormac]

False.



No he didn't. He identified ONE group of people, those associated with diplomatic missions which were outside US jurisdiction which has roots going back to and functioning the same British Common Law which was the original basis of the United States law.

WW

I sense your preconceived biases coming through. You were caught trying to misinterpret his statements intentionally.

His use of the comma can only mean he was categorizing four separate groups of people. If you can't be any more honest than that, I will have no more to do with this discussion.

Have a good morning.

 

[rightwinger]

Illegal aliens should not qualify as a "class" under American law. They don't have the proper standing to sue as a class. The provisions under Federal Civil Procedure should not apply to people here illegally.

They qualify as “persons”

 

[WorldWatcher]

I sense your preconceived biases coming through. You were caught trying to misinterpret his statements intentionally.

His use of the comma can only mean he was categorizing four separate groups of people. If you can't be any more honest than that, I will have no more to do with this discussion.

Have a good morning.

I'm not "misinterpreting his statements". I'm quoting EXACTLY what was said that you supplied.

You can't take one or two words out of context and claim one thing when reading the sentence clearly shows the opposite.

You have a good morning also.

WW