Birthright Citizenship…Arguments to begin this week at the Supreme Court.

[Rawley]

Clear text.

Clear text.

Why do you think we have sovereignty over the illegal squirted out in the lettuce field by her illegal mother.

 

[BrokeLoser]

And that sovereign nation amended its constitution (founding and most important document) to include birthright citizenship to anyone born here, that they have sovereignty over.

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
One with dual citizenship owes their allegiance to another country…they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Further…every single word in the U.S. Constitution was written by Americans and aimed to benefit Americans…do you Humberto’s really believe the Framers wrote 14:1 to benefit Mexico’s people and to fuck Americans over?
Unlike Unkotare Zincwarrior and you sovereignty hating unAmericans they saw a U.S. citizenship as the most coveted prize on the planet…do you think they wanted to create a mechanism that would allow them to be stolen by alien enemies?

This case will more decided on intent and the intent is crystal clear.

 

[Unkotare]

Grooming by the left.
Snap, Medicaid, etc.

...

What makes you think all babies born today will fall prey to that? As you know, I work with a great many immigrant young people and they tend to be quiet conservative.

 

[Rawley]

The "citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the U.S." are Diplomats, Ambassadors, Foreign State leaders, Kings and Queens, Royal Family

And why aren't the children of illegal Mexicans working the fields? Mexico considers them Mexican citizens.

 

[Couchpotato]

As I said, they would have abandon their "clear text" method of interpretation, at their own peril.

Ex: The District of Columbia v. Heller decision (554 U.S. 570 (2008)) by the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms for lawful purposes, independent of service in a militia. This right, according to the Court, includes the ability to keep and bear arms within the home for self-defense. The Court's interpretation was based on a close reading of the Second Amendment's text and its historical context

This decision did not consider "intent"

And yet individual states and the federal government routinely restrict US citizens right to own guns. That aside, the language in the 14th isnt nearly as straight forward as you're making out which is why this case is being heard by the SCOTUS in the first place.

 

[Delldude]

But this also for me, is the reason why I believe the Supreme court will end up ruling, that a constitutional amendment is needed to change it... to ...mean, what y'all falsely claim it means.

Why would a constitutional amendment be needed? SCOTUS in 1898 ruled on the existing verbiage with an opinion on BRC which is at the center of the debate. They didn't change anything, just rendered an opinion.

That's another republican talking point.

Here's one of many by the people who need to be told what to say. There are loads of similar clips on left media.

 

[Kondor3]

It all lies in the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and in Framer intent.
How will this Trump SCOTUS translate the phrase and what will they think the Framers intent was.

Spot-on.

That's the key phrase at-issue here.

SCOTUS has been known to re-interpret aspects of the Constitution, various statutes, and "intent" of the "framers".

For the sake of the Republic and sane border and immigration control, let's hope they eliminate the Anchor Baby interpretation.

 

[Care4all]

Why do you think we have sovereignty over the illegal squirted out in the lettuce field by her illegal mother.

Our laws protect her from the moment of birthing, when on our soil. She is under our jurisdiction and thus our laws and protection.

 

[Delldude]

What makes you think all babies born today will fall prey to that? As you know, I work with a great many immigrant young people and they tend to be quiet conservative.

It's the people who crossed that whoever was president the last four years, gave all kinds of freebies. They'll be voting democrat if the left gets their way.

Wake up.

 

[Delldude]

Our laws protect her from the moment of birthing, when on our soil. She is under our jurisdiction of laws and protection.

'She' isn't a citizen.

 

[g5000]

SUPREME COURT TO FINALLY HEAR ARGUMENTS ON THE ANCHOR BABY SCOURGE​

If SCOTUS rules for good real core Americans should we be ready for cities to burn down? What if the ruling is retroactive? What if we have to send home all with an illegal lineage? How will people prove their legal lineage?

Supreme Court to Finally Hear Arguments on the Anchor Baby Scourge - League of Power

After decades of deliberate ethnic cleansing against the American people, the US Supreme Court will finally hear arguments this week about our nation’s insane “anchor baby” policy. The Democrats’ ethnic cleansing lawfare teams are trying to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order to end...

www.lopmatrix.com

It's going to be 9-0 in favor of birthright citizenship, so you can stop masturbating to your fantasies of burning cities and jizzing on your face, mm-kay?

 

[postman]

Why do you think we have sovereignty over the illegal squirted out in the lettuce field by her illegal mother.

If we did not have sovereignty, we would not have the legal authority to deport them.

Think diplomats and their families. To quote Lethal Weapon 2, and the South African diplomat. “I have diplomatic immunity! You couldn't give me a parking ticket!”

 

[Rawley]

Our laws protect her from the moment of birthing, when on our soil. She is under our jurisdiction of laws and protection.

Your reasoning is circular I’ll ask again. Why do you think we have sovereignty over the illegal birthed by her illegal mother on US soil?

If we did not have sovereignty, we would not have the legal authority to deport them.

Think diplomats and their families. To quote Lethal Weapon 2, and the South African diplomat. “I have diplomatic immunity! You couldn't give me a parking ticket!”

 

[postman]

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
One with dual citizenship owes their allegiance to another country…they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Yes they are?
Can we make them pay income taxes?
Can we make them pay sales taxes?
Can we make them pay property taxes?

If so, they are subject to our jurisdiction.

Remember, diplomats don't pay taxes

 

[Rawley]

If we did not have sovereignty, we would not have the legal authority to deport them.

Sure we do, they are "within" our jurisdiction.

Think diplomats and their families. To quote Lethal Weapon 2, and the South African diplomat. “I have diplomatic immunity! You couldn't give me a parking ticket!”

And we can deport them too.

 

[postman]

And why aren't the children of illegal Mexicans working the fields? Mexico considers them Mexican citizens.

We have people who are citizens of the United States and citizens of Israel.

 

[Delldude]

Think diplomats and their families. To quote Lethal Weapon 2, and the South African diplomat. “I have diplomatic immunity! You couldn't give me a parking ticket!”

If the diplomats home country waives DI, he's going to court.

 

[Delldude]

We have people who are citizens of the United States and citizens of Israel.

Legally

 

[postman]

Spot-on.

That's the key phrase at-issue here.

SCOTUS has been known to re-interpret aspects of the Constitution, various statutes, and "intent" of the "framers".

For the sake of the Republic and sane border and immigration control, let's hope they eliminate the Anchor Baby interpretation.

The anchor baby interpretation is by the "clear text" of the 14th amendment.
Not the intent, but the clear text.

 

[Unkotare]

They became American citizens after the revolutionary war and the Declaration of Independence.

I go back to Plymouth Rock.

Ellis and any other POE processed imigrants upon entry.

Doesn't matter at all. An American naturalized today is every bit as much an American as you (and more than some LOSERS here).