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

[Delldude]

Huh?

You keep claiming an amendment would be needed, explain why, when one wasn't needed in the 1898 Scotus ruling.

 

[Delldude]

The wording was to give slaves, what EVERYONE ELSE on our soil already had....birthright citizenship for their children born here....other than the three exceptions.

Slaves were property and not legally citizens until the ruling.

 

[postman]

No different than you obeying and abiding by laws of any country you visit.

That doesn't give them exclusive rights to legal citizenship.

No shit...... illegals aren't afforded diplomatic status. Probably the next step from the left.

But it shows the US has jurisdiction (sovereignty) over them. Which means their parents are not excluded from the 14th amendment giving them birthright citizenship.

 

[postman]

The wording was to give slaves, what EVERYONE ELSE on our soil already had....birthright citizenship for their children born here....other than the three exceptions.

Trumps argument seems to stem around we don't have jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

 

[Delldude]

But it shows the US has jurisdiction (sovereignty) over them.

You're wrong.

 

[postman]

Slaves were property and not legally citizens until the ruling.

14th amendment
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.

It says persons, not citizens.

 

[BrokeLoser]

14th amendment
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.

It says persons, not citizens.

“People”, “persons” and “citizens” are synonymous when used in the U.S. Constitution, a document authored by Americans for Americans.
Think once…if the framers intended to aim constitutional protections at the world’s people why wouldn’t they have said “American citizens and foreign nationals” or the like? Why did they title the Preamble We The People Of The U.S. and not We The People Of The World?
Do you think Microsoft’s employee handbook is applicable to the employees of Google?
If a Google employee was trespassing at Microsoft would Microsoft’s employee handbook then be applicable to the trespasser?
Sometimes you just have to connect the dots and think.

 

[Delldude]

14th amendment
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.

It says persons, not citizens.

Says born or naturalized too.

 

[postman]

You're wrong.

Look up the term. To have sovereignty over them, means we can tell them what to do. We can arrest and detain them. We can make them pay taxes.

We can't do that with diplomats or enemy soldiers.

 

[postman]

“People”, “persons” and “citizens” are synonymous when used in the U.S. Constitution, a document authored by Americans for Americans.

WRONG !!!!

Ex: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

Ex: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

 

[Delldude]

Look up the term. To have sovereignty over them, means we can tell them what to do. We can arrest and detain them. We can make them pay taxes.

We can't do that with diplomats or enemy soldiers.

They have no sovereignty here.

If they did they would have all the rights afforded to US citizens under the COTUS.

 

[Delldude]

WRONG !!!!

Ex: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

Ex: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

You don't even know what you're quoting and what it's relevance is.

 

[Care4all]

All based upon a questionable interpretation out of Kim Ark Wong vs the US.

No silly, Kim Ark Wong interpretation came from previous precedent decisions and the Constitution, and the actual language in the 14th.

The concern with Wong, was his parents were Chinese, and Chinese tradition and law I believe, made them forever subject to their Emperor, no matter where they were located. Revocation from such was not an option.

This was the real opposing argument of why K A Wong could not be a natural born citizen when born on our soil....from what I have researched on it.

And the Supreme court, disagreed...said that Wong's parents had to follow all of our laws while here and running a business blah blah blah and loyalty to the emperor per their tradition did not interfere with them being under our jurisdiction.

The Chinese Emperor had no diplomatic immunity agreement with us for their citizens....so their citizens were under our jurisdiction while on our soil....thus their child Kim Ark, born here, was a citizen at birth.

 

[Delldude]

No silly, Kim Ark Wong interpretation came from previous precedent decisions and the Constitution, and the actual language in the 14th.

The concern with Wong, was his parents were Chinese, and Chinese tradition and law I believe, made them forever subject to their Emperor, no matter where they were located.

This was the real opposing argument of why Wong could not be a natural born citizen when born on our soil....from what I have researched on it.

And the Supreme court, disagreed...said that Wong's parents had to follow all of our laws while here and running a business blah blah blah and loyalty to the emperor per their tradition did not interfere with them being under our jurisdiction.

The Chinese Emperor had no diplomatic immunity agreement with us for their citizens....so their citizens were under our jurisdiction while on our soil....thus their child Kim Ark, born here, was a citizen at birth.

You need to do some more research.....Kim Ark Wong was the basis for establishing BRC.

 

[postman]

They have no sovereignty here.

If they did they would have all the rights afforded to US citizens under the COTUS.

Wrong. The Constitution grants "citizens" the right to vote not "people"

The constitution grants "citizens" the right to be a senator or representative, not "people"

 

[WEATHER53]

Might as well say since the baby from an illegal mom is magically a citizen then the birthing mom is also
But, we don’t

 

[postman]

You don't even know what you're quoting and what it's relevance is.

If person and citizen had the same meaning, they wouldn't use two terms.
They aren't the same. Some rights "citizens" have that "persons" don't have.
Such as to be elected, president, senator, or representative.

 

[Delldude]

Wrong. The Constitution grants "citizens" the right to vote not "people

People with sovereignty granted by the COTUS.

The constitution grants "citizens" the right to be a senator or representative, not "people"

Illegals have what to do with this?

 

[WEATHER53]

If person and citizen had the same meaning, they wouldn't use two terms.
They aren't the same. Some rights "citizens" have that "persons" don't have.
Such as to be elected, president, senator, or representative.

Lib loons have long contended that illegals have the same constitutional protections that citizens do.

 

[postman]

You need to do some more research.....Kim Ark Wong was the basis for establishing BRC.

No, there was birthright citizenship granted by the states since before the united states became the united states. Their citizens became united states citizens when the union was formed.