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

[postman]

An amendment wasn't needed when Scotus ruled on Wong, why would you need one now?

Because the clear text gives birthright citizenship to people, foreign and domestic. Even someone giving birth on a commercial airliner while it's flying over US territory, their child becomes a US citizen.

 

[postman]

Divining what is in the Constitution by strict construction is wrong. Jefferson said it best: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed,"

Intent should take precedence over words...every time.

That's not what republican judicial philosophy says. They go by the "clear text" rule of interpretation.

That's what they did to decide DC v Heller (gun rights case) making gun ownership an individual, and not just a collective right.

 

[Delldude]

Because the clear text gives birthright citizenship to people, foreign and domestic. Even someone giving birth on a commercial airliner while it's flying over US territory, their child becomes a US citizen.

So WTF does that have to do with needing an amendment to change a previous opinion that was made without a cotus amendment.

 

[postman]

So WTF does that have to do with needing an amendment to change a previous opinion that was made without a cotus amendment.

When you start complaining about all the US citizens being born on "birther" flights, where all they have to do is travel through US airspace while giving birth, and their kid becomes a US citizen.

That's certainly not something the writers of the 14th amendment intended.

 

[Delldude]

When you start complaining about all the US citizens being born on "birther" flights, where all they have to do is travel through US airspace while giving birth, and their kid becomes a US citizen.

That's certainly not something the writers of the 14th amendment intended.

WTF you talking about?

Answer the question.

 

[Care4all]

An amendment wasn't needed when Scotus ruled on Wong, why would you need one now?

The ruling on Wong FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION, silly one! Turns out his parents were subject to our laws with their business and by living here, there was no diplomatic immunity with the United States and China for every day Chinese citizens living here...even if they always would be under the Chinese emperor and renunciation of the Emperor was not allowed at the time under Chinese rules.

Likely, his parents would have been prevented from becoming citizens here, but that did not matter regarding them being persons, and Kim Ark being born here on our soil, and subject to our jurisdiction. Kim Ark was born a citizen, under the 14th.

 

[80zephyr]

That's not what republican judicial philosophy says. They go by the "clear text" rule of interpretation.

That's what they did to decide DC v Heller (gun rights case) making gun ownership an individual, and not just a collective right.

Intent should be the guide.

 

[Delldude]

You have it backwards

No, you do.

The TEMPORARY jurisdiction they have here actually trumps the SOVEREIGN jurisdiction of their home country.

You leave sovereign jurisdiction at home when you leave your country.

Then you enter another country and are subject to their sovereign jurisdiction of controlling everything in their borders.

Now, legally, you are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.

 

[Delldude]

The ruling on Wong FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION, silly one! Turns out his parents were subject to our laws with their business and by living here, there was no diplomatic immunity with the United States and China for every day Chinese citizens living here...even if they always would be under the Chinese emperor and renunciation of the Emperor was not allowed at the time under Chinese rules.

Likely, his parents would have been prevented from becoming citizens here, but that did not matter regarding them being persons, and Kim Ark being born here on our soil, and subject to our jurisdiction. Kim Ark was born a citizen, under the 14th.

This is the third time you've skirted answering the question of why you claim a cotus amendment will be necessary to change the 14th from BRC when it wasn't required for an 1898 ruling.

 

[Rawley]

The ruling on Wong FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION, silly one! Turns out his parents were subject to our laws with their business and by living here, there was no diplomatic immunity with the United States and China for every day Chinese citizens living here...even if they always would be under the Chinese emperor and renunciation of the Emperor was not allowed at the time under Chinese rules.

Likely, his parents would have been prevented from becoming citizens here, but that did not matter regarding them being persons, and Kim Ark being born here on our soil, and subject to our jurisdiction. Kim Ark was born a citizen, under the 14th.

His parents were permanent legal residents.. See any difference from the people you want to protect?

 

[Care4all]

Intent should be the guide.

There were no illegal aliens at the time of our founders... there was no one that was illegal, for being here...basically....as long as you were willing to work or till the soil...and not a slave...

Our founders intent was to populate the nation and increase our citizenry at the time.

There is nothing in the 14th that shows their intent for illegal crossers, there were no illegal crossers.

So, the plain language of the amendment has to be used.

Are you afraid the majority of people in the United States would not support an amendment to change the 14th?

 

[Care4all]

His parents were permanent legal residents.. See any difference from the people you want to protect?

The issue with the Wong case did not have argument with being here legally or illegally...

The argument was that his parents were subjects of the Chinese Emperor under Chinese Law for LIFE, so the govt claimed Kim Ark could not be a citizen, when his parents were Subject to the Chinese Emperor for LIFE, even when living here....and not subject to our jurisdiction and laws.

It was proven in court that his parents were under our jurisdiction of laws when Kim Ark was born, and his parents had no diplomatic immunity agreement coverage for our laws with China for their every day, Chinese citizen.

His parents, though subjects of their Emperor for life, while on our soil were subject to our jurisdiction, our laws. Thus, he met the 14th requirements for citizen at birth....under the SC decision.

 

[Delldude]

There is nothing in the 14th that shows their intent for illegal crossers, there were no illegal crossers.

LOL.........maybe because the 14th wasn't ratified until 92 years after our independence?

 

[AsherN]

Again I am 100% certain neither the Founders nor the authors of the 14th Amendment intended that children born to visitors or those on other short term visas would be citizens of the USA. That is why the clause 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was included in the 14th Amendment.

Are you contending that visitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Think it through because if a visitor is not subject to the jurisdiction, that visitor cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the US.

 

[Delldude]

Are you contending that visitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Think it through because if a visitor is not subject to the jurisdiction, that visitor cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the US.

Argument is the term jurisdiction thereof is for naturalized or citizens already here by birth.

 

[Care4all]

This is the third time you've skirted answering the question of why you claim a cotus amendment will be necessary to change the 14th from BRC when it wasn't required for an 1898 ruling.

Post 572

The amendment was not necessary, because the 14th Amendment, was followed as it was written in the 14th Amendment original text. In Kim Wong Ark vs.

 

[Care4all]

Argument is the term jurisdiction thereof is for naturalized or citizens already here by birth.

And it has been proven, with absolutely no doubt, you are wrong....it was not just for citizens, and it was not just for slaves, it was for ALL PERSONS on our soil when giving birth, with the 3 exceptions....all persons is all persons, less the 3 exceptions.

 

[Delldude]

Post 572

The amendment was not necessary, because the 14th Amendment, was followed as it was written in the 14th Amendment original text. In Kim Wong Ark vs.

No, it was a SCOTUS interpretation of the existing amendment. So if that opinion were to be overturned now, there is no need for another amendment.

 

[AsherN]

“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.

So, as a Canadian citizen, I owe allegiance to Canada. By your logic, while in the US, I'm not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Therefore, I can commit crimes and not be arrested or prosecuted.

 

[Delldude]

And it has been proven, with absolutely no doubt, you are wrong....

That is the entire basis for the case at Scotus.

Get with it.