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

[d0gbreath]

Since it was not addressed then just the opposite intent is evident. Your feeling, my fact

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on your ass.

 

[WEATHER53]

The American Indians didn't want US citizenship. So, there's that.

And you feel they put this in writing where?

 

[bendog]

I don't lack understanding, the actual governance backs my position, not some petty 'argument'. Try harder.

lazy days for yu, laddy. lol

And I'm not even giving you the sweat off my right ball.

 

[TNHarley]

"Anchor babies" don't, of course, exist.

You know what is meant. Please stop with the BS.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Any Interpretation Based on a Contradiction Is Invalid

Way beyond this quibbling about definitions, it goes without saying (which is why the Framers didn't say so) that no one can get a legal right through illegal means.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No amendment needed. Just an interpretation.

Logic and Lawyers Don't Mix

 

[Rawley]

Because it simply is not what the amendment explicitly says.

14,568th time. - this is what your interpretation of the amendment is
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

An amendment to it is what is needed for us to change it.

Only these people were NOT subject to our government's jurisdiction at the time:

1. Foreign- Diplomats, Ambassadors, and Royalty itself, with Diplomatic Immunity under international laws and their family residing with them.


2. Native Americans on Reservations with Treaties giving the Native Americans autonomy to Rule and govern themselves,

they have their own governing jurisdiction on their reservation with the Natives.


3. Foreign national enemies of war, and their family members (during wartime)


Everyone else was under our jurisdiction, under our laws of the land.

You are even now to this day, labeling these crossers, ILLEGALS....because under the law these crossers on our soil, are under our laws and under our laws, they are crossing illegally, no? They are under our jurisdiction for them to be, so called illegals....

That's the difference between "subject to" and "within" our jurisdiction in the 14th. You guys can never seem to grasp that.

 

[Unkotare]

Not at all. Look to the Indians. They were on American soil and not granted birthright citizenship, why should illegals magically qualify?

Because Indian reservations were/are considered quasi-sovereign territory of a given tribe. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 closed that loophole.

 

[WEATHER53]

Since no outside nations were being considered at time of writing, the all persons are persons of American citizenship

 

[Unkotare]

You know what is meant. Please stop with the BS.

Words have meanings.

 

[WEATHER53]

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on your ass.

Now there a strong rebuttal loaded with facts.
Oops-it’s actually loaded with crayons

 

[IDIOCRACY]

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

I thought they already ruled not to change it? Hmmm.

I wish they would, the birthright bus. needs to be changed to require a parent to be a citizen.

 

[Rogue AI]

Because Indian reservations were/are considered quasi-sovereign territory of a given tribe. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 closed that loophole.

Nonsense, the Constitution and the 14th pre-date the 1924 legislation, the actual governance was the original intent as proven in practice, not hindsight theory crafting.

 

[Unkotare]

... the Constitution and the 14th pre-date the 1924 legislation...

Gee, really?

 

[WEATHER53]

Like Jefferson said, look at the words without interjecting intent and other concepts not referenced nor in effect at the time

 

[Rogue AI]

Gee, really?

Glad I could help fix your ignorance. Next time I'll have to charge you a tutoring fee.

 

[Delldude]

Blah, blah blah.
I can read and completely understand what the 14th clearly states.

It clearly makes no mention of BRC,

 

[Foxfyre]

Blah, blah blah.
I can read and completely understand what the 14th clearly states.

Apparently you cannot. But have a nice day.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is obviously the most important. And the debates about this amendment are well documented. "anchor babies" is NOT what they meant.

Sneaky Reason Why the Media Misuse "Begging the Question"

If logic is brought into the discussion, instead of this scripted debate, then SCROTUS's own self-granted power will collapse.

Marbury itself is illogical, because CJ Marshall interpreted the Constitution as giving him and his Politburo the right to interpret the Constitution. That is the fallacy of self-proof called "petitio principii."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

How? Fewer illegals coming across to the border to have babies? How is that "profound?"

Incompetent businessmen have a profound need to replace White workers