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

[Unkotare]

Okay how

The US Constitution. I think we've been over this before.

 

[Unkotare]

Do your homework
come back in one year.

You just defined natural born citizen.

If the Supreme Court
doesn't come up with something this time,
then it's your call.

Do you ever make sense, or is this the maximum extent of your tenuous grasp on sanity?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

They weren't on American soil.

 

[Care4all]

You can't come to grips with the fact that a definitive interpretation of how the Wong vs US decision 'elaborated' on the amendment without creating a new one requires a new one to possibly overturn the original decision?

Wong's decision followed the original text and prior debate, and common law practice of jus soli prior to the 14th, and common legal meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 1900s.

They did not change any meaning or interpretation of the 14th in Kim Ark Wong....there was no need for an amendment.

Why do YOU think there is a need...?

 

[Rawley]

Yes, the illegals have done so, and have no choice in the matter,

Yes they did. They had the choice to come here legally. But they didn't. THey said "Fuck You United States, your laws don't apply to me" They did not subject themselves to our sovereignty, just the opposite.

regardless...unless they are foreign diplomats or foreign military...they are subject to our laws and under our protection while on our soil...

We protect diplomats on our soil. Diplomats are also subject to our laws. They murder someone, we arrest them. If they claim immunity, we kick them out of the country.

The illegal crossers know that the USA has jurisdiction over them, even before they cross and most all turn themselves over to Border Patrol... And most crossers coming from central and south America have walked through several countries before arriving here, and know while on those country's soil, they were subject to their laws.

When I travel in foreign countries, I know I am subject to their laws when on their soil...

When was the last time you broke into a country illegally?

Really, it is common knowledge... even for the lesser educated immigrants. They know once they enter the USA, they are under our jurisdiction.

And in the 1840s there was another suit in NY State, that settled even children of foreign temporary travelers or vacationers, when they bore a child on our soil, the child has US birthright citizenship....

I think we need an amendment to change the author's original text of the 14th amendment...and will be quite surprised if the supreme court ruled differently!

They have surprised me before, so I guess we will see...

This will not have broad, lasting societal effect that Plessy did, Brown did, that Roe did, that Dobbs did. Practically, all it will do is remove the incentive for illegals to come to this country to have anchor babies. Frankly, I bet a vast majority of Americans believe that would be a good thing for the country.

 

[Rawley]

You can't come to grips with the fact that a definitive interpretation of how the Wong vs US decision 'elaborated' on the amendment without creating a new one requires a new one to possibly overturn the original decision?

I think at it's broadest, Wong can be read to say the 14th applies to permanent legal residents. Wong doesn't even have to be overturned. It was, at best, silent on illegal and temporary residents.

 

[Care4all]

Frankly, I bet a vast majority of Americans believe that would be a good thing for the country.

That's what I thought and why I do not think anyone should worry about getting an amendment passed that's needed...I think both parties could agree on something that may not be exactly what each sides want but will be good enough for both to settle.

Oh, and on everything else you wrote... I respectfully disagree!

 

[Delldude]

I think at it's broadest, Wong can be read to say the 14th applies to permanent legal residents. Wong doesn't even have to be overturned. It was, at best, silent on illegal and temporary residents.

I'm not saying W v US needs overturned its the interpretation Scotus came to out of Wong.

Why do YOU think there is a need...?

Stop........ it's you that keeps bringing that up.

 

[jc456]

Not necessarily. If a person is born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen.

Nope

 

[jc456]

That's what I thought and why I do not think anyone should worry about getting an amendment passed that's needed...I think both parties could agree on something that may not be exactly what each sides want but will be good enough for both to settle.

Oh, and on everything else you wrote... I respectfully disagree!

Neither party gives a shit about us

 

[Unkotare]

Nope

Yup.

 

[jc456]

Neither party gives a shit about us

Unkotare , which party? Tell me

 

[jc456]

Yup.

Everyone is natural born

 

[Unkotare]

Everyone is natural born

It's a legal term.

 

[BluesLegend]

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

Yes you and your 2 brain cells have said as much about 100 times now.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes...

I'm glad you remember what you've been taught.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It all lies in the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and in Framer intent.

I think they were all dead by the time the 14th was written.

 

[rightwinger]

RETARD alert! ^^^

I am NOT a Retard!

Mother had me tested
The man said I was Special

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Do you ever make sense, or is this the maximum extent of your tenuous grasp on sanity?

Do you ever debate substance, you've unilaterally defined natural born as "anyone".
just say "Constitution like before"
You are in way over your head,
Maybe less posts done better.
Perhaps an easier thread to start out...

 

[Unkotare]

Do you ever debate substance, you've unilaterally defined natural born as "anyone".
...

"Anyone born in the United States."