Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[Monk-Eye]

" Leverage Points "

* Subject To Versus Subject Of Analysis From There Of *

No dude..it's called the law. All your squirming will not get you a citation that even begins to say that one must be a citizen to birth a citizen. No-where..and the law is replete with example of just the opposite--some have been quoted here.
Nothing is more sacred in law than Precedent...and the precedent for birthright citizenship--is quite well-established.

The only precedent is that the parents of wong kim ark were subjects by title in us legal immigration system and were therefore subjects of us jurisdiction , which therefore qualified their live births for jus soli citizenship , unless explicitly rescinded in chinese exclusion act .

An undocumented migrant is not a subject of us jurisdiction , for not being a subject by title in us legal immigration system , which are deduced by including the term thereof in the analysis of us 14th amendment and jus soli versus jus originis citizenships .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Informed Consent Brain Washing For Politician Interns "

* Thanks Agreed Likely Outcome Given Morose Pleadings About Subject To *

Nicely worded--and pretty much not going to happen.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5818557-birthright-citizenship-trump-sc/

President Trumpon Monday said the Supreme Court just “doesn’t seem to care” about the country after its ruling against his tariffs, and the considerable doubts many of the justices showed toward striking down birthright citizenship.

On social media , one can post directly to the public persona of politicians and pundits , and provide links to a forum for comprehensive explanation and opportunity for further competent dialogue , for directions in what to plea , however do not expect a response or to be acknowledged .

 

[Hafar1014]

No dude..it's called the law. All your squirming will not get you a citation that even begins to say that one must be a citizen to birth a citizen. No-where..and the law is replete with example of just the opposite--some have been quoted here.

Nothing is more sacred in law than Precedent...and the precedent for birthright citizenship--is quite well-established.

Not under any other jurisdiction

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not under any other jurisdiction

Currently: A child born in the US to a US Citizen and a British Citizen has citizenship in both courties.

Under your model the child wouldn't be a US Citizen because at birth it held British Citizenship and there was subject to another jurisdiction.

Rafael Edward Cruz would not be a US Citizen because he was born to two US Citizens ( jus sanguinis, right of blood) but with Canadian Citizenship (jus soli, right of the soil) and there was subject to another jurisdiction.

WW

 

[Hafar1014]

Currently: A child born in the US to a US Citizen and a British Citizen has citizenship in both courties.

Under your model the child wouldn't be a US Citizen because at birth it held British Citizenship and there was subject to another jurisdiction.

Rafael Edward Cruz would not be a US Citizen because he was born to two US Citizens ( jus sanguinis, right of blood) but with Canadian Citizen ship (jus soli, right of the soil) and there was subject to another jurisdiction.

WW

The SC may change that and they should

 

[JoeB131]

Since it's coming up again



Let's discuss it.

On one hand you have pregnant women coming to the USA just to have a baby be an American citizen by being born here....then as the baby's mother she gets a way into the country .....

The downside?
Nobody, even naturally born to American Citizens, is free from proving their parents were Americans when they were born...

Creating room for all sorts of deportation scams and corruption by powerful people wanting to exert authority over average people.

So what do you think?

I think you need to stop wetting yourself at the thought of brown people coming to this country.

 

[Care4all]

W

Not under any other jurisdiction

What does "under the jurisdiction there of" mean to you??

 

[JoeB131]

I think the "amended 14th Amendment" would say exactly what the Authors thought they were writing in the first place and it would only take the addition of one word.

Amendment XIV​

Section 1.​

"All persons LEGALLY 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How can someone be "illegally" born?

Is being born a crime now?

The problem is, the founders probably never anticipated this problem because at the time, they WANTED immigrants. They had just stolen all this land from Mexico or the Natives, and they wanted someone to farm it and live on it and work in their factories at poverty wages.

Immigration only became a "problem" when non-white people or people who weren't considered "White Enough" (Jews, Italian, Irish) were showing up.

 

[JoeB131]

All they have to do is decide that illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction there of". Meaning political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction. That's why when immigrants take the oath of citizenship, they have to reject the political jurisdiction of their home country and submit themselves to the political jurisdiction of the US.

SCOTUS ruling it that way would not be much of a stretch.

.

That would be kind of an extreme stretch, for no other reason than it ignores hundreds of years of precedent.

What is "political jurisdiction" anyway? Seems like you are just making stuff up now.

Jurisdiction was clearly meant to apply to all groups not covered by treaties (such as diplomats or Native nations). Everyone else was subject to jurisdiction, whether they were born here or not.

 

[JoeB131]

I call.

Is a person who is only in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stage of their life, growth, and development a 'person' while they are in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stages of their life, growth, or development?

Yes or no?

Nope.
Not viable.
Not a person.

We've been over all the problems if you start counting globs of tissue as people. You would essentially have to give them more rights than the woman they are inside.

 

[Hafar1014]

W

What does "under the jurisdiction there of" mean to you??

Citizen of another country

 

[Hafar1014]

I think you need to stop wetting yourself at the thought of brown people coming to this country.

SUre we need more crime and social service fraud

 

[PubliusMM]

Since it's coming up again



Let's discuss it.

On one hand you have pregnant women coming to the USA just to have a baby be an American citizen by being born here....then as the baby's mother she gets a way into the country .....

The downside?
Nobody, even naturally born to American Citizens, is free from proving their parents were Americans when they were born...

Creating room for all sorts of deportation scams and corruption by powerful people wanting to exert authority over average people.

So what do you think?

Scrap it. Reconfirm the original intent of the Amendment.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Robust Allusions Remanded *

* Not Under Any Other Jurisdiction Of Escaped Criminals And Diplomats *

Not under any other jurisdiction

An assertion of not being under any other jurisdiction requires more comprehensive exposition , as initial analysis of the clause " not under any other jurisdiction " is not intuitive or conclusive .

The clause " not under any other jurisdiction " may imply that an individual , lawfully prosecuted by some other jurisdiction and escaping criminal punishment , is not subject to us jurisdiction , which remains an absurd assertion , as any within us judicial domain are subject to us jurisdiction , while extradition and immigration policies are diplomatic agreements , whether between governments of between governments and individuals .

Not under any other jurisdiction , as it would relate to diplomats , implies that through diplomatic agreement a status of immunity is conceded , and that jus soli for live births on us soil is rescinded , as conciliation to fidelity in national allegiances .

Clearly us citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment and discretionary , rather than being a negative liberty of protection such as due process which is assured to all individuals through us 14th amendment .

Us 14th amendment provides equal protection of negative liberties to any individual within us judicial domain , however us 14th amendment does not equally provision positive liberties of endowment to any within us judicial domain .

A title of us citizen , or a title of a migrant in us legal immigration system , implies that the same is a subject of us jurisdiction , by analysis of the term thereof within us 14th amendment .

* Thereof Subdivision Of Us Jurisdiction For Subjects By Title *

. What Is A Thereof Jurisdiction ? .

. Exegesis - Wikipedia .
. Eisegesis - Wikipedia .

 

[JoeB131]

SUre we need more crime and social service fraud

I'm sure some bigot said the same thing about Jews in the 1930s when Bugsy Seigal and the Purple Gang were running amok.

 

[Hafar1014]

I'm sure some bigot said the same thing about Jews in the 1930s when Bugsy Seigal and the Purple Gang were running amok.

And Einstein and Jonas Salk

 

[Mortimer]

I agree with birthright citizenship
I think one could not grant citizenship to babies born to tourists without doing away completely with birthright citizenship

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subject To Versus Subject Of "

* Optional Extent Of Available Positive Liberties Not Rescinded *

I agree with birthright citizenship
I think one could not grant citizenship to babies born to tourists without doing away completely with birthright citizenship

Such as ewe have deduced is an absurd presumption , as jus originis citizenship can be and should be implemented through diplomatic agreement .

Immigration is established through diplomatic agreement , whereby a migrant becomes a subject of us jurisdiction , for being a subject by title in us legal immigration system , thereby making them eligible for discretionary positive liberties , of which one is jus soli citizenship for live births on us soil .

For a diplomat , an agreement for immunity from prosecution also rescinds an opportunity for jus soli citizenship from a live birth on us soil , where the latter is for independence of allegiances .

As us citizenship is a positive liberty of unequal endowment , rather than a negative liberty of equal protection , an extension for jus soli citizenship can be rescinded from diplomatic agreements of general immigration .

Even now , us immigration policies require under oath that the purpose for travel is not for delivering a live birth on us soil .

The us works to abate birth tourism :
. Policies In Place Against Birth Tourism For Legal Migrants .
.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I think you need to stop wetting yourself at the thought of brown people coming to this country.

While you shit yourself at the thought of white South Africans coming to this country.

 

[OKTexas]

That would be kind of an extreme stretch, for no other reason than it ignores hundreds of years of precedent.

What is "political jurisdiction" anyway? Seems like you are just making stuff up now.

Jurisdiction was clearly meant to apply to all groups not covered by treaties (such as diplomats or Native nations). Everyone else was subject to jurisdiction, whether they were born here or not.

That's one opinion, but I don't think the Constitution is a suicide pact. People here on temporary tourist visas, ie birth tourism or here illegally, should not be able to take advantage of our country. The 14th was a post civil war era amendment designed to give citizenship to former slaves.

.