Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[Rawley]

I guess we'll see if your interpretation matches that of the SCOTUS, eh?

There is nothing plain about the text

 

[White 6]

At the time, the people who passed this law did not know we would become a Progressive Socialist Communist nation. So over time legislation was passed that moved us into that position. Taxation is very high and much of it goes to this. In that era taxation was low, and people were not afforded social checks and benefits.

You mean, back in 1866 they did not anticipate Trump being elected, and want to kick people that were born and raised here, out, due to their parents?

 

[Rawley]

What part of "if you are born and living here, you are subject to it's jurisdiction, do you not get?

The part where what does "subject to it's jurisdiction" mean?

 

[White 6]

I dont believe in your interpretation of the Constitution

Birthright citizenship should be for Americans not chinese tourists or illegal aliens

Simple. Have an amendment written, passed by 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, sent to the states and ratified by 38 states.
Or is that too slow for you, so you want the Supremes to change the English language and overrule what Congress and the States agreed, amending the constitution, ratifying in 1868? Do, you want the Supremes to simply make up law from the bench, no matter what the constitution says?

 

[Chuz Life]

What does that have to do, with the 14th Amendment?
But, if they are born and the birth was here, subject to US jurisdiction, the Constitution settled the question, saying they are a citizen, whether you like it or not.

This should give you an idea of what it has to do with the 14th.

These are the words of Supreme Court Justices, anticipating the application of the 14th Amendment, "if a State were to establish that a fetus is a person"

It is worth noting that this anticipation took place before the advent of the now 30+ State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE Laws" we now have on the books.

 

[Chuz Life]

You mean, back in 1866 they did not anticipate Trump being elected, and want to kick people that were born and raised here, out, due to their parents?

Yeah. . . that's the line the minority three of the SCOTUS justices will likely take.

 

[OKTexas]

I did, and you are correct. However there seems to be some ambiguity in the law as it is allowed according to

How to get dual citizenship or nationality | USAGov

Learn how to get dual U.S. citizenship, also known as dual nationality. Find out if another country recognizes dual U.S. citizenship.

www.usa.gov

Didn't say it wasn't possible, just another way for our stupid politicians to dilute the country. No country should allow dual allegiance.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You were discussing precedent. Are you getting senile? Textualists trumps precedent.

Not at all, you seem to lack the ability to follow a conversation, if I recall properly you were the one that brought up lower courts.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not at all, you seem to lack the ability to follow a conversation, if I recall properly you were the one that brought up lower courts.

.

Doubtful. You are rarely right about anything dealing with government.

 

[OKTexas]

Doubtful. You are rarely right about anything dealing with government.

Really?

Your post is incorrect. The phrase "under the jurisdiction of" is well defined. There can be no "reinterpretation" of a well-known legal term. The SCOTUS will simply not rule the way you are fantasizing it will.

If what you claim is true, why haven't lower courts previously overturned that interpretation? Because they cannot!

.

 

[White 6]

The part where what does "subject to it's jurisdiction" mean?

 

[White 6]

This should give you an idea of what it has to do with the 14th.

These are the words of Supreme Court Justices, anticipating the application of the 14th Amendment, "if a State were to establish that a fetus is a person"

It is worth noting that this anticipation took place before the advent of the now 30+ State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE Laws" we now have on the books.

You are going to be disappointed.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are going to be disappointed.

More than every other day of my life on this issue?

 

[Concerned American]

What does Japan have to do with Canada?

Dual citizenship laws--are you having trouble keeping up. The law in the US, Canada and yes, Japan may be different. SMH

 

[Concerned American]

There is nothing plain about the text

Agreed, but there is nothing gained with continuous nuh-uhs--SCOTUS will decide.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Really?


.

The know if they rule against the precedent, the SCOTUS will reverse them without ever hearing the case. You just have no concept of the judicial process.

 

[BlindBoo]

The part where what does "subject to it's jurisdiction" mean?

Non Indians (until 1925). Other exclusion include people with diplomatic immunity. Their children are not given citizenship at birth.

 

[Rawley]

Non Indians (until 1925). Other exclusion include people with diplomatic immunity. Their children are not given citizenship at birth.

So that's it? The phrase was intended to exclude Indians and diplomats? Why didn't they just say that?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Entering Illegally "

* Not By Invitation Of Diplomatic Agreement *

What part of "if you are born and living here, you are subject to it's jurisdiction, do you not get?

The thereof part , which alludes to subjects by title , such as citizens or legal migrants , along with the 18 years of social subsistence based on maternal income , and the that illegal immigration constitutes an act or thing for exclusion .

The complete opinions of the court have not yet been located , it is obfuscated , wherein a persuasion of the court opinion was that his parents were in good legal standing .

A legal migrant becomes a subject by title in us legal immigration system and becomes a subject of us jurisdiction and not simply subject to us jurisdiction .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

supreme.justia.com

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
...
Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.
Page 169 U. S. 653

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Enumerated Rite To Equal Protection Requires Live Birth "

* Legal Jargon To Satiate Gullible Imbeciles *

This should give you an idea of what it has to do with the 14th.
These are the words of Supreme Court Justices, anticipating the application of the 14th Amendment, "if a State were to establish that a fetus is a person"
It is worth noting that this anticipation took place before the advent of the now 30+ State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE Laws" we now have on the books.

As a person in title 1 section 8 of us code is consistent with the enumerated rite to equal protection with a citizen and necessary requirement for live birth , the dumbfounded sedition of dobbs stared title 1 section 8 in the face to commit malfeasance and to commit sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments .

All offenses are against the mother and appropriate penalties can be applied ; as a fetus is without constitutional protections , the death penalty cannot be applied as a rite life must be remove to have ones own rite to life removed .

The etymology of the term person is countable by census and male , a throw back to patriarchy .