Does NEWSMAX have an agenda? If so, what is it?

We don't have "tens-of-millions" of illegal "invaders" here. It's barely 10 million, representing less than 3 percent of our population.
Let me give you an example of being told what to think and thinking for yourself

How come the illegal alien population never ever goes up, the claim is that the illegal alien population is always going down! The obvious answer is that nobody knows how many or they refuse to tell the truth about how many illegal aliens are in the usa.

According to wikipedia, the illegal alien population was 12.2 million in 2007. So the population of illegal aliens dropped?
According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the number rose rapidly in the 1990s, "from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007
Yale University claims the illegal immigration population is 22 million, 3 years ago

Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates​

Generally accepted estimates put the population of undocumented immigrants in the United States at approximately 11.3 million. A new study, using mathematical modeling on a range of demographic and immigration operations data, suggests that the actual undocumented immigrant population may be more than 22 million
In 2006, the illegal alien population was 12 million
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION, 1993-2006
Today an estimated 12 million immigrants are unauthorized, or 30 percent of the foreign-
born population of the U.S.; those figures are unprecedented.
 
Illegal Immigration has gone down every year, resulting in the population of the illegal aliens in the USA dropping.

That is what the claim is, if you believe the reports from year to year, decade to decade
 
Um...retard? If the Supreme Court had ruled the way you falsely claim it had,
Here is what our Supreme Court stated in "Slaughter-House Cases"

“The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.

And this is one reason why we have a


So, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.

Stop making shit up
 
Last edited:
Have you ever heard of the Amendment process? LOL

Yes. It was a brilliant move by the framers to include ways to amend the US Constitution.

But that is not what is happening here. This is deciding whether or not to follow the constitution based on what the framers were talking about 250 years ago.
 
Yes. It was a brilliant move by the framers to include ways to amend the US Constitution.

But that is not what is happening here. This is deciding whether or not to follow the constitution based on what the framers were talking about 250 years ago.
Unfortunately, what's happening now is completely unprecedented, but any modern politician with half-a-brain would know that the framers did NOT have mass invasion in mind when they penned the Constitution.
 
Unfortunately, what's happening now is completely unprecedented, but any modern politician with half-a-brain would know that the framers did NOT have mass invasion in mind when they penned the Constitution.

I agree wholeheartedly. I want to see us take back control of our borders. But, sadly, neither party has been willing to actually do that.
 
Have you ever heard of the Amendment process? LOL
BINGO. Article V is the only lawful way to accommodate change for changing times and not judges or Justices using their office of public trust to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
Yes. It was a brilliant move by the framers to include ways to amend the US Constitution.

But that is not what is happening here. This is deciding whether or not to follow the constitution based on what the framers were talking about 250 years ago.
Let us never forget that adhering to the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is one of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Napolitano simply makes up crap about our Constitution, and I wonder why he is the go-to guy for NEWSMAX when constitutional issues arise.

Napolitano did the same nonsense with homosexual marriage by lying that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated by States when not agreeing to legally embrace homosexual marriages.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 
Let us never forget that adhering to the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is one of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Napolitano simply makes up crap about our Constitution, and I wonder why he is the go-to guy for NEWSMAX when constitutional issues arise.

Napolitano did the same nonsense with homosexual marriage by lying that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated by States when not agreeing to legally embrace homosexual marriages.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And if you go with simple, obvious interpretations of the US Constitution itself, we have a better nation.
 
And if you go with simple, obvious interpretations of the US Constitution itself, we have a better nation.

Just a note to document our forefathers' expressed feelings during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.


So, as it turns out Judge Napolitano ought to actually read the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to get an actual idea of what our Constitution was intended to accomplish.

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.
 
And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
Nope. The subjects to a foreign nation are DIPLOMATS and their families, who are given diplomatic immunity, which makes them and their families NEVER under our legal jurisdiction in the United States....they are the ones with immunity from our laws and are never under our jurisdiction. And if course foreign enemy soldiers would not be under our jurisdiction...

The every day foreigner, permanently living here... is always under our jurisdiction....

 
Last edited:
The every day foreigner, permanently living here... is always under our jurisdiction....

Thank you for your opinion. In any event, our Supreme Court has been explicitly clear with regard to the question under discussion.

Here is what our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”

“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.

And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
 
Last edited:
Once again, anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

1713975876478.png


According to you, but not according to what our Supreme Court has STATED regarding acquiring United States citizenship.


tenor.gif
 
According to the law.

And, our S.C. has repeatedly weighed in on acquiring United States Citizenship.​



Here is what our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”

“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.

And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

tenor.gif



JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
 
Every baby being born in the US today is 100% a US citizen, and NO member of the Supreme Court would claim otherwise.
 
Every baby being born in the US today is 100% a US citizen, and NO member of the Supreme Court would claim otherwise.
According to you, but not what our Supreme Court has already stated:


Here is what our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”


“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.

And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”


source.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top