Illegal Aliens Lose Battle In Birth Certificatr Lawsuit Against Texas

[JimBowie1958]

And your fantasy of this changing, is just that. You'd have amend the Constitution and it ain't happen'.

First there are no exceptions to the brats of illegal criminals getting birthright citizenship, andnow there has never been a Constitutional Amendment, 'why them thar things are just impossible, I say IMPOSSIBLE to ever pass.' That is about the sum of your stupid claims on this thread.

Are you tired of embarrassing yourself yet? OF course not! because you are an ideological partisan hack and you cant tell the difference between your fantasy system of made up bullshit and the Reality that surrounds you.

YES, this will get fixed and your stupid shit ideology of communism,l hate America firstism and sexual perversion is going to get thrown on the shit pile of history, idiot, and Americans on Main Street will retake control of this country and flush you libtards like should have happened decades ago..

Got that?

And the case in question doesn't say that, not even close. Unlike you I've read the ******* thing.

Lol, I've read it too, jack ass.

You have already demonstrated that you are a ******* delusional hackl, so I see no point in piling on any more at this time, loser.

 

[JimBowie1958]

nobody takes the claim that children born to illegal aliens aren't citizens seriously, and nobody of consequence takes those making that claim seriously

I really cant tell if you are a deluded fool, a consummate liar or a blithering idiot.

Can you help me with this, jack ass, and give me a hint?

Thanks, much appreciated.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is no "birthright" citizenship. The "Original intent" of the 14th amendment was to make slaves and their children citizens. Not illegal aliens.

Considering that at the time the 14th Amendment was written and ratified (1868) there was no need to establish birthright citizenship as a policy. Immigrants to the US during that period were eager to become US citizens, to assimilate and through their naturalization, establish themselves and their children thereafter as legal, legitimate citizens of their chosen nation. Illegal, criminal invaders were certainly not the norm, nor was the effort to spawn on US soil in order to establish a beachhead and an anchor to claim all types of privileges reserved for legal immigrants.
Of course, in the 1860's, there were no free government give-away programs and everyone immigrating to the US fully expected to work, and work hard, in order to have their piece of the American Dream.

 

[ogibillm]

nobody takes the claim that children born to illegal aliens aren't citizens seriously, and nobody of consequence takes those making that claim seriously

I really cant tell if you are a deluded fool, a consummate liar or a blithering idiot.

Can you help me with this, jack ass, and give me a hint?

Thanks, much appreciated.

i'm none of those things. i have the ability to read the plain language in the 14th amendment. you jackasses pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does are the delusional ones.

and the saddest part is you don't see it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Of course, in the 1860's, there were no free government give-away programs and everyone immigrating to the US fully expected to work, and work hard, in order to have their piece of the American Dream.

That's the big difference between then and now. People say america is a nation of immigrants but 200 years ago we were NOT a welfare state. We are now and there are literally billions of people in this world who want to come here and just go on welfare.

 

[Skylar]

"A federal judge signed an order on Friday that denied a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by citizens of Mexico and several Central American nations claiming entitlement to birth certificates for their children born in the United States. They sued the Vital Statistics Unit of the Texas Department of State Health Services saying the agency denied them the certificates because they did not possess the required identification.

"As reported by Breitbart Texas in July, the parent plaintiffs of the 23 children claimed that the state of Texas violated their children’s rights because the Fourteenth Amendment provides that any child born on U.S. soil is an American citizen as well as a citizen of the state where they reside. "

You may want to actually check the ruling. This from your own source:

The federal court judge concluded in the order on Friday that the plaintiffs have established, at a minimum, that deprivation of a birth certificate results in deprivations of the rights and benefits which inure to them as citizens, as well as deprivations of their right to free exercise of religion by way of baptism, and their right to travel; however, the Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

The judge found that the illegal immigrant “Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate for a Texas-born child presents grave difficulties to a parent seeking to obtain public assistance in providing that child food, shelter and medical care. In addition, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate makes it impossible for at least some parents to have a child baptized.” The Court opined, “The Court thus finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff children and parents to meet the first element necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.”

Illegal Aliens Lose Battle in Birth Certificate Lawsuit Against Texas

The court is clearly siding with the kids and their families. But as the court themselves said, an injunction is the exception, not the rule.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The federal court judge concluded in the order on Friday that the plaintiffs have established, at a minimum, that deprivation of a birth certificate results in deprivations of the rights and benefits which inure to them as citizens, as well as deprivations of their right to free exercise of religion by way of baptism, and their right to travel; however, the Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

The judge found that the illegal immigrant “Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate for a Texas-born child presents grave difficulties to a parent seeking to obtain public assistance in providing that child food, shelter and medical care. In addition, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate makes it impossible for at least some parents to have a child baptized.” The Court opined, “The Court thus finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff children and parents to meet the first element necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.”

Illegal Aliens Lose Battle in Birth Certificate Lawsuit Against Texas

The court is clearly siding with the kids and their families. But as the court themselves said, an injunction is the exception, not the rule.

Skylar, "The court is clearly siding with the kids and their families. But as the court themselves said, an injunction is the exception, not the rule."

I agree that they are empahizing with the illegal families, but that is not the same thing as indicating that they have legal grounds, otherwise an injunction should have been issued to prevent more damage as they let the court system work its way through.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
i'm none of those things. i have the ability to read the plain language in the 14th amendment. you jackasses pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does are the delusional ones.

and the saddest part is you don't see it.

Lol, so you dont think any experts think there is no birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegals?

Lol, thats your story and you're sticking with it?

 

[Skylar]

The federal court judge concluded in the order on Friday that the plaintiffs have established, at a minimum, that deprivation of a birth certificate results in deprivations of the rights and benefits which inure to them as citizens, as well as deprivations of their right to free exercise of religion by way of baptism, and their right to travel; however, the Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

The judge found that the illegal immigrant “Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate for a Texas-born child presents grave difficulties to a parent seeking to obtain public assistance in providing that child food, shelter and medical care. In addition, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate makes it impossible for at least some parents to have a child baptized.” The Court opined, “The Court thus finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff children and parents to meet the first element necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.”

Illegal Aliens Lose Battle in Birth Certificate Lawsuit Against Texas

The court is clearly siding with the kids and their families. But as the court themselves said, an injunction is the exception, not the rule.

Skylar, "The court is clearly siding with the kids and their families. But as the court themselves said, an injunction is the exception, not the rule."

I agree that they are empahizing with the illegal families, but that is not the same thing as indicating that they have legal grounds, otherwise an injunction should have been issued to prevent more damage as they let the court system work its way through.

More than mere empathy, they're finding that the families have demonstrated the deprivation of right and benefits which are insured these kids as citizens, deprived them of their right to travel, religion, and most importantly.....the substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff's children.

That's an uphill battle for Texas to fight.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More than mere empathy, they're finding that the families have demonstrated the deprivation of right and benefits which are insured these kids as citizens, deprived them of their right to travel, religion, and most importantly.....the substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff's children.

That's an uphill battle for Texas to fight.

If the court was siding with the ilelgal families legally, then an injunction would have been issued to prevnt additional ongoing damage to the plaintifs while the courts settle thematter.

It is plainly a setback for the illegals, despite the recognised damage being done to those families. I dont grok your reasons for thinking the empathy means anything other than that the judge has a heart.

 

[Skylar]

More than mere empathy, they're finding that the families have demonstrated the deprivation of right and benefits which are insured these kids as citizens, deprived them of their right to travel, religion, and most importantly.....the substantial threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff's children.

That's an uphill battle for Texas to fight.

If the court was siding with the ilelgal families legally, then an injunction would have been issued to prevnt additional ongoing damage to the plaintifs while the courts settle thematter.

As the court put it, injunctions are an extreme measure and the exception rather than the rule. An injunction certainly demonstrates a plaintiff's case is stronger. But the lack of it doesn't indicate that a plantiff's case is weak.

Especially with the kind of affirmation the courts gave the plaintiff's in terms of the legal standards of evidence they had already met.

 

[Syriusly]

Well since everyone born in the United States- born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is at birth- a citizen- it has everything to do with birthright citizenship, foul mouthed Jimmie.

Bullshit, you lying ****. Location within the jurisdiction at birth is only one of several conditions that Wong Kim Ark gives.

Another is that the parents cannot be diplomatic staff of a foreign government or its ambassador. Another is that the parents be here legally and with the permission of the US government.

You are just so ******* stupid, you cant help yourself, can you?

Ah wee Jimmie- you do get more foul mouthed as you realize your house of cards is being knocked down.

Wong Kim Ark requires no 'conditions'- Wong Kim Ark interprets the Constitution.

And Wong Kim Ark spells out jurisdiction specifically wee Jimmie

Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Justice Gray concluded that:

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark points you lie about by omission:
In section VI
"Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here;....

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

Legal domicile includes the permission of the US government.
See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

And you lie by omission by ignoring what the Justices said in Wong Kim Ark- and in Plyler v. Davis


All persons 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.

And of course Wong Kim Ark rejects your argument

In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Justice Gray concluded that:

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Mommy doesn't have to be here legally for you to be a citizen at birth.

No exceptions?

roflmao

I think I understand WKA better than you do as it goes into detail regarding the history in England of birthright subjects, not citizens and then extends onward, inaccurately, IMO,.

You have shown no evidence that you have any accurate understanding of Wong Kim Ark.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no "birthright" citizenship. The "Original intent" of the 14th amendment was to make slaves and their children citizens. Not illegal aliens.

Considering that at the time the 14th Amendment was written and ratified (1868) there was no need to establish birthright citizenship as a policy. Immigrants to the US during that period were eager to become US citizens, to assimilate and through their naturalization, establish themselves and their children thereafter as legal, legitimate citizens of their chosen nation. Illegal, criminal invaders were certainly not the norm, nor was the effort to spawn on US soil in order to establish a beachhead and an anchor to claim all types of privileges reserved for legal immigrants..

And?

So you think that if circumstances change- you can just ignore the Constitution?

The language of the 14th Amendment is very explicit. You can't just ignore it.

 

[ogibillm]

[
i'm none of those things. i have the ability to read the plain language in the 14th amendment. you jackasses pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does are the delusional ones.

and the saddest part is you don't see it.

Lol, so you dont think any experts think there is no birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegals?

Lol, thats your story and you're sticking with it?

Right. There are no reputable legal minds that believe the 14th amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship

 

[Syriusly]

[
i'm none of those things. i have the ability to read the plain language in the 14th amendment. you jackasses pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does are the delusional ones.

and the saddest part is you don't see it.

Lol, so you dont think any experts think there is no birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegals?

Lol, thats your story and you're sticking with it?

Right. There are no reputable legal minds that believe the 14th amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court actually presumes that without question

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:


By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[the_human_being]

Texas strikes again. Texas has just stopped Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. I LOVE TEXANS!!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is no "birthright" citizenship. The "Original intent" of the 14th amendment was to make slaves and their children citizens. Not illegal aliens.

Considering that at the time the 14th Amendment was written and ratified (1868) there was no need to establish birthright citizenship as a policy. Immigrants to the US during that period were eager to become US citizens, to assimilate and through their naturalization, establish themselves and their children thereafter as legal, legitimate citizens of their chosen nation. Illegal, criminal invaders were certainly not the norm, nor was the effort to spawn on US soil in order to establish a beachhead and an anchor to claim all types of privileges reserved for legal immigrants..

And?

So you think that if circumstances change- you can just ignore the Constitution?

The language of the 14th Amendment is very explicit. You can't just ignore it.

Yes, while explicit, it does not take into account the phenomenal increase in "Americans" born here for no other purpose than collecting public welfare, and of course, we can certainly not let those infant "Americans'" families to want for anything. Send the who pack back to their country of origin. When the "American" reaches majority, commonly 18 years of age in this country, then they can certainly choose to come back...no questions asked, and apply like any other citizen to have their family admitted, as well. For the illegal, law-breaking progenitors of such new "Americans", nothing.

 

[ogibillm]

Texas strikes again. Texas has just stopped Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. I LOVE TEXANS!!!

that'll just mean more money texas will spend fighting a legal battle they can't win.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is no "birthright" citizenship. The "Original intent" of the 14th amendment was to make slaves and their children citizens. Not illegal aliens.

Considering that at the time the 14th Amendment was written and ratified (1868) there was no need to establish birthright citizenship as a policy. Immigrants to the US during that period were eager to become US citizens, to assimilate and through their naturalization, establish themselves and their children thereafter as legal, legitimate citizens of their chosen nation. Illegal, criminal invaders were certainly not the norm, nor was the effort to spawn on US soil in order to establish a beachhead and an anchor to claim all types of privileges reserved for legal immigrants..

And?

So you think that if circumstances change- you can just ignore the Constitution?

The language of the 14th Amendment is very explicit. You can't just ignore it.

I think we need to completely eliminate government welfare. If no-profits, churches or other entities wish to subsidize such criminality, well...that's their business. But government needs to get out of the business of supporting those who are unwilling to support themselves.