Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

[struth]

I am glad you agree, then. Talk to johnwk.

People, including that poster are free to give their opinion and views and interpret it as they wish

It’s just the courts view that matters

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wonks Wearing Wigs from the Ignorant 18th Century

That's a myth, as shown time and time again. Only the government's three-branch poison oak can tell us what it means. We can complain all we want, but we can't make them listen.

Petitions that would, with enough signatures, let us vote on laws, not just in Candy-Date pretty-personality pageants.

Like Christofascists, Constitution-bangers want to boss the majority around by self-identifying with an imaginary Higher Power.

??

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

??

How to Keep Parrots from Squawking

Netrix Law: Whenever a poster has not been supplied with an automatic Reply by the owners of his mind, he must pretend he doesn't understand an independent-minded post.

 

[johnwk]

People, including that poster are free to give their opinion and views and interpret it as they wish

It’s just the courts view that matters

I agree with your post to the extent that nowhere have the citizens of the United States, knowingly and intentionally, added language to our Constitution to grant the sacred and most precious privilege of U.S. citizenship to the offspring of foreign nationals who have invaded our borders.

As a matter of fact, during the debates of the 39th Congress when the 14th Amendment was being debated, and when introducing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Senate on May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob Howard explicitly stated that the provision would not include:

“Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

And in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

So, for our Supreme Court to assert that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have invaded our country by the millions, are granted U.S. citizenship upon birth, would be creating an new category of U.S. citizenship without the knowing and willing consent of the American people as provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, wisely put there to resolve such political questions.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President.

For our S.C. to not do so, and omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship, would meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison.

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” _ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[struth]

I agree with your post to the extent that nowhere have the citizens of the United States, knowingly and intentionally, added language to our Constitution to grant the sacred and most precious privilege of U.S. citizenship to the offspring of foreign nationals who have invaded our borders.

As a matter of fact, during the debates of the 39th Congress when the 14th Amendment was being debated, and when introducing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Senate on May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob Howard explicitly stated that the provision would not include:

“Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

And in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

So, for our Supreme Court to assert that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have invaded our country by the millions, are granted U.S. citizenship upon birth, would be creating an new category of U.S. citizenship without the knowing and willing consent of the American people as provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, wisely put there to resolve such political questions.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President.

For our S.C. to not do so, and omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship, would meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison.

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” _ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Kids of diplomacy’s aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US cause the gage doplomactc immunity

 

[jacksonlamb]

The courts have ruled that everyone borne in the US subject to its jurisdiction, excepting children of foreign diplomats, are citizens of the US. The courts will so rule. There is no reason in logic or law to expect otherwise. Any other arguments are simply sounds blown away in the wind.

 

[johnwk]

The courts have ruled that everyone borne in the US subject to its jurisdiction, excepting children of foreign diplomats, are citizens of the US. The courts will so rule.

You forgot to provide your documentation.

The fact is, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

The Court in Wong also noted another exception at the time: children of members of Indian tribes who owed direct allegiance to their own tribal nations rather than the United States.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How to Keep Parrots from Squawking

Netrix Law: Whenever a poster has not been supplied with an automatic Reply by the owners of his mind, he must pretend he doesn't understand an independent-minded post.

It’s not that, it’s I have no idea what you are on about lol

 

[jacksonlamb]

You forgot to provide your documentation.

The fact is, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

You are simply unhappy that no one takes your argumentation seriously, other than a few like you.

That's fine, for you are so entitled, yet it will be the same.

Make a bet. A $1000 to our favorite charity and six month absence from the board?

 

[johnwk]

You are simply unhappy that no one takes your argumentation seriously,

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

The Court in Wong also noted another exception at the time: children of members of Indian tribes who owed direct allegiance to their own tribal nations rather than the United States.

The fact is, the majority opinion in Wong, authored by Justice Gray, confirmed the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was intended to maintain common law exceptions in granting citizenship. These specific groups are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in the sense required for birthright citizenship:

• Foreign Diplomats: Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.
• Hostile Forces: Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.
• Foreign Sovereigns: Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.
• Foreign Public Ships: Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

So, as it turns out, Justice Gray has provided some of my "arguments" for me, and it is you who seems to be unhappy.

 

[jacksonlamb]

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

The Court in Wong also noted another exception at the time: children of members of Indian tribes who owed direct allegiance to their own tribal nations rather than the United States.

The fact is, the majority opinion in Wong, authored by Justice Gray, confirmed the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was intended to maintain common law exceptions in granting citizenship. These specific groups are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in the sense required for birthright citizenship:

• Foreign Diplomats: Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.
• Hostile Forces: Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.
• Foreign Sovereigns: Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.
• Foreign Public Ships: Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

So, as it turns out, Justice Gray has provided some of my "arguments" for me, and it is you who seems to be unhappy.

No, John, no. You were wrong then and are now. Let's make a bet.

 

[johnwk]

No, John, no. You were wrong then and are now. Let's make a bet.

So now you're saying Justice Gray was wrong?

 

[jacksonlamb]

So now you're saying Justice Gray was wrong?

You are like the 5th grader who keeps saying, "uh uh", when shown you are wrong. So you will have to wait for the ruling.

If the court rules status quo, you will then say the court "is wrong."

 

[johnwk]

You are like the 5th grader who keeps saying, "uh uh", when shown you are wrong. So you will have to wait for the ruling.

If the court rules status quo, you will then say the court "is wrong."

Was Justice Gray wrong?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Was Justice Gray wrong?

Does not matter then, nor now. SCOTUS will say 'no' to your ilk.

 

[johnwk]

Does not matter then, nor now. SCOTUS will say 'no' to your ilk.

The "ilk" you are talking about are the six Supreme Court Justices who joined in the majority opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case:

Horace Gray (Author of the majority opinion)
David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr.
Edward Douglass White
Rufus W. Peckham

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree with your post to the extent that nowhere have the citizens of the United States, knowingly and intentionally, added language to our Constitution to grant the sacred and most precious privilege of U.S. citizenship to the offspring of foreign nationals who have invaded our borders.

As a matter of fact, during the debates of the 39th Congress when the 14th Amendment was being debated, and when introducing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Senate on May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob Howard explicitly stated that the provision would not include:

“Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

And in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

So, for our Supreme Court to assert that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have invaded our country by the millions, are granted U.S. citizenship upon birth, would be creating an new category of U.S. citizenship without the knowing and willing consent of the American people as provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, wisely put there to resolve such political questions.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President.

For our S.C. to not do so, and omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship, would meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison.

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” _ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

The biggest problem with your argument is that:

the "who". It says "foreigner and aliens, WHO belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

So, those foreigners and aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign minsters will not get citizenship. Everyone else who is not a "foreigner or alien who belongs to the families of ambassadors and foreign minsters" WILL get citizenship.

Howard was talking about the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:", so in Wong Kim Ark those who are enemies of the US are not granted citizenship.

You'd need to provide evidence that these people are "enemies" of the US.
The US hasn't declared war on anyone since WW2. You could say if the US is fighting someone, like Iran, that an Iranian who is born as an enemy now doesn't have that citizenship. But once the citizenship is given, it's given, so it doesn't apply to all those with citizenship already.

You're saying that the Supreme Court must decide based on how Congress and the President see things. I'm quite sure they don't. The President's job is to ENFORCE laws. Not interpret them. The Supreme Court interprets, the president should look at the interpretation. Congress's job is to write the laws.

There are a few powers that are outside of this, but not many. And they don't come into play in this issue.

 

[johnwk]

The biggest problem with your argument is that:

the "who". It says "foreigner and aliens, WHO belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

So, those foreigners and aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign minsters will not get citizenship. Everyone else who is not a "foreigner or alien who belongs to the families of ambassadors and foreign minsters" WILL get citizenship.

Howard was talking about the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:", so in Wong Kim Ark those who are enemies of the US are not granted citizenship.

You'd need to provide evidence that these people are "enemies" of the US.
The US hasn't declared war on anyone since WW2. You could say if the US is fighting someone, like Iran, that an Iranian who is born as an enemy now doesn't have that citizenship. But once the citizenship is given, it's given, so it doesn't apply to all those with citizenship already.

You're saying that the Supreme Court must decide based on how Congress and the President see things. I'm quite sure they don't. The President's job is to ENFORCE laws. Not interpret them. The Supreme Court interprets, the president should look at the interpretation. Congress's job is to write the laws.

There are a few powers that are outside of this, but not many. And they don't come into play in this issue.

Justice Gray SAYS YOU ARE WRONG along with Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White and Rufus W. Peckham.

the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.


We are talking about hostile illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have indeed invaded our borders, the same way they do home invasions once in our country.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Justice Gray SAYS YOU ARE WRONG along with Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White and Rufus W. Peckham.

the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.


We are talking about hostile illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have indeed invaded our borders, the same way they do home invasions once in our country.

No, I don't think so.

Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court that said that Wong Kim Ark had US citizenship.

He said:
"the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong"

But you are right, foreign diplomats and hostile forces. What is a "hostile force"? Who is a "hostile force" for the US government?

United States foreign adversaries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US has "foreign adversaries", but not "hostile forces".

But China is on that list. But Trump gave a "gold card" to a Chinese dude, Jeffery Chao.

So, it's a bit difficult to say that Chinese people shouldn't get Green Cards (someone I worked with got his Chinese wife a Green Card this year, and got one of his two kids an American passport this year too) because Trump literally gave this "gold card" to a "foreign adversary".

 

[johnwk]

No, I don't think so.

Well, your thinking is in error.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

The Court in Wong also noted another exception at the time: children of members of Indian tribes who owed direct allegiance to their own tribal nations rather than the United States.

The fact is, the majority opinion in Wong, authored by Justice Gray, confirmed the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was intended to maintain common law exceptions in granting citizenship. These specific groups are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in the sense required for birthright citizenship:

• Foreign Diplomats: Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.
• Hostile Forces: Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.
• Foreign Sovereigns: Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.
• Foreign Public Ships: Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

So, as it turns out, Justice Gray has provided some of the same arguments I use.

The question is, is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?