Judge blocks Trumps EO to end birthright citizenship

[BrokeLoser]

Thank you. So much for trump's attempt to change the constitution.

Nobody aims to “change” the Constitution, we simply need it to be properly interpreted and enforced.

No one in the right mind would vote for that. Too many great Americans are / were birthright citizens.

America’s most coveted, most valuable offering is a citizenship, citizenship never should have been something that could be stolen by criminals who break into our nation against the will of the people. Nobody even half sane believes the Framers intended for such to be a possibility.

That would be a travesty on principle alone.

Proper application of the law is never a travesty for a nation of law and order.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS has no authority to rewrite the constitution. THINK

You want it to rewrite the Constitution.

It will be interpreted. Nothing will change.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The Wong interpretation 14th has not been seriously challenged since Wong. Then again, we've never let 14 million illegals into the country during a single administration.

Are you saying two Wongs don't make a right?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There are no 14 million illegal aliens newly here in the last 4 years.

 

[Stann]

Nobody aims to “change” the Constitution, we simply need it to be properly interpreted and enforced.

America’s most coveted, most valuable offering is a citizenship, citizenship never should have been something that could be stolen by criminals who break into our nation against the will of the people. Nobody even half sane believes the Framers intended for such to be a possibility.

Proper application of the law is never a travesty for a nation of law and order.

I would agree with you in special cases. That's why every case needs to be decided by an immigration court on the day they arrive in the country. Changing a good law because of current hatred towards all immigrants is not good for anyone , US and /or future Americans.

 

[Hollie]

Haha, it’s a clearly you that does not understand if you think the president has the right to take away a constitutional right via executive order. That’s laughable

Haha. Birthright citizenship is clearly not a constitutional right. Neither is birth tourism. That’s why Trump’s EO will be going to the USSC.

 

[Stann]

Then the judge was paid to do so. the 14A says those born in america AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF are citizens. Birthright citizenship violates the 14A.

That's totally twisted. That's what hatred does to person's values , corrupts them completely.

 

[Slade3200]

Haha. Birthright citizenship is clearly not a constitutional right. Neither is birth tourism. That’s why Trump’s EO will be going to the USSC.

It clearly is and has been to SCOTUS where they ruled that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right

 

[Hollie]

It clearly is and has been to SCOTUS where they ruled that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right

And rulings by earlier SCOTUS decisions can be reinterpreted.

 

[Robert W]

And rulings by earlier SCOTUS decisions can be reinterpreted.

Like Roe v wade was ran out of town.

Honestly, all that was about birthright is the parents were not citizens so Democrats divided up the family so parents got run back over the border.

 

[WEATHER53]

Speaking of follies of interference, how is Jackshit Smith these days???

 

[Contumacious]

Haha. Birthright citizenship is clearly not a constitutional right. Neither is birth tourism. That’s why Trump’s EO will be going to the USSC.

Sadly, the binding precedent states the opposite

"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 domicil 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"

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

But CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, and. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented

The dissenters are historically correct



".....To be "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.


Now I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by it system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country....."

Ninth Circuit judges must follow the binding precedent but SCOTUS can reverse the Judgment based on the Dissenters' reasoning

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And rulings by earlier SCOTUS decisions can be reinterpreted.

A very minimal 'perhaps'

 

[WEATHER53]

Sadly, the binding precedent states the opposite

"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 domicil 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"

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

But CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, and. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented

The dissenters are historically correct



".....To be "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.


Now I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by it system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country....."

Ninth Circuit judges must follow the binding precedent but SCOTUS can reverse the Judgment based on the Dissenters'

“Permanent domicile and residence” is referring to legally permitted here in USA.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

“Permanent domicile and residence” is referring to legally permitted here in USA.

That is not what SCOTUS will consider as important.

 

[Contumacious]

“Permanent domicile and residence” is referring to legally permitted here in USA.

True , but having a legal residence does not mean that the indicidual is a US citizen.

 

[Stann]

True , but having a legal residence does not mean that the indicidual is a US citizen.

Correct , a good friend of mine has a permanent green card. He doesn't want to pursue citizenship. Especially in today's political climate.

 

[Stann]

And rulings by earlier SCOTUS decisions can be reinterpreted.

Fortunately sanity usually rules and changing good laws in the Constitution rarely happen.

 

[WEATHER53]

That is not what SCOTUS will consider as important.

Glad you have a direct line to them

 

[WEATHER53]

Correct , a good friend of mine has a permanent green card. He doesn't want to pursue citizenship. Especially in today's political climate.

No good friend to most