Judge Boardman ignored facts when blocking Trump’s E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

John Edgar Slow Horses said:
You clearly do not understand the 14thA.
Click to expand...
According to you. Unlike you I present documented facts.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?
 
Dorkman mistakenly makes equal the immediate citizenry of a child born on us soil to Americans to that of a child born of trespassing criminals. It’s exactly the same as “all cats have whiskers so all whiskered animals are cats”
Fallacy of logic thus no thinking. Pure sentiment
 
You can offer your opinions all you want, but they have no lega/constitutional grounding.

You will get three votes at the most: Thomas, Alito, and (maybe) Kavanaugh.
 
johnwk said:
According to you. Unlike you I present documented facts.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?
Click to expand...
You offer unsubstantiated opinions with no legal grounding.
 
John Edgar Slow Horses said:
You offer unsubstantiated opinions with no legal grounding.
Click to expand...
You always accuse others of what you are guilty of.


CONFIRMATION: Offspring born on American soil to foreign nationals are not U.S. citizens upon birth



One thing we have learned in the thread, a child born to a subject of a foreign country _ which obviously includes an illegal entrant foreign national _ while on American soil is not a United States citizen upon birth.


Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington, November 28, 1885.
No. 26.]

Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

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 in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,

T. F. BAYARD. (SOURCE)
 
Last edited:
johnwk said:
You always accuse others of what you are guilty of.


CONFIRMATION: Offspring born on American soil to foreign nationals are not U.S. citizens upon birth



One thing we have learned in the thread, a child born to a subject of a foreign country _ which obviously includes an illegal entrant foreign national _ while on American soil is not a United States citizen upon birth.


Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington, November 28, 1885.
No. 26.]

Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

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 in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,

T. F. BAYARD. (SOURCE)
Click to expand...
johnwk, give us the evidence or shut up. Scouts will uphold Wong by 7-2 to 6-3.
 
John Edgar Slow Horses said:
johnwk, give us the evidence or shut up. Scouts will uphold Wong by 7-2 to 6-3.
Click to expand...



Judge Boardman is engaging in misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.


Judge Boardman in blocking Trump’s Executive Order relies on three cases (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1942); and GEE FOOK SING v. UNITED STATES, (1892)). In neither of those cases was the United States Supreme Court called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

But in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893), the court noted the Naturalization Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power ... [t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8, and went on to observe that the Naturalization Clause reflects the fundamental proposition, inherent in sovereignty, that “[e]very society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members.”

Also note that under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress, not our Supreme Court, is authorized to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation" and that includes granting birthright citizenship to specifically identified groups as it did under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and earlier by CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes which set specific conditions to be met to be granted United States citizenship. . .( at the above link enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3.

That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

Additionally, our United States Supreme Court noted in 1872 in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36: 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."

A few years after the above mentioned case, Richard Greisser born on American soil, whose father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .” SOURCE



So, when Judge Boardman asserts "We need not till the same ground more than a century later..." she blatantly exhibits an intentional defiance and negligence to abide by a fundamental duty stated by our Supreme Court: The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 
Judge Boardman is uphold the law in this country, which is only Justice not silly conspiracy theories.

Your speech is boarding of liability.
 
johnwk said:
Judge Boardman is engaging in misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.


Judge Boardman in blocking Trump’s Executive Order relies on three cases (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1942); and GEE FOOK SING v. UNITED STATES, (1892)). In neither of those cases was the United States Supreme Court called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

But in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893), the court noted the Naturalization Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power ... [t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8, and went on to observe that the Naturalization Clause reflects the fundamental proposition, inherent in sovereignty, that “[e]very society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members.”

Also note that under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress, not our Supreme Court, is authorized to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation" and that includes granting birthright citizenship to specifically identified groups as it did under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and earlier by CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes which set specific conditions to be met to be granted United States citizenship. . .( at the above link enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3.

That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

Additionally, our United States Supreme Court noted in 1872 in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36: 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."

A few years after the above mentioned case, Richard Greisser born on American soil, whose father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .” SOURCE



So, when Judge Boardman asserts "We need not till the same ground more than a century later..." she blatantly exhibits an intentional defiance and negligence to abide by a fundamental duty stated by our Supreme Court: The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Click to expand...
She’s saying that since babies born here from Americans are born here then anybody born here is a citizen because they are born here . It’s the all cats have whiskers so all whiskered things are cats,
 
WEATHER53 said:
She’s saying that since babies born here from Americans are born here then anybody born here is a citizen because they are born here . It’s the all cats have whiskers so all whiskered things are cats,
Click to expand...
Cats are not citizens.
 
WEATHER53 said:
She’s saying that since babies born here from Americans are born here then anybody born here is a citizen because they are born here . It’s the all cats have whiskers so all whiskered things are cats,
Click to expand...
Cats are not citizens.
 
John Edgar Slow Horses said:
Judge Boardman is somebody in the overall discussion. You have your opinion and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Well, I laid out the very specifics HERE why Boardman is either lying, or is incompetent to be a federal judge when she wrote:

It is neither the “law”, nor “tradition” that “. . . virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.” It is by existing unwritten federal “policy”, but not by the law or tradition as I have demonstrated.

Judge Boardman apparently disagrees with Trump changing existing federal public policy and has used her office of public trust to obstruct changing public policy which the people approved of when electing Trump. Therefore, Boardman is also subjugating the very purpose of our elections, which are designed to accommodate for change by consent of the people and their vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Suspected Ebola exposure at NYC urgent care as hazmat crews on scene: sources

< Previous Thread

Trump administration firings hit key office handling bird flu response

Next Thread >

Similar threads

J
When judges meddle with setting public policy, they act in defiance of our Constitution
2 3
Replies
58
Views
635
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses
J
There is no mystery concerning constitutionally authorized citizenship in the United States. Anchor babies are not U.S. Citizens.
2
Replies
22
Views
667
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses
J
A myth is born. Plyler v. Doe ruled citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
2K
johnwk
J
DonGlock26
NYT: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship
2
Replies
27
Views
658
my2¢
my2¢
Delldude
The case for birthright citizenship.
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
1K
TroglocratsRdumb
TroglocratsRdumb

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom