Ketanji Brown Jackson Claims Stealing a Wallet in Japan Makes You ‘Locally Owe Allegiance’ in Bizarre Birthright Citiz

[Concerned American]

Again, the Plantiff in this case has legal asylum status fleeing Honduras. Do you really want to make the argument that she is under Honduran jurisdiction? That is in violation of international treaties and yet that is the argument the government is attempting to make.

Her asylum should have been applied for in the first country that she came to which would be Guatemala. She traversed at least two countries before coming into the US ILLEGALLY. Try again. You're argument falls on its face even if we accepted the asylum angle. She has NOT BEEN GRANTED asylum. End of discussion.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

The following is an entry concerning the first section of Amendment 14 of the Constitution as found in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

 

[80zephyr]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? We are not talking about "that person", we are talking about a child born to that person. Do try to keep up.

You are the one claiming that being under the jurisdiction makes someone a citizen. It doesn't.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm glad Crockett is a has-been (should be never-was). That's another racist piece of garbage that was elevated far beyond anywhere she deserved by her skin color.

While I do not share you opinion on the color of her skin, as a person's ethnic heritage just doesn't matter to me. . .

. . . I do agree, she was a terrible example for our black Americans in the way she conducted herself in diametric opposition to what our great black leaders have always held to be true about the wonderful people of this nation, regardless of the color of their skin.

 

[MarathonMike]

.

Nothing it does has anything to do with law. It's just a political activist.

.

I mean I got to tell you. Jumping on this damn beat Jackson bandwagon clearly reflects how ignorant you people are. Ignorant to the case, ignorant to the argument, ignorant of the law. I mean I am seeing it everywhere, not just that damn Gateway pundit. Every right wing nut job with a mouthpiece is crowing about it, and like I said, just screaming out ignorance.

The argument the administration is attempting to make is that children born to non-citizens are not citizens because their PARENTS owe an allegiance to another country. That flies in the face of everything. As Sotomayer quickly pointed out, now citizenship would be dependent on the status of the parent, not the child. That is backwards and not the way it has worked since before the American Revolution. Not the way it worked in common English law for five hundred ******* YEARS.

And the whole jurisdiction problem cannot be ignored. Jackson was right to point it out, although Sotomayer did first. She corrected the administrations attorney, Japan does not have jurisdiction over a Japanese citizen tourist while they are on American soil. That defeats the administration's entire argument.

To call Ms. Brown a lightweight would be giving her credit. She is no way Supreme Court caliber. Her and Kamala were DEI hires by Biden.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

We are seeing an object lesson in why DIE is a disservice to thinking humans. The USSC oral arguments on the absurdity of birthright citizenship allowed the USSC DIE hire, Brown, to positively identify the reasons why DIE is a policy that rewards incompetence

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Claims Stealing a Wallet in Japan Makes You 'Locally Owe Allegiance' in Bizarre Birthright Citizenship Argument | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

During oral arguments in the landmark case tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, Jackson attempted to redefine the concept of “allegiance” under the 14th Amendment, using a hypothetical crime committed abroad.

If I was black I would be embarrassed by that retard cuz she is a f****** retard


If You're stealing a wallet in Japan that will get you 10 years ,a hefty fine and if you're a foreigner instantly deported once your sentence is over

She is a f****** idiot a f****** moron a f****** monkey would make a better Justice ...she got a lower iq than a retarded monkey.... f****** monkeys

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

And how come all of a sudden unborn babies have rights
I thought they were just blobs

 

[Winston]

You are the one claiming that being under the jurisdiction makes someone a citizen. It doesn't.

No one is claiming jurisdiction makes someone a citizen. But, if one is here, under our jurisdiction, and they have a child, that child IS a citizen.

 

[Winston]

If I was black I would be embarrassed by that retard cuz she is a f****** retard


If You're stealing a wallet in Japan that will get you 10 years ,a hefty fine and if you're a foreigner instantly deported once your sentence is over

She is a f****** idiot a f****** moron a f****** monkey would make a better Justice ...she got a lower iq than a retarded monkey.... f****** monkeys

You are retarded. How the **** can Japan arrest you, give you a hefty fine, and incarcerate you when THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION. That is the argument the government is attempting to make, that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. Maybe the confusion is with the definition of 'jurisdiction".

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts,

JURISDICTION

You see any flipping thing about allegiance in there? Does it even say anything about the damn individual? No, it is about the courts, it is about applying the law.

I mean let's get real here. Do you even know who the Plantiff is in this case? Have you even read EO 14160? If you don't, and if you haven't, then how could you possibly make a judgement on Brown's legal capabilities? Anyone's for that matter.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[EdwinAMartin]

We are seeing an object lesson in why DIE is a disservice to thinking humans. The USSC oral arguments on the absurdity of birthright citizenship allowed the USSC DIE hire, Brown, to positively identify the reasons why DIE is a policy that rewards incompetence

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Claims Stealing a Wallet in Japan Makes You 'Locally Owe Allegiance' in Bizarre Birthright Citizenship Argument | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

During oral arguments in the landmark case tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, Jackson attempted to redefine the concept of “allegiance” under the 14th Amendment, using a hypothetical crime committed abroad.

lol and they keep claiming DEI hires aren't socially promoted morons.

 

[80zephyr]

No one is claiming jurisdiction makes someone a citizen. But, if one is here, under our jurisdiction, and they have a child, that child IS a citizen.

Not if the amendment is read correctly. Not logically or rationally either.

 

[80zephyr]

You are retarded. How the **** can Japan arrest you, give you a hefty fine, and incarcerate you when THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION. That is the argument the government is attempting to make, that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. Maybe the confusion is with the definition of 'jurisdiction".

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts,

JURISDICTION

You see any flipping thing about allegiance in there? Does it even say anything about the damn individual? No, it is about the courts, it is about applying the law.

I mean let's get real here. Do you even know who the Plantiff is in this case? Have you even read EO 14160? If you don't, and if you haven't, then how could you possibly make a judgement on Brown's legal capabilities? Anyone's for that matter.

OMG, does enforcing the law when a tourist visits make him a citizen?

Wow.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

OMG, does enforcing the law when a tourist visits make him a citizen?

Wow.

Yep, and they make blithering idiots judges. That is why we're doomed as a country if these vermin get back in power.

 

[Winston]

Not if the amendment is read correctly. Not logically or rationally either.

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.

There it is. How do we read it correctly? I mean seriously. It appears everything hinges on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And it was really comical watching the government's attorney twist himself up like a damn pretzel attempting to dance around that whole jurisdiction thing. Roberts tried to give the poor guy some help. "I don't think you want to use Wong Kim Ark". But he continued to insist that the government does not wish to overturn Wong Kim Ark. Yet the government's position would require that decision to be overturned.

There is a difference between Wong Kim Ark's parents and both Susan and Barbara. Susan and Barbara are both here legally. Wong Kim Ark's parents were here ILLEGALLY, could never hope to be citizens, and had moved BACK TO CHINA at the time of the case. In fact, Wong Kim Ark was detained and denied re-entry into the United States after VISITING HIS PARENTS IN CHINA, that is what initiated the case. Parent's not citizens, not here legally, no permanent domicile, and obviously with an allegiance to China, not the United States. Yet Wong Kim Ark was granted citizenship under the 14th amendment.