Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother

[Stormy Daniels]

" Social Retrograde Promoting Emotional Gluts "

* Oh Shut The Flock Up *

Non-European savages were as good as animals, and therefore were not suitable for citizenship in any way that the white man was obliged to respect.

Considering the homogeneous non " pale leo " populations globally , given historical contention for survival and imperialism , perhaps explain where " ****** " should pander to an inane accusation that it is some sort of devil of supremacy for concerning itself with its own well being and self determination .

In fact , go start you own thread rather than attempting to derail this one with a post that contributes nothing by way of addressing the topic of this thread , that illegal immigrants are not entitled to citizenship by birth according to us 14th amendment .

* Long Term Memory Loss For Ridiculous Revisionism Of History *

Europe had to contend with these fictional ishmaelism ass clowns - Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia
Europe had to contend with these fictional ishmaelism ass clowns - Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia
Africa population - 1.2922 billion - Population of Africa (2018) - Worldometers
Asia population - 4.550 billion - Population of Asia (2018) - Worldometers
Europe population - 0.7427 billion - Population of Europe (2018) - Worldometers
North America Population - 0.4362 billion - Population of Northern America (2018) - Worldometers
Latin America population - 0.6529 billion Population of Latin America and the Caribbean (2018) - Worldometers
Oceania Population - 0.04133 billion - Population of Oceania (2018) - Worldometers

Are you on mushrooms?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The constitution does not need to be changed .

The policy needs to be passed as legislation and forced into a court challenge to establish it within the legislative body of law .

It was clearly established in post #41 and post #46 of this thread that challenges before SCOTUS have thus far been insufficient to dismiss a constitutional premise that children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to an endowment of citizenship by us 14th amendment , irrespective of whether they are entitled to a protection of due process by us 5th amendment .

Really? Let's examine your post #41 first to see if that is the case.

The case of wok kim ark represents a different schema from that of illegal immigrants because the parents of wok kim ark were legal residents of the the us at the time of his birth .

First, so we're both speaking to the same case in question, the subject's true name was Wong Kim Ark with the surname Wong. And to what 'different schema' might you be referring..."immigration law" of the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1890's or the new blueprint of selective immigration emerging in the 1990's of white protestants primarily with strict limits on peoples from undesirable regions around the globe, non-white skin tones, un-American customs and religious beliefs?

A pretense of the us versus wok decision is that the parents of wok were in legal compliance with us law - whereas migrants sojourning without us legal jurisdiction are not in legal compliance with us law , hence the court would have ruled in favor of the state to deny citizenship had that been the scenario of wok .

You obviously do not understand the the facts of the case. I suggest you read the case, the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent to get a full grasp on the facts presented. The truth is BOTH situations, those of Wong AND his parents boil down to the question of legal or illegal traversing of a sovereign US border. That is the actual question and not parentage or country of origin of his progenitors. That is precisely why Wong was stopped at customs in San Francisco upon reentry to the US!

Instead of sourcing unreliable, non-authoritative Wikipedia articles to expand upon your premises built upon sand, I suggest you go directly to the prime sources. For starters, here is the link to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark so you can actually read the entire bloody case and not second, third and perhaps partisan opinions with various shadings of fact and truth. The addy for the case at LII is noted directly below in the hyperlink.
~~ United States v. Wong Kim Ark ~~

Irrespective for whether legislation could be devise and litigated through courts of contention , the us state department should establish a foreign policy to establish the citizenship status of children born on us soil to parents who are not technically within us jurisdiction and sojourning illegaly , be provided citizenship from the country of origin for the mother .

Where is any authority within the four corners of the Contract with the People, the Constitution, any authority for the State Dept., within the the Executive Branch, to violate the implicit Separation of Powers Doctrine by bypassing the Article I powers vested in Congress and the Article III powers vested in the Supreme Court in the decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, et al? And don't forget the absolute Constitutional guarantee note in Amendment XIV, § 1. The US is not an Authoritarian State nor has due process, mindful of Constitutional observance, been totally buried YET!

I really don't believe your knowledge base on this general topic is up to snuff and recommend getting up to speed on at least the few items I've pointed out for your review! And do something about those logical fallacies...they're so easy to pick out among the chaff and other detritus as in you opening of the OP.

Your thesis is nothing but an Existential Fallacy, and ignores the 120 year precedent of the Supreme Court landmark case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1998), which is outlined in the first paragraph of the Syllabus;

"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,

All person 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."

Whether you agree with U.S. v. Wong or not, it is the foundation for an existing portion of immigration law in this Nation as codified and incorporated at Title 8 of the US Code.

Now on to your post #46;

Plyler v. Doe decision stipulates that any individual ( per son - sic ) is entitled to due process such that schools could not have funds withheld from them without the necessary due process for having the illegal migrants removed .
A requirement to extend citizenship is a completely different civil liberty.

In Plyler v. Doe, Texas attempted to deprive a certain class of of their due process rights under Amendments V & XIV to deny that class specific benefits and was found un-Constitutional. In other words, the Texas law was discriminatory and un-Constitutional. There was no attempt or even hint to convey citizenship.
~~ Plyler v. Doe ~~

You present a straw man fallacy there arguing extending citizenship as if it were part of the example supplied by another addressing your post #41 to avoid addressing its relevance to your post there. Due process certainly does have a place at the table in any discussion involving immigration and citizenship. Sunshine is very sanitizing. Open your mind!

 

[Hossfly]

If a baby is born in another country and the mother and/or parents are American citizens the child is American. We went through that with Rubio and Cruz during the 2016 primaries. But a Mexican woman can spawn her git in Texas and the baby is an American. Fucked up system.

My son was born in the US so he’s an American citizen. But because my wife and I are Canadian, he is also a Canadian citizen. That’s because both the US and Canada have laws defining citizenship. My son is a Canadian citizen because Canadian law gives him Canadian citizenship. American law is irrelevant to whether or not Canada gives citizenship to my son.

I can understand that. My son was born in Germany and he has dual citizenship. You were legal as was my son but I can't understand why an illegal can have a baby and he is automatically a US citizen and his extended family can live like kings on free shit. That's why the amendment needs to be changed

Do you think your son deserves his German citizenship?

Absolutely. I was in the Army in Washington and my wife was not an American citizen at that time. She went to her hometown in Germany for his birth. Because of his mother he was born as a German but because of me he was also a US citizen. After he was born they came back to Washington.

No disrespect is intended. However, since you likely have no DNA test, by what right is your son an American? You may not be the actual father.

This was in 1960 and at that time you had to go through hell and high water to marry a German. Permissions all the way from your platoon leader to the Division Commander, blood tests, thorough background checks, bans and other red tape. It was a different time from today. I still have all the paperwork and it's mind boggling to read and understand that stuff. After they came back home I took the birth certificate and paper work with all translations to the courthouse and they printed an American birth certificate. He'll be 58 next Wednesday and he's still the spitting image of me.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My son was born in the US so he’s an American citizen. But because my wife and I are Canadian, he is also a Canadian citizen. That’s because both the US and Canada have laws defining citizenship. My son is a Canadian citizen because Canadian law gives him Canadian citizenship. American law is irrelevant to whether or not Canada gives citizenship to my son.

I can understand that. My son was born in Germany and he has dual citizenship. You were legal as was my son but I can't understand why an illegal can have a baby and he is automatically a US citizen and his extended family can live like kings on free shit. That's why the amendment needs to be changed

Do you think your son deserves his German citizenship?

Absolutely. I was in the Army in Washington and my wife was not an American citizen at that time. She went to her hometown in Germany for his birth. Because of his mother he was born as a German but because of me he was also a US citizen. After he was born they came back to Washington.

No disrespect is intended. However, since you likely have no DNA test, by what right is your son an American? You may not be the actual father.

This was in 1960 and at that time you had to go through hell and high water to marry a German. Permissions all the way from your platoon leader to the Division Commander, blood tests, thorough background checks, bans and other red tape. It was a different time from today. I still have all the paperwork and it's mind boggling to read and understand that stuff. After they came back home I took the birth certificate and paper work with all translations to the courthouse and they printed an American birth certificate. He'll be 58 next Wednesday and he's still the spitting image of me.

Like I said, we would only have your word that you are the father. Maybe we can get Maury Povich on the case!

Likewise, I have a 31 year old son that I can never deny.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dealing With A Reality Of Poor Debate "

* Comedy Of Words Without Credible Meaning *

You obviously do not understand the the facts of the case. I suggest you read the case, the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent to get a full grasp on the facts presented. The truth is BOTH situations, those of Wong AND his parents boil down to the question of legal or illegal traversing of a sovereign US border. That is the actual question and not parentage or country of origin of his progenitors. That is precisely why Wong was stopped at customs in San Francisco upon reentry to the US!

The technical requirement for eligibility of us citizenship according to us 14th amendment is that the migrants be within us jurisdiction , which means that children born in the us to illegal sojourners are not eligible for us citizenship .

You are free to present evidence from the chinese exclusion act that children born in the us to chinese legal migrants could not become citizens .

Clearly , there are stipulations for citizenship and " within its jurisdiction " is the only one relevant in this thread and the only one relevant in the wok decision :
"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,

Otherwise , it is puzzling how anyone with basic common sense could not understand that the child of wok was born in the us when they were legal migrants at the time ; hence the wok parents were within us jurisdiction and their child was eligible for citizenship .

None of that has anything to do with whether wok was prohibited from re-entry to the us after having exited the country .

The contemporary degenerates proffer that a history of racialism is abhorrent and that it justifies children born in the us to illegal immigrants be entitled to citizenship ; sew ; try applying your Plyler v. Doe conclusion to that stupidity .

* Fervent Research Preparation *

Instead of sourcing unreliable, non-authoritative Wikipedia articles to expand upon your premises built upon sand, I suggest you go directly to the prime sources. For starters, here is the link to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark so you can actually read the entire bloody case and not second, third and perhaps partisan opinions with various shadings of fact and truth. The addy for the case at LII is noted directly below in the hyperlink.~~ United States v. Wong Kim Ark ~~
...
I really don't believe your knowledge base on this general topic is up to snuff and recommend getting up to speed on at least the few items I've pointed out for your review! And do something about those logical fallacies...they're so easy to pick out among the chaff and other detritus as in you opening of the OP.

Your link is nothing new to me and wikipedia surmises many factual issues quite well .

Your pretentious , absurd and incoherent attempt to dispatch the core issue of this thread and its obvious implications have thus far kept me grinning at its ineptitude .

My suggestion is that if uncertain about a topic , remain inquisitive , rather than accusative and lofting flatulent diminutive fluff .

* Wanting Too Hard To Be A Valid Critic *

Now on to your post #46;
...
There was no attempt or even hint to convey citizenship.
~~ Plyler v. Doe ~~
You present a straw man fallacy there arguing extending citizenship as if it were part of the example supplied by another addressing your post #41 to avoid addressing its relevance to your post there....

The moniker Toro brought up that issue in post #44 as a misguided talking point for entitling children of " illegal immigrants " to citizenship because " equal protection " of due process is somehow extrapolated to " equal endowment " including citizenship .

My response to the assertion by Toro was this " A requirement to extend citizenship is a completely different civil liberty . " , indicating exactly your assay .

* Obnoxious Tripe Spies Positing Self Defense *

First, so we're both speaking to the same case in question, the subject's true name was Wong Kim Ark with the surname Wong. And to what 'different schema' might you be referring..."immigration law" of the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1890's or the new blueprint of selective immigration emerging in the 1990's of white protestants primarily with strict limits on peoples from undesirable regions around the globe, non-white skin tones, un-American customs and religious beliefs?

Oh go cry in a bucket with such a pedantic recount of imperialism and pathetic intimation of naturalism from throughout history .

The chinese are not doing without , neither in land conquered nor in global representation ; and , with a bet of a million to one , their communist society is all well and happy without committing to a multicultural inclusion of pale face .

They have enough trouble fighting among their own ethnicity and clads .

The us was no longer founded on serfdom , though its austere class held fast to a libertarian ethos that devised contract agreements to maximize their own advantages for commerce .

Albeit , slavery violates non aggression principles and libertarian ethos ; delve into slavery to the americas and pay hell about its institutional origins in portugual , consequent from an invasion of spain by fictional ishmaelism sentinels .

 

[Timmy]

" Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother "

* Legislative Proposal Artifacts *

A first principle of self defense is that when a citizen travels abroad , its state of origin remains responsible for issuing a retort and for reprising any violations of its civil liberties , and such is a purpose for travel agreements .

A key element defining jurisdiction of us state , as it applies to citizenship , is identified in the second article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment and evident from the phrase " .. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction .. " , which correlates with the phrase " within its jurisdiction " in the first article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment .

Together the first principle of self defense and the two articles of within its " jurisdiction " of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment delineate a technical legal predicate that us constitution does not guarantee equal protection to foreign nationals without legal immigrant status ; and , consequently , children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to us citizenship .

** Legislative Proposal Conclusions **

One thing true of a collective state is that its citizens determine policies for accepting additional members as citizens of its collective state .

Children of individuals who are not legal immigrants are not within us jurisdiction and should be given citizenship to the country of origin for their mother .

This treatise does not digress as to whether citizenship is a protection or an endowment .


** References **

*** Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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.


* Ivory Tower Mundane City Libertarian Oligarchs Closet Key Hole Out Lets *

The oh ba ma administration maintained a public comment line for suggestions , while captain strump appears to maintain an autocratic regard that political perceptions for meritocracy from plebeians be resigned to a realm irrelevance .

Another example of limited us jurisdiction is foreign envoys who seek agreements with foreign government not to be arrested for any crime while visiting .

Will this law be retroactive to our ancestors?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Proactive Pursuits Of Future Credibility "

* Revisionist Questioning Of Moral Relativists *

Will this law be retroactive to our ancestors?

Which laws do you know to be retroactive to their inception ?

 

[Timmy]

" Proactive Pursuits Of Future Credibility "

* Revisionist Questioning Of Moral Relativists *

Will this law be retroactive to our ancestors?

Which laws do you know to be retroactive to their inception ?

Lots of them. Not everyone is grandfathered in.

My point is that a lot of people for this law may not be Americans if the law was applied to them.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Relevant Question "

* Elaboration Exceeded *

Lots of them. Not everyone is grandfathered in.
My point is that a lot of people for this law may not be Americans if the law was applied to them.

Thanks for clarification of your question .

My inquiry about retroactive should have stipulated punitive actions.

Given that the deduction follows directly from the us constitution , it might imply that retroactive removal of citizenship could end up being a potential challenge point .

At issue is not to insight unnecessary contempt ; and it would likely be asserted that the us government is in breach of a contract for retracting an agreement granting citizenship to those children born in the us , even though they were born from illegal immigrants .

At issue is to implement measures dissuasive to illegal immigration that are consistent with constitutional foundations for immigration policy , hence at issue is to implement the public policy forward of a time where judicial , legislative and executive branches of government are in consensus .

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

" Dealing With A Reality Of Poor Debate "

* Comedy Of Words Without Credible Meaning *

You obviously do not understand the the facts of the case. I suggest you read the case, the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent to get a full grasp on the facts presented. The truth is BOTH situations, those of Wong AND his parents boil down to the question of legal or illegal traversing of a sovereign US border. That is the actual question and not parentage or country of origin of his progenitors. That is precisely why Wong was stopped at customs in San Francisco upon reentry to the US!

The technical requirement for eligibility of us citizenship according to us 14th amendment is that the migrants be within us jurisdiction , which means that children born in the us to illegal sojourners are not eligible for us citizenship .

You are free to present evidence from the chinese exclusion act that children born in the us to chinese legal migrants could not become citizens .

Clearly , there are stipulations for citizenship and " within its jurisdiction " is the only one relevant in this thread and the only one relevant in the wok decision :
"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,

Otherwise , it is puzzling how anyone with basic common sense could not understand that the child of wok was born in the us when they were legal migrants at the time ; hence the wok parents were within us jurisdiction and their child was eligible for citizenship .

None of that has anything to do with whether wok was prohibited from re-entry to the us after having exited the country .

The contemporary degenerates proffer that a history of racialism is abhorrent and that it justifies children born in the us to illegal immigrants be entitled to citizenship ; sew ; try applying your Plyler v. Doe conclusion to that stupidity .

* Fervent Research Preparation *

Instead of sourcing unreliable, non-authoritative Wikipedia articles to expand upon your premises built upon sand, I suggest you go directly to the prime sources. For starters, here is the link to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark so you can actually read the entire bloody case and not second, third and perhaps partisan opinions with various shadings of fact and truth. The addy for the case at LII is noted directly below in the hyperlink.~~ United States v. Wong Kim Ark ~~
...
I really don't believe your knowledge base on this general topic is up to snuff and recommend getting up to speed on at least the few items I've pointed out for your review! And do something about those logical fallacies...they're so easy to pick out among the chaff and other detritus as in you opening of the OP.

Your link is nothing new to me and wikipedia surmises many factual issues quite well .

Your pretentious , absurd and incoherent attempt to dispatch the core issue of this thread and its obvious implications have thus far kept me grinning at its ineptitude .

My suggestion is that if uncertain about a topic , remain inquisitive , rather than accusative and lofting flatulent diminutive fluff .

* Wanting Too Hard To Be A Valid Critic *

Now on to your post #46;
...
There was no attempt or even hint to convey citizenship.
~~ Plyler v. Doe ~~
You present a straw man fallacy there arguing extending citizenship as if it were part of the example supplied by another addressing your post #41 to avoid addressing its relevance to your post there....

The moniker Toro brought up that issue in post #44 as a misguided talking point for entitling children of " illegal immigrants " to citizenship because " equal protection " of due process is somehow extrapolated to " equal endowment " including citizenship .

My response to the assertion by Toro was this " A requirement to extend citizenship is a completely different civil liberty . " , indicating exactly your assay .

* Obnoxious Tripe Spies Positing Self Defense *

First, so we're both speaking to the same case in question, the subject's true name was Wong Kim Ark with the surname Wong. And to what 'different schema' might you be referring..."immigration law" of the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1890's or the new blueprint of selective immigration emerging in the 1990's of white protestants primarily with strict limits on peoples from undesirable regions around the globe, non-white skin tones, un-American customs and religious beliefs?

Oh go cry in a bucket with such a pedantic recount of imperialism and pathetic intimation of naturalism from throughout history .

The chinese are not doing without , neither in land conquered nor in global representation ; and , with a bet of a million to one , their communist society is all well and happy without committing to a multicultural inclusion of pale face .

They have enough trouble fighting among their own ethnicity and clads .

The us was no longer founded on serfdom , though its austere class held fast to a libertarian ethos that devised contract agreements to maximize their own advantages for commerce .

Albeit , slavery violates non aggression principles and libertarian ethos ; delve into slavery to the americas and pay hell about its institutional origins in portugual , consequent from an invasion of spain by fictional ishmaelism sentinels .

You seem upset and incapable of putting forth an actual response to a single point I addressed. Lots of ad hominem and childish snark though! I wasn't expecting anything more than that given, and I knew you were the type to project your own failings at the drop of a hat like a petulant child.

What a mess of fallacious, upside down spaghetti! "Deflect much," he asked rhetorically. Oh well, **** you very much, and thanks for all the Fish!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Vampire Comedy "

* Due Ewe Ever Reflect In The Mirror Much *

You seem upset and incapable of putting forth an actual response to a single point I addressed. Lots of ad hominem and childish snark though! I wasn't expecting anything more than that given, and I knew you were the type to project your own failings at the drop of a hat like a petulant child.
What a mess of fallacious, upside down spaghetti! "Deflect much," he asked rhetorically. Oh well, **** you very much, and thanks for all the Fish!

My answer to your rants is direct and more than sufficient .

The wok decision is consistent with " subject to the jurisdiction " clause in us 14th amendment .

"Pyler v. Doe " is consistent with " due process " clause of " protection " in us 5th amendment and does not substantiate an entitlement to citizenship .

Neither Wok nor Pyler decision satisfies a constitutional test from a challenge whereby a child born within the us to illegal immigrant parents is denied an " endowment " of citizenship , and is in deed under the jurisdiction of their own country of origin from which citizenship should be provided .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

" Vampire Comedy "

* Due Ewe Ever Reflect In The Mirror Much *

You seem upset and incapable of putting forth an actual response to a single point I addressed. Lots of ad hominem and childish snark though! I wasn't expecting anything more than that given, and I knew you were the type to project your own failings at the drop of a hat like a petulant child.
What a mess of fallacious, upside down spaghetti! "Deflect much," he asked rhetorically. Oh well, **** you very much, and thanks for all the Fish!

My answer to your rants is direct and more than sufficient .

The wok decision is consistent with " subject to the jurisdiction " clause in us 14th amendment .

"Pyler v. Doe " is consistent with " due process " clause of " protection " in us 5th amendment and does not substantiate an entitlement to citizenship .

Neither Wok nor Pyler decision satisfies a constitutional test from a challenge whereby a child born within the us to illegal immigrant parents is denied an " endowment " of citizenship , and is in deed under the jurisdiction of their own country of origin from which citizenship should be provided .

Wrong.

All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

Period.

The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is merely intended to exclude soldiers of hostile armies and children of diplomats, not citizens born in the United States whose parents were undocumented or otherwise had no immigration status.

Indeed, that an immigrant might be undocumented or have no immigration status does not mean he’s ‘illegal’; immigrants seeking asylum as refugees are lawfully in the United States until a determination of their status is made in a court of law.

Last, it is settled and accepted Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that children cannot be punished or disadvantaged the consequence of misdeeds or unlawful acts by their parents (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1972)); to deny citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents may have entered the country absent authorization would be in violation of that settled and accepted case law.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

" Vampire Comedy "

* Due Ewe Ever Reflect In The Mirror Much *

You seem upset and incapable of putting forth an actual response to a single point I addressed. Lots of ad hominem and childish snark though! I wasn't expecting anything more than that given, and I knew you were the type to project your own failings at the drop of a hat like a petulant child.
What a mess of fallacious, upside down spaghetti! "Deflect much," he asked rhetorically. Oh well, **** you very much, and thanks for all the Fish!

My answer to your rants is direct and more than sufficient .

The wok decision is consistent with " subject to the jurisdiction " clause in us 14th amendment .

"Pyler v. Doe " is consistent with " due process " clause of " protection " in us 5th amendment and does not substantiate an entitlement to citizenship .

Neither Wok nor Pyler decision satisfies a constitutional test from a challenge whereby a child born within the us to illegal immigrant parents is denied an " endowment " of citizenship , and is in deed under the jurisdiction of their own country of origin from which citizenship should be provided .

Neither Wok nor Pyler decision satisfies a constitutional test from a challenge whereby a child born within the us to illegal immigrant parents is denied an " endowment " of citizenship , and is in deed under the jurisdiction of their own country of origin from which citizenship should be provided .

You're pissing into the wind kid and getting very wet!!

Where is this mystical "constitutional test from a challenge"? The precedent setting results of the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark is NOW the law of the land regarding birthright citizenship until made moot by some lawful action nullifying its standing in LAW! That or until the Authoritarian's get a choke hold on this Country of mine! Your quibbling whines and tantrums regarding minor incidental details in Wong notwithstanding!

Waiting for you to take action and make it happen and reverse 120 long years of lawful Birthright Citizenship, lad!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Outlining Poignant Focus "

* Basic Analysis of Motivates *

Show me a country that would not consider the child of one of their female citizens, to be one of their citizens.

Thank you for the astute reply !

As long as the child has citizenship in some country there is not an ethical conflict where enforcement of " within jurisdiction " clause of us 14th amendment " would cause a humanitarian situation .

Currently , family separation is a humanitarian situation when parents are to be deported but their citizen children have an option to remain , and are entitled to social subsistence based upon the income of their caregiver , whether they be illegal migrants or not .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Moving Along Nothing New Here "

" Self Relevance Opinions Over Emphasized *

Wrong.
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. Period. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is merely intended to exclude soldiers of hostile armies and children of diplomats, not citizens born in the United States whose parents were undocumented or otherwise had no immigration status.
Indeed, that an immigrant might be undocumented or have no immigration status does not mean he’s ‘illegal’; immigrants seeking asylum as refugees are lawfully in the United States until a determination of their status is made in a court of law.
Last, it is settled and accepted Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that children cannot be punished or disadvantaged the consequence of misdeeds or unlawful acts by their parents (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1972)); to deny citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents may have entered the country absent authorization would be in violation of that settled and accepted case law.

Your red herring is tripe as it is just another unrelated schema and imbecilic effort to assert that due process protections are synonymous with an endowment of citizenship , irrespective of a " within jurisdiction " clause .

The term illegal is issued from a perspective that since the sojourner does not have a contract of agreement obligating us state to issue a retort or reprise for violations of its civil liberties , the sojourner remains reliant strictly upon their country of origin to issue a retort or reprise for violation of its civil liberties ; hence , technically , the sojourner is not a legal migrant and an illegal immigrant as an alternative conjecture .

One may take it however they wish but a sojourner without a legal agreement of protection with us is not entitled to the all privileges of law to which those with a legal agreement are entitled , in particular their children are not entitled to birth by citizenship based upon the " within jurisdiction " clause .

Asylum seekers as refugees are entitled to due process ; and , if they are accepted , then children born of them in the us would receive citizenship ; however , if they are rejected , children born of them in the us would not receive citizenship .

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Being an illegal alien is only possible if someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If they weren't subject to our laws while here, their presence wouldn't be illegal.

 

[Kondor3]

Choice No. 7: Congress should amend the Constitution to close the loophole left by the Fourteenth.

 

[Dekster]

" Reconsideration Of An Invalid Direction "

* Complexities Of Framing Words *

Life would be a lot easier and quieter if the GOP would just set about to repealing the 14th amendment

The us 14th amendment is well formed and does not need to be repealed .

The us 14th amendment relates an underlying foundation of a state that its jurisdiction is established for the benefit of citizens and it endows equal protection to those within its jurisdiction that technically does not apply to sojourning without legal immigrant status .

As such , the country of origin is responsible for issuing retorts or reprise for its citizens sojourning without legal immigrant status , hence not technically within us jurisdiction .

Equal protection is why you either get citizenship through birth or you do not. I derive my citizenship the exact same way as an anchor baby gets theirs. Change the law in any way, and you have 14th amendment equal protection problems.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Congratulations With Consolations "

* Gratuitous Proposition Determined Buy Bold Absurdity *

Equal protection is why you either get citizenship through birth or you do not. I derive my citizenship the exact same way as an anchor baby gets theirs. Change the law in any way, and you have 14th amendment equal protection problems.

An introduction of the phrase " equal protection " has been intentionally not been included thus far , as a point of issue .

A legitimate assessment is that equal protection is covered by the 5th amendment , which does not mention " within jurisdiction " , while 14th amendment introduces an distinct article through the term " within jurisdiction " that would designate a positive wright , where positive wrights may not be equally endowed .

Therefore citizenship is not bequeathed unto any sojourner or their children born in the us ; and , both remain under jurisdiction of their home country that includes its capacity to issue a retort or reprise for violations of their civil liberties , such that the child gets citizenship of the mother until such time as it would be deemed that the mother would be eligible for equal endowment .

"Seeking Specific Claims"
Does "equal protection" imply libertarian action (negative wrights) of government to establish negative liberty from government ?
Some assert that the phrase "equal protection of law" , within the US Fourteenth Amendment , implies equal positive wrights both from government and from private individuals , but to me that it is far from being a certainty .
As previously expressed - for different styles of civil contract , where can it be demonstrated that an unequal endowment violates an equal protection from government ?
Keep in mind that unequal endowments exist .
LNG and ANP seem consistent in principle as "protections" , while APG and APP are less compelling .

" Statistism Cautionary Balances A Bout Autocrats Plutocrats Oligarchs "
* Utilities For Devising Natural Means Between Extremes *
Sociopathic Selfism
When a means and extremes distinction is devised with terms : libertarianism and authoritarianism ; negative wrights and positive wrights ; negative liberties and positive liberties ; individualism and statistism / collectivism ; one is privy to evaluate perspectives from those concepts more clearly .

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Therefore citizenship is not bequeathed unto any sojourner or their children born in the us ;

The obvious problem with that decree, of course, is that birthright citizenship is the law of the land and has been bestowed in that manner for the last 120 years. Is that record of history now altered and erased by your proclamation? I believe NOT!

You're still pissing into the wind and still getting wet, kid!