Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If in occupied territory, from Wong Kim Ark,Incorrect. Children born of any enemy invaders also don’t get included as citizens.
The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.
False. It cannot be found in tautology.Yes it can, and it has been in English Law since 1604
Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem.
Incorrect. Children born of any enemy invaders also don’t get included as citizens.
While I agree, it will take a Constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, the rationale behind birthright citizenship lies in the tautology that I presented, in Latin. If you want a translation, here is one from another post in this thread,False. It cannot be found in tautology.
But in any event, it’s all moot. Until and unless the Supremes revisit that otherwise meaningless clause, or the Constitution gets amended as to the meaning of that clause, the law is not now in legal dispute.
That is part of the jurisdiction clause. But until illegal immigrants storm the Texas statehouse, run off the legislators and the governor, and fly the Mexican flag over the statehouse and the governor's mansion, children born to illegal immigrants in Texas are automatically granted citizenship.I think you're making this up
Nah. I looked up the English translation from the Latin. That was never the point.While I agree, it will take a Constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, the rationale behind birthright citizenship lies in the tautology that I presented, in Latin. If you want a translation, here is one from another post in this thread,
Birthright citizenship is an ancient legal concept that those who are born within a jurisdiction owe allegiance to it, and are owed protection in return.
And if the SCOTUS revisits this issue and somehow denies the current interpretation of the 14th amendment and over a century of stare decisis, I personally will lead the revolt. It will make what is going on Israel look like a picnic.
Kim Won Ark's parents were here legally. They were legal resident aliens. They were domiciled within the US.Nicely done, but let's throw something else in here. The current SCOTUS seems to have an obsession with the history of the Constitution. They attempt to interpret the founder's intent. Let me quote the opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.
www.law.cornell.edu
There is the historical foundation for birthright citizenship. Only extreme revisionism can alter that status and most certainly not some damn two-bit executive order.
If you understood the debate concerning the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment you would understand, nothing could be left ambiguous. It had to be spelled out. The jurisdiction part also referred to Native Americans, as you pointed out, and who they did not want to grant birthright citizenship to, that took a separate action that came over fifty years later with the Snyder Act.Nah. I looked up the English translation from the Latin. That was never the point.
The point is that born here “AND SUBJECT TO THE LAWS THEREOF” is a completely unnecessary addition. With the known exceptions of: children of ambassadors and consular staff, and of the children of invading enemies, (and previously the American Indians), the clause wouldn’t be necessary at all.
teachingamericanhistory.org
Phyler v. DoeKim Won Ark's parents were here legally. They were legal resident aliens. They were domiciled within the US.
Kim Wong Ark vs US was about babies of legal aliens, not illegal aliens.
supreme.justia.com
Plus ca changeProtectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem
While you have a tendency to be supercilious, in this case I’ll let that slide after I note it. Now, I’ll turn to the substance.If you understood the debate concerning the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment you would understand, nothing could be left ambiguous. It had to be spelled out. The jurisdiction part also referred to Native Americans, as you pointed out, and who they did not want to grant birthright citizenship to, that took a separate action that came over fifty years later with the Snyder Act.
Waldo Hotchkiss of New York,
Constitutions should have their provisions so plain that it will be unnecessary for courts to give construction to them; they should be so plain that the common mind can understand them.
But this is my favorite quote of the entire debate. It shows why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was necessary. And it is from James Garfield,
I am glad to see this first section here which proposes to hold over every American citizen, without regard to color, the protecting shield of law. The gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. FINCK, D-OH] undertakes to show that because we propose to vote for this section we therefore acknowledge that the civil rights bill was unconstitutional. He was anticipated in that objection by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS]. The civil rights bill is now a part of the law of the land. But every gentleman knows it will cease to be a part of the law whenever the mad moment arrives when that gentleman’s party comes into power. It is precisely for that reason that we propose to lift that great and good law above the reach of political strife, beyond the reach of the plots and machinations of any party. . . . For this reason, and not because I believe the civil rights bill unconstitutional, I am glad to see that first section here
John Bingham follows, and brings it home.
It is the power in the people, in the whole people of the United States, by express authority of the Constitution to do that by congressional enactment which hitherto they have not had the power to do, and have never even attempted to do; that is, to protect by national law the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction whenever the same shall be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State.
Congressional Debate on the 14th Amendment
I will end the night by saying, there is a choice. Either we base citizenship on where one is born or on who one is born to. I think, while the former might have its problems, it is far superior to the later, which is a recipe for despotism. The founders realized that, and while it might be ironic, that jus soilis was born out of an aristocracy, in my eyes, it is the very foundation of democracy.While you have a tendency to be supercilious, in this case I’ll let that slide after I note it. Now, I’ll turn to the substance.
I would need to delve in deep. But that doesn’t mean you haven’t already done so. And I’ll give you a little credit where credit is due. I have to acknowledge that you seem to have a pretty good grasp on the subject matter.
As I bet you know, there is more to the entire debate than simply whether or not one obtains U.S. citizenship status by the mere happenstance of being born on our soil. The real question is whether that concept makes sense.
It no longer does. It is time for the law to catch up with reality.
If you're born here and your parents are not citizens or are here illegally, you should not automatically be a US citizen.Fourteenth Amendment
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.
You're such a tool.Their Spirit Never Ended
In the year 2024, a haunting sight,
Trump won the race, his power alight.
With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree,
An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see.
The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken,
As the path to creeping fascism was taken.
He disregarded equality, justice, and grace,
Embracing division, with a scornful embrace.
No longer a nation of dreams and hope,
But a land where intolerance began to elope.
Families torn apart, hearts filled with despair,
As the promise of America vanished in the air.
The outcry was fierce, voices raised high,
Defending the rights of those who would cry.
But Trump remained stubborn, unmoved by their plea,
His vision of exclusion, his twisted decree.
Yet in the shadows, a resistance took form,
A united front against this brewing storm.
Voices united, hearts filled with might,
Fighting to reclaim what was just and right.
The battle was long, the struggle profound,
But unity prevailed, as truth did resound.
And in the end, the people did rise,
Casting away the veil of divisive lies.
With hope and courage, they sought to restore,
The values and ideals they cherished before.
Birthright citizenship, once again embraced,
As freedom's beacon, not to be erased.
Though the scars may remain, a reminder true,
Of the dangers when power goes askew,
The people stood strong, their democracy defended,
In the face of darkness, their spirit never ended.
Humbly tendered,
Poem by ChatGPT-4 rendered from a prompt by Rumpole
Critique: Hmmm, not too bad for a machine. Not epic or going to win contests,
but good enough to supplement the article, the basis of this thread.
(and if you on the right want to enlist ChatGPT to write you a poem
to counter this one, I welcome the exchange, but know that the Chat
will dutifully fulfill your request, but not a drop more than your request.
So, if it doesn't do as good as job as the one above, that's on you, not Chat.)
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day…thehill.com
Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.
Trump announced his plan on the 125th anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
The proposal echoes a longtime demand of immigration restrictionists and a measure Trump toyed with while in office, attracting criticism from both immigration advocates and legal experts.
False dichotomy.I will end the night by saying, there is a choice. Either we base citizenship on where one is born or on who one is born to. I think, while the former might have its problems, it is far superior to the later, which is a recipe for despotism. The founders realized that, and while it might be ironic, that jus soilis was born out of an aristocracy, in my eyes, it is the very foundation of democracy.
Not letting illegals overrun your country is tyranny?Their Spirit Never Ended
In the year 2024, a haunting sight,
Trump won the race, his power alight.
With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree,
An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see.
The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken,
As the path to creeping fascism was taken.
He disregarded equality, justice, and grace,
Embracing division, with a scornful embrace.
No longer a nation of dreams and hope,
But a land where intolerance began to elope.
Families torn apart, hearts filled with despair,
As the promise of America vanished in the air.
The outcry was fierce, voices raised high,
Defending the rights of those who would cry.
But Trump remained stubborn, unmoved by their plea,
His vision of exclusion, his twisted decree.
Yet in the shadows, a resistance took form,
A united front against this brewing storm.
Voices united, hearts filled with might,
Fighting to reclaim what was just and right.
The battle was long, the struggle profound,
But unity prevailed, as truth did resound.
And in the end, the people did rise,
Casting away the veil of divisive lies.
With hope and courage, they sought to restore,
The values and ideals they cherished before.
Birthright citizenship, once again embraced,
As freedom's beacon, not to be erased.
Though the scars may remain, a reminder true,
Of the dangers when power goes askew,
The people stood strong, their democracy defended,
In the face of darkness, their spirit never ended.
Humbly tendered,
Poem by ChatGPT-4 rendered from a prompt by Rumpole
Critique: Hmmm, not too bad for a machine. Not epic or going to win contests,
but good enough to supplement the article, the basis of this thread.
(and if you on the right want to enlist ChatGPT to write you a poem
to counter this one, I welcome the exchange, but know that the Chat
will dutifully fulfill your request, but not a drop more than your request.
So, if it doesn't do as good as job as the one above, that's on you, not Chat.)
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day…
Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.
Trump announced his plan on the 125th anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
The proposal echoes a longtime demand of immigration restrictionists and a measure Trump toyed with while in office, attracting criticism from both immigration advocates and legal experts.
Does a child born to two illegals in let’s say El Paso actually reside there? The parents don’t reside there. They are there illegally so trespassing at a minimum. Reside seems to be the standard. If you cross into the nation but have no home, no job, no previous time in the country are any of them residing here?obviously not a Constitutional scholar
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.
Explains why you finf a right to keep arms for self defense. You just make it up just like the current SCOTUS
What part of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" do you not understand?Does a child born to two illegals in let’s say El Paso actually reside there? The parents don’t reside there. They are there illegally so trespassing at a minimum. Reside seems to be the standard. If you cross into the nation but have no home, no job, no previous time in the country are any of them residing here?
