Opinion Article: Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case

[Lesh]

Well, you never see a dog trying to impose his religion on you, so there's that.

But my point about Abortion went right over your head, didn't it?

If Roe v. Wade was so bad, why didn't Reagan and Bush's appointees get rid of it?

Because it was never about "the babies", it was about keeping religious nutters like you and Chuz upset about it.

And they do the same with the immigration issue

 

[Care4all]

Lawyer makes Kurt Schlichter the point that we will likely lose the Birthright Citizenship case on procedural grounds, and this is just starting the fight.


Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case





So our first option is try to pass some laws via congress that can define "under the jurisdiction thereof" and clarify the situation, and the 2nd longer option is an amendment removing it.

Wasn't under the jurisdiction there of already defined by common law we were following and defined and solidified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark again matching the existing common law used by us?

Allegiance was already defined in common law as well, any foreigner arriving here that was not an invading enemy or foreign ambassador was a subject to our Sovereign and allegiance to our Sovereign's laws.

In English common law, the phrase referred to total and exclusive allegiance to the sovereign. This status, known as jus soli, granted subject status to anyone born within the King's dominion, provided their parents were not invading enemies or foreign ambassadors.

I think we need an amendment if we were to change the existing meaning.

 

[martybegan]

Wasn't under the jurisdiction there of already defined by common law we were following and defined and solidified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark again matching the existing common law used by us?

Allegiance was already defined in common law as well, any foreigner arriving here that was not an invading enemy or foreign ambassador was a subject to our Sovereign and allegiance to our Sovereign's laws.

In English common law, the phrase referred to total and exclusive allegiance to the sovereign. This status, known as jus soli, granted subject status to anyone born within the King's dominion, provided their parents were not invading enemies or foreign ambassadors.

I think we need an amendment if we were to change the existing meaning.

Wong Kim Ark involved people born with parents that were here legally under the rules at the time. It was also more about the Chinese Exclusion act than overall immigration.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wong Kim Ark involved people born with parents that were here legally under the rules at the time. It was also more about the Chinese Exclusion act than overall immigration.

Except his citizenship because he was born here was the key factor. They could not exclude him because he was a US citizen.

 

[martybegan]

Except his citizenship because he was born here was the key factor. They could not exclude him because he was a US citizen.

His parents being here legally at the time means it doesn't relate directly to the situation we are facing now.

 

[Care4all]

Wong Kim Ark involved people born with parents that were here legally under the rules at the time. It was also more about the Chinese Exclusion act than overall immigration.

There was NO ONE here illegally at the time of Wong's birth....the concept didn't exist....from my understanding. There were no VISAS, like green card visas or student visas or HB1 Visas or tourist visas etc....everyone simply came here....if they were sick or disabled they were simply denied entrance at the port of entry and returned home, again, from my understanding....

 

[martybegan]

There was NO ONE here illegally at the time of Wong's birth....the concept didn't exist....from my understanding. There were no VISAS, like green card visas or student visas or HB1 Visas or tourist visas etc....everyone simply came here....if they were sick or disabled they were simply denied entrance at the port of entry and returned home, again, from my understanding....

An now the concept does. Laws were passed, and people are breaking them.

I still think congress can make a law defining what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means, but I want an amendment to make sure of it.

And dems better be careful if they force the amendment process on us, because with that we can retroactively remove citizenship if we felt like it.

 

[Lesh]

An now the concept does. Laws were passed, and people are breaking them.

I still think congress can make a law defining what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means, but I want an amendment to make sure of it.

And dems better be careful if they force the amendment process on us, because with that we can retroactively remove citizenship if we felt like it.

So those laws came AFTER the 14th and that ruling in the 20s

True

 

[Care4all]

An now the concept does. Laws were passed, and people are breaking them.

I still think congress can make a law defining what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means, but I want an amendment to make sure of it.

And dems better be careful if they force the amendment process on us, because with that we can retroactively remove citizenship if we felt like it.

You can't change the constitution and its meaning, just because things have changed.

You need an amendment to change it. Period.

And no, you can not make it retroactive....take given citizenship away for no cause.

Sheesh, near none of us would be natural born citizens now, if our ancestors first arriving here didn't have children born citizens at birth....

 

[Nostra]

The system has worked fine for around 250 years. Zero need to change it. As for the court, this is the same court that said money=speech so they could rule that water isn't wet and it wouldn't surprise me.

The 14th hasn’t been around for 250 years, stupid. And it was written for slaves, not your illegal hoard of criminals.

 

[Lesh]

The 14th hasn’t been around for 250 years, stupid. And it was written for slaves, not your illegal hoard of criminals.

Thy ruling in the 20s say’s otherwise

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

His parents being here legally at the time means it doesn't relate directly to the situation we are facing now.

There was no such thing as an illegal alien in those days.

 

[Nostra]

Thy ruling in the 20s say’s otherwise

It wasn’t written in the 20s, Dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

So those laws came AFTER the 14th and that ruling in the 20s

True

Doesn't change the fact that Ark doesn't apply to the current situation.

 

[martybegan]

You can't change the constitution and its meaning, just because things have changed.

You need an amendment to change it. Period.

And no, you can not make it retroactive....take given citizenship away for no cause.

Sheesh, near none of us would be natural born citizens now, if our ancestors first arriving here didn't have children born citizens at birth....

It wouldn't be changing, it would be clarifying what the meaning of "under the jurisdiction thereof" means.

Meanwhile you are probably one of those people that ignore the RKBA that is explicit in the Constitution because "guns are icky"

Actually with an amendment you can, you can ignore ex post facto as part of the amendment.

All of my Grandparents who were born overseas came here legally, and we have the Ellis Island paperwork to prove it.

 

[martybegan]

There was no such thing as an illegal alien in those days.

And thus they were here legally before those exclusion acts were passed, and then later immigration laws were passed.