S.C. believed to lack 5 votes to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I have addressed the problem. You are making shit up.

You are deriving nonsense from your argument, not meaning.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The problem with AI is, there is no statutory law granting birthright citizenship to the offspring of foreign nationals, born on American soil. It is public policy, not "law" which recognizes that type of citizenship.

Correct.

AI cannot tell the difference between a lie on the internet and the truth on the internet. I assume it takes whatever is most often said on the internet as most likely accurate. The internet has been flooded with people falsely claiming that birthright citizenship is the law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Correct.

AI cannot tell the difference between a lie on the internet and the truth on the internet. I assume it takes whatever is most often said on the internet as most likely accurate. The internet has been flooded with people falsely claiming that birthright citizenship is the law.

AI certainly assess veracity of accounts by study and correlation. You know that, yes?

 

[Seymour Flops]

AI certainly assess veracity of accounts by study and correlation. You know that, yes?

I know that if five liberal outlets tell the same lie, the programmers of AI have "trained" it to accept that as the most likely truth.

That's the "correlation" you have such confidence in.

 

[johnwk]

Correct.

AI cannot tell the difference between a lie on the internet and the truth on the internet. I assume it takes whatever is most often said on the internet as most likely accurate. The internet has been flooded with people falsely claiming that birthright citizenship is the law.

The insanity of advocating un-restricted United States birthright citizenship​

.
Is it not within sound reasoning to believe, those who support unrestricted United States birthright citizenship to all, who are born on American soil, are advocating a notion similar to a homeless transient, who secretly enters your home and gives birth to a child, results in that child becoming, by the rule of law, a legally recognized member of your family?


No wonder that our Supreme Court is believed to lack 5 votes, to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, you haven't really made that case that it's about allegiance. So?

I did, from the senate's debates own words

 

[ThisIsMe]

Overturn what? Just curious.

Birthright citizenship

 

[johnwk]

Birthright citizenship

What "Birthright citizenship" would be overturned?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What "Birthright citizenship" would be overturned?

.....the one this thread is about?....

 

[johnwk]

.....the one this thread is about?....

Your cat and mouse game does not help to advance a productive discussion.

What "Birthright citizenship" would be overturned?

 

[Mac-7]

If Roberts cannot win a vote he can prevent it from being decided against him by choosing what question is bring voted on

So, instead of voting yes or no on birthright citizenship when he knows there are 5 conservative votes that he does not like, Roberts can narrow the question to some lessor option

In this case instead of voting on birthright citizenship which Roberts and the 3 libs would lose, he can only allow a vote on the power of lower court judges

And I suspect that's what happened

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I know that if five liberal outlets tell the same lie, the programmers of AI have "trained" it to accept that as the most likely truth.

That's the "correlation" you have such confidence in.

You have shown that you have not a clue.

 

[johnwk]

You have shown that you have not a clue.

Your unsubstantiated accusation is noted, and absurd to say the least.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your unsubstantiated accusation is noted, and absurd to say the least.

The objections to your objections have been noted over and over.

You will lose. It is inevitable. You will snivel, then you will cry.

And an hour later, you will go back to real life.

 

[johnwk]

The objections to your objections have been noted over and over.

You will lose. It is inevitable. You will snivel, then you will cry.

And an hour later, you will go back to real life.

I see you are still naysaying, without substantiating you absurd conclusions.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I see you are still naysaying, without substantiating you absurd conclusions.

That's all been done. You can keep licking your wounds, but nothing will change for you no matter how much you wish for it. And I will do it for you over and over.

Stop being of the mental and emotional capacity of the six year old boy who keeps saying and meaning it that "the bears will not hurt us if we are nice to them. Really nice to them."

 

[johnwk]

The insanity of advocating un-restricted United States birthright citizenship​

.
Is it not within sound reasoning to believe, those who support unrestricted United States birthright citizenship to all, who are born on American soil, are advocating a notion similar to a homeless transient, who secretly enters your home and gives birth to a child, results in that child becoming, by the rule of law, a legally recognized member of your family?


No wonder that our Supreme Court is believed to lack 5 votes, to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

 

[frigidweirdo]

I did, from the senate's debates own words

I'm literally telling you that you haven't. You can either listen to me, or not. In which case the conversation is over.

 

[johnwk]

I'm literally telling you that you haven't. You can either listen to me, or not. In which case the conversation is over.

Our Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, exposes the myth of lawful anchor babies

.
The evidence found in the Congressional Globe which confirms ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " excludes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil from U.S. Citizenship, is overwhelming.


For example Senator Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, states the following involving the meaning of "jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK

Senator Trumbull goes on to say:

.” . . . The provision is, that ‘‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’’ That means ‘‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ . . . .What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“ LINK

Senator Reverdy Johnson then remarks:

[A]ll that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” LINK

Senator WILLIAMS, later in the debate discussing Section One observes with reference to “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . :


"In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." LINK

.

Why is the myth alleging U.S. citizenship being granted by the terms of the 14th Amendment to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, not yet put to rest? Where is the evidence to the contrary?

JWK




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)

.

 

[80zephyr]

Birthright has been recognized in law since 1898.

No reason to change 127 years later, because some white people don't like people of color.

Praying in school was the law until the 1960's. Did it bother you when the SCOTUS outlawed it?