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

[WEATHER53]

The judges read the words wrong
Everyone always does
Lib 101

 

[kyzr]

This birthright citizenship is not meant for illegals and Chinese tourists coming here, pop out a baby to take advantage. Time to change the law. Even the most liberal European country don't believe in this insanity.

Its not a "Law", its the 14th Amendment.
The Robert's Court needs to re-interpret it.
As Stephen Miller explained it, births of diplomats are NOT US citizens because they are citizens of other countries, illegals are similarly citizens of other countries, "not subject to the jurisdiction of the US".

 

[johnwk]

Well, you have United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) which said:

In the Wong Kim Ark case the Court listed specific factors which led to the court's opinion:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.


After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The fact is, the qualifying words in the Fourteenth Amendment, "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....", by their documented legislative intent, excludes birthright citizenship to a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.

I believe Trump will have this fact confirmed by necessary legal action, and the myth of so-called birthright citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national will come to an end.

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)

 

[SweetTea]

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.

It has nothing to do with skin color. It is common sense really. The intent was never to have someone illegally sneak across our border and have a baby that is a citizen. That is just, well, stupid.

 

[martybegan]

"and subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means a person has to be in the US to be under US law in order to be able to get the citizenship.

That might cover those who came here on say a tourist visa and then overstayed, but that doesn't cover non documented border crossers.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It has nothing to do with skin color. It is common sense really. The intent was never to have someone illegally sneak across our border and have a baby that is a citizen. That is just, well, stupid.

It does not matter. It is what happened. It takes an Amendment to change it. You will be disappointed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That might cover those who came here on say a tourist visa and then overstayed, but that doesn't cover non documented border crossers.

It sure does until an Amendment is ratified to change it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

."Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during an interview on Sunday speculated that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions in a landmark case as a compromise after failing to secure five votes on the issue of birthright citizenship."

More likely, its because the question of birthright citizenship was not before the court, only the issue of universal injunctions.

 

[martybegan]

It sure does until an Amendment is ratified to change it.

I'm not so sure.

of course you guys are the people that ignore RKBA so your Constitutional bonafides are already suspect.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I'm not so sure.

of course you guys are the people that ignore RKBA so your Constitutional bonafides are already suspect.

Another allegation with no bonafides of proof.

No one really goes to you as the go to guy, you know.

We will see.

 

[johnwk]

Do you have supportive documentation that there are classes of persons in the US apart from diplomats over which the US does not have jurisdiction?

Well, let Senator Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, answer your question 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



And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?
By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This gang cannot fix what is broken, since they have been dedicated to breaking since Reagan first empowered them to do so.

There is no 'conditional' birthright citizenship. If born in the US of non-diplomatic parents, one is unconditionally a citizen.

 

[SweetTea]

It does not matter. It is what happened. It takes an Amendment to change it. You will be disappointed.

Nope, that little qualifier should be enough.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nope, that little qualifier should be enough.

Not in the slightest.

 

[SweetTea]

Not in the slightest.

Yes, Trump brought this issue back to the forefront and the SC will be forced to rule. I can guarantee you that the qualifier will be the center of the debate, however the rule. Intent will also come into play. Mind you, I am talking about debate among the Republican judges. The Democratic judges don't care to debate or interpret. They have an agenda to uphold.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, Trump brought this issue back to the forefront and the SC will be forced to rule. I can guarantee you that the qualifier will be the center of the debate, however the rule. Intent will also come into play. Mind you, I am talking about debate among the Republican judges. The Democratic judges don't care to debate or interpret. They have an agenda to uphold.

The conservatives don't? Either you are a scoundrel or very naive.

 

[SweetTea]

The conservatives don't? Either you are a scoundrel or very naive.

Republican justices break rank far more often than Democrats. That is undeniable and very telling.

 

[Rawley]

"and subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means a person has to be in the US to be under US law in order to be able to get the citizenship.

So how is that different from "within the jurisdiction?"

 

[my2¢]

The administration didn't raise the issue of birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court and thus they made no ruling on the matter. As the text of their ruling specifically states:

The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.

 

[Lisa558]

I would guess that Roberts and the 3 democrats are pro illegal alien

Yup. Fortunately, Roberts won’t be able to throw the decision this time.