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

[Rawley]

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

"[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

So, everyone gets to be citizens who are born in the US, except for those who are being imprisoned during times of war, ie, prison of war camps and those who are diplomatic kids.

The former are not "legally" in the US, they're POWs. They're not subject to US law, they cannot demand due process, they cannot get anything. They can't get up and walk around and do whatever they want. The second have diplomatic immunity, they're not under the jurisdiction of US law.

So, all babies born under US LAW are given birth citizenship, if they want it.

?? WHere did you get the POW thing from the WOng case?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

... which means what? I, however, would be surprised to see Roberts and Barrett join the libs.

 

[johnwk]

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.

Too many overlook that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment places an exclusive power in the hands of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment by "appropriate legislation", which they did when enacting the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

 

[martybegan]

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

That's a question that has never been asked or answered in the case of illegal immigrants.

The old case only dealt with legal immigrants.

 

[Rawley]

That's a question that has never been asked or answered in the case of illegal immigrants.

The old case only dealt with legal immigrants.

I hope Gonzales' speculation is true.

 

[martybegan]

I hope Gonzales' speculation is true.

I have my doubts. The time to ask this question was in the 60's and 70's when illegal immigration first became a thing.

This is a long standing precedent to overcome. To me it would be better to just call an Article V convention and handle this with all the other amendments we need proposed.

 

[Rawley]

I have my doubts. The time to ask this question was in the 60's and 70's when illegal immigration first became a thing.

This is a long standing precedent to overcome. To me it would be better to just call an Article V convention and handle this with all the other amendments we need proposed.

I don't know. I think Biden's alien invasion sets up the perfect storm. That and the fact that Wong was clearly limited to a child of permanent legal residents.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Too many overlook that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment places an exclusive power in the hands of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment by "appropriate legislation", which they did when enacting the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

That is unnecessary.

 

[Concerned American]

Let's remember who and what was Alberto Gonzalez.

Copilot AI
Yes, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales supported the legal framework that allowed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects during the George W. Bush administration.

As White House Counsel and later as Attorney General, Gonzales played a key role in shaping and defending the legal justifications for these methods. He was involved in reviewing and endorsing memos—such as those from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel—that narrowly defined torture and argued that certain interrogation techniques did not violate U.S. or international law

These techniques, which included waterboarding, were later widely criticized and are now generally regarded as forms of torture.

Gonzales maintained that these methods were intended for use only in specific, high-stakes situations involving national security threats

His tenure was marked by significant controversy over these policies, contributing to broader debates about human rights and executive power in the post-9/11 era
~~~~

IOW, his beliefs may be suspect.

And that has what to do with birthright citizenship?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Alberto Gonzalez is anti-American as they come.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And that has what to do with birthright citizenship?

Nothing. He's trolling.

 

[SweetTea]

... which means what? I, however, would be surprised to see Roberts and Barrett join the libs.

It means they interpret the law as per their job description. Sometimes those interpretations differ. With Democrats, they rarely, if ever do. That means they are part of a group think of the Democratic Party, not actually interpreting the law.

 

[Independent thinker]

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

"[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

So, everyone gets to be citizens who are born in the US, except for those who are being imprisoned during times of war, ie, prison of war camps and those who are diplomatic kids.

The former are not "legally" in the US, they're POWs. They're not subject to US law, they cannot demand due process, they cannot get anything. They can't get up and walk around and do whatever they want. The second have diplomatic immunity, they're not under the jurisdiction of US law.

So, all babies born under US LAW are given birth citizenship, if they want it.

"If they want it"? What the hell does that mean? It has to be one way or the other. You are either born a US citizen or you are the citizen of another country. You can't be a citizen of the Twilight Zone. I guess though that leftists think people can just decide what gender you are out of hundreds or thousands so maybe it makes sense after all.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Its irrelevant, they punted on the question.

 

[Rawley]

It means they interpret the law as per their job description. Sometimes those interpretations differ. With Democrats, they rarely, if ever do. That means they are part of a group think of the Democratic Party, not actually interpreting the law.

Evident in Kagan supporting nationwide injunctions when the railed against them a few short years ago (2023).

Kagan, speaking with Northwestern Law Dean Hari Osofsky, said “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.” The justice attacked both nationwide injunctions and “forum shopping,” where litigants only take cases to the states and judges that will support them against the federal government, saying, “there’s no political tilt to it.”

 

[Rawley]

Its irrelevant, they punted on the question.

No. That question is still before the Court.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No. That question is still before the Court.

Not that case.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

"If they want it"? What the hell does that mean? It has to be one way or the other. You are either born a US citizen or you are the citizen of another country. You can't be a citizen of the Twilight Zone. I guess though that leftists think people can just decide what gender you are out of hundreds or thousands so maybe it makes sense after all.

You are not feeling well. Sit down in shade and drink some water. Relax.

 

[Rawley]

Not that case.

Yup, that case. The decision they issued last week was on an application for a stay in that case.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yup, that case. The decision they issued last week was on an application for a stay in that case.

But SCOTUS is not reviewing the the citizenship issue.