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

[johnwk]

Doesn't matter what I posted, it doesn't make SENSE. I'm asking for it to be written again so it MAKES SENSE.

The court in Wong deliberately ignored the law of England as it relates to birthright citizenship, was rejected by adoption of " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " found in the 14th Amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The court in Wong deliberately ignored the law of England as it relates to birthright citizenship, was rejected by adoption of " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " found in the 14th Amendment.

**** me, again, I don't understand.

 

[johnwk]

**** me, again, I don't understand.

I can't help you if you cannot understand what you posted about the Wong case.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I can't help you if you cannot understand what you posted about the Wong case.

God, trying to have conversations with people who can't even get their point across. Waste of ******* time. Piss off.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Truth and stated facts are not opinion.

Then do that, please. But the fact don't inform your opinion. That is merely your hope.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Doesn't matter what I posted, it doesn't make SENSE. I'm asking for it to be written again so it MAKES SENSE.

He can't fix his opinion to the words.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Just a friendly reminder that the days of anchor babies by illegals is over.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Just a friendly reminder that the days of anchor babies by illegals is over.

Hardly. You will be so disappointed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hardly. You will be so disappointed.

My sense is, and I believe the composition of the SC will affirm illegality will nullify birthright citizenship. There is precedent that the right has limitations.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

My sense is, and I believe the composition of the SC will affirm illegality will nullify birthright citizenship. There is precedent that the right has limitations.

Not in context of Wong,

 

[frigidweirdo]

He can't fix his opinion to the words.

Seems to happen a lot on here.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not in context of Wong,

Wrong - undecided

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Arkdecision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".<a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>9<span>]</span></a> Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.<a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a><a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a> Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong - undecided

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Arkdecision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".<a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>9<span>]</span></a> Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.<a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a><a href="United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a> Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

Overruled and denied. Sit down.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Overruled and denied. Sit down.

Citation? Thanks in advance.

 

[johnwk]

God, trying to have conversations with people who can't even get their point across. Waste of ******* time. Piss off.

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



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 and a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 14th and Wong are clear.

The anti-birthright creeps sound so confused.

 

[johnwk]

Citation? Thanks in advance.

Let us not forget our S.C. in United States v. Wong Kim Ark already listed specific conditions necessary to affirm U.S. Citizenship.

Don't expect any citation and quotes from the citation confirming the poster's absurd assertions.

The fact is, our Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has already confirmed under the 14th Amendment specific conditions must be met, which affirmed Wong Kim Ark's citizenship.


(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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Jurisdiction essentially means who has the power over a certain area or people.

Every person in the US is under US jurisdiction, expect for diplomats. Diplomats can break the law in the US and they're able to be punished by the US for it, except with expulsion from the country.

POWs are also not tried in courts of law for any crimes they might have committed. They are punished without courts by the military.

That means that diplomats and families with diplomatic immunity, and POWs are not subject to US jurisdiction and are not subject to the laws of the US.

I think this is pretty simple. I'm not sure this is what you're getting at though.

Again, in the link I provided, the people who debated the amendment said "owing allegiance to no other country"

It appears they were interpreting "jurisdiction" in a Broader sense, not just subject to the laws.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I need the source. Give me the source.

I linked the article which has all the sources in it. Excerpts from the debates

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Again, in the link I provided, the people who debated the amendment said "owing allegiance to no other country"

It appears they were interpreting "jurisdiction" in a Broader sense, not just subject to the laws.

You argument is not supported by the evidence, so SCOTUS will snort, laugh, and overrule.