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

[johnwk]

SCOTUS will not worry about your worries, johnwk.

Nor yours. But it is obligated to adhere to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nor yours. But it is obligated to adhere to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Which, discounting your type of argument, it will do,

You are wrong in your approach. Tis what tis.

 

[johnwk]

Which, discounting your type of argument, it will do,

You are wrong in your approach. Tis what tis.

According to you, but not according to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

According to you, but not according to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Not according to your wrong reading of it.

Does not matter, because it be a 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of the current system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because it was understood what the term meant at the time. If they didnt want for it to mean what they discussed, then why did they discuss it?



Ok, so we see that their meaning of jurisdiction is not about laws, but allegiance.



Do you think, back in their day, they would have ever conceived the idea of a child becoming a citizen but the parents were not? Causing the dilemma that the child would legally be allowed to be here, but the child's parents wouldn't? If they intended for it to be citizens by birth, then why didnt they include a provision that the parents would also become citizens? Why would they offer citizenship to the child alone? Why not just say "if you have a baby on american soil, welcome to the country! You're a citizen now!"?

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

According to you, but not according to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Context, yes, but at the same time, the wording is also very important. It's pretty obvious that almost all people gain citizenship when born in the US.

You can't just discount the wording. You can just say "ah, well, I think they might have wanted this, but they didn't actually write it, but who cares, because this is what we want"

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The wordage and intent are quite clear.

It may be 9-0 for birthright citizenship.

 

[johnwk]

Making an alien subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment​

Congress is delegated power, by the terms of the 14th Amendment’s Section 5, to adopt appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. Congress, in exercising this power, and with regard to our naturalization process, requires foreign nationals to take our oath of allegiance, which in fact makes them ". . . subject to the jurisdiction . . . " of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

“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”
.

Is it not a fact that by this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Our Supreme Court says:

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Thank you. Won't work.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm guessing that birth tourism

Has slowed down recently, especially with the ruling against the nationwide injunctions by lower courts. Probably hasn't stopped, but slowed down.

This I can say with confidence: If the USSC does make unconditional birthright citizenship the "law of the land," there will be a large uptick, partly from people who had hesitated, but also from people around the world hearing about the ruling.

No wonder the USSC is reluctant to take it on.

Which is actually fine. We have allowed ourselves to be buffaloed into believing that nothing in the US Constitution means anything, until and unless the Supreme Court tells us what it means. We are also used to the USSC telling is that no, the US Constitution does not mean what it says, it means what it said, sort of, but modified as "usage and custom" have changed it to mean something else.

If the USSC is wise enough not to act on this issue, then it will up to the elected branches to determine what (if anything) the 14th Amendment means to people who were not born eslaved persons in the United States before the Civil War. I've seen nowhere in the Federalist Papers or any discussion from Founders who believed that the Courts would instruct elected officials on the Constitution.

Those who dislike the way elected officials apply the US Constitution have an option, even if the USSC does not step in.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS will approve birthright citizenship, imo.

But I do believe it will recognize COTUS authority to alter it or reshape it.,

 

[johnwk]

I'm guessing that birth tourism

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.

 

[johnwk]

SCOTUS will approve birthright citizenship, imo.

But I do believe it will recognize COTUS authority to alter it or reshape it.,

The SC's job is to expound upon our Constitution and ferret out the legislative intent of our Constitution when questions arise. Its job is not to approve of this, or that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, it is the codification of Wong into law by SCOTUS.

That is not going to change.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, it is the codification of Wong into law by SCOTUS.

That is not going to change.

You made that up, The Court in Wong never addressed the question of citizenship being bestowed by the 14th Amendment, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Stop making ship up.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You made that up, The Court in Wong never addressed the question of citizenship being bestowed by the 14th Amendment, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Stop making ship up.

Made nothing up. You cannot get away with changing terms and definitions.

 

[johnwk]

Made nothing up.

You certainly made that up. The Court in Wong never addressed the question of citizenship being bestowed by the 14th Amendment, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

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



Stop making ship up.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

johnwk, you can't address the problem. Wong gives no escape to the logical answer: birthright citizen ship was decision.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk, you can't address the problem.

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

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th and Wong are clear.

The anti-birthright creeps sound so confused.

You are ass backwoods yet again.