S.C. needs to keep nose out of immigration policy making decisions, Trump v. Barbara

johnwk

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
2,763
Points
930
FACT: Unwritten federal public policy, and only federal unwritten public policy, now recognizes citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

But the qualifier in the 14th Amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was explicitly adopted by its framers to exclude the offspring of foreign nationals not owing an allegiance to the United States.

During the debates on the 14th Amendment, and with regard to the 14th Amendment's wording, the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States. Mr. TRUMBULL responded as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

1st column halfway down

“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.”


It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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…”Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.

And just how would aliens relinquish their allegiance to their country of origin so a child born to them thereafter and on American soil would be considered a citizen of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

SURPRISE! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” and which renounces an allegiance to their country of origin, which is one of the requirements referenced in the debates during the framing of the 14th Amendment!


Trump's Executive Order is acting within Executive Office powers in changing existing citizenship public policy with regard to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. keep in mind the Biden Administration ignored the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and allowed millions of foreign nationals to cross our border without being vetted, and included tens of thousands criminals, child molesters, mentally ill, drug dealers, etc.

Does our Supreme Court need to be reminded that Elections have consequences?

See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) …..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.

The S.C. needs to keep its stricken nose out of policy make decisions of this magnitude, Trump v. Barbara, especially when Congress is authorized by the terms of the 14th Amendment to make adjustments if needed, and not our Supreme Court.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

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


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands (Our Supreme Court) whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
 
FACT: Unwritten federal public policy, and only federal unwritten public policy, now recognizes citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

But the qualifier in the 14th Amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was explicitly adopted by its framers to exclude the offspring of foreign nationals not owing an allegiance to the United States.

During the debates on the 14th Amendment, and with regard to the 14th Amendment's wording, the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States. Mr. TRUMBULL responded as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

1st column halfway down

“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.”


It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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…”Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.

And just how would aliens relinquish their allegiance to their country of origin so a child born to them thereafter and on American soil would be considered a citizen of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

SURPRISE! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” and which renounces an allegiance to their country of origin, which is one of the requirements referenced in the debates during the framing of the 14th Amendment!


Trump's Executive Order is acting within Executive Office powers in changing existing citizenship public policy with regard to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. keep in mind the Biden Administration ignored the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and allowed millions of foreign nationals to cross our border without being vetted, and included tens of thousands criminals, child molesters, mentally ill, drug dealers, etc.

Does our Supreme Court need to be reminded that Elections have consequences?

See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) …..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.

The S.C. needs to keep its stricken nose out of policy make decisions of this magnitude, Trump v. Barbara, especially when Congress is authorized by the terms of the 14th Amendment to make adjustments if needed, and not our Supreme Court.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

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


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands (Our Supreme Court) whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Excellent. Totally agree. The entire purpose for this Amendment was to ensure that ex-slaves and their children were recognized as citizens of the USA. It was never intended to ensure that children of illegals born in the USA were automatically citizens.
 
I mean, it's not like this hasn't been covered many times including current threads.

You lost. Continually repeating yourself isn't going to change anything.
 
I mean it's clearly spelled out so when did all this "if you are born here you are citizen" BS start?
It started in 1880 something. It was a court case and was never appealed. No one cared at that time because we had plenty of room and we needed people.
 
US is probably the only country where two illegal aliens, husband and wife for example, can pop out a citizen just by crossing the border. I don’t believe any country allows this nonsense. Japan would throw these people out immediately.
 
Legal arguments aside - and I admit there are good arguments on both sides - what must be recognized is that "birthright citizenship" is horrible public policy. One could write a good-sized pamphlet detailing why it is bad policy, and there is no rational public objective served by it.

So if the language is ambiguous - and certainly it is - the Court has the RIGHT and a DUTY, I would say, to interpret it in a way that results in good public policy. That is to say, end birthright citizenship. Now.

I don't expect this result. They will likely defer to Congress and precedent, but there is a RIGHT thing to do and it's not really debatable from a policy standpoint.
 
US is probably the only country where two illegal aliens, husband and wife for example, can pop out a citizen just by crossing the border. I don’t believe any country allows this nonsense. Japan would throw these people out immediately.
36
 
US is probably the only country where two illegal aliens, husband and wife for example, can pop out a citizen just by crossing the border. I don’t believe any country allows this nonsense. Japan would throw these people out immediately.

Yes, because it makes no sense for a sovereign country to have such a policy. It was NEVER the intent of the 14th Ammendment.
 
The entire purpose for this Amendment was to ensure that ex-slaves and their children were recognized as citizens of the USA.
^ bro never had this thought for a single second in his life until the pedo's truth social post 2 days ago
 
US is probably the only country where two illegal aliens, husband and wife for example, can pop out a citizen just by crossing the border. I don’t believe any country allows this nonsense. Japan would throw these people out immediately.
Agree. It all started with a court case over 130 years ago when a judge ruled that anyone born in the US was a citizen and it was never challenged or appealed. No one was concerned about it because we had plenty of room and were growing.
 
15th post
Agree. It all started with a court case over 130 years ago when a judge ruled that anyone born in the US was a citizen and it was never challenged or appealed. No one was concerned about it because we had plenty of room and were growing.
We still have plenty of room.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom