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

[BS Filter]

But I bet I'm right

Nope, You're wrong. I've been speaking about this topic long before President Trump ever entered the picture.

 

[Crepitus]

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

It's not "unwritten".

 

[Dragonlady]

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

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA, unless you are the ambassador for a foreign nation. Ambassadors, their family and their staff are NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA.

The ONLY people not "under the jurisdiction of the USA" members of the foreign service of a different country.

Trump needs too stop trying to amend the Constitution by Executive Order.

Idiot.

 

[Dragonlady]

You're an idiot.

No he's not, but you are.

 

[Unkotare]

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA, unless you are the ambassador for a foreign nation. Ambassadors, their family and their staff are NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA.

The ONLY people not "under the jurisdiction of the USA" members of the foreign service of a different country.
...

A different country like Canada?

 

[BS Filter]

No he's not, but you are.

You're a botched face lift.

 

[johnwk]

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.

Actually, there are those who have been intentionally misrepresenting the Wong Kim Ark case for decades, and that includes our FIFTH COLUMN media and their Yellow Journalists.

 

[johnwk]

It's not "unwritten".

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

 

[johnwk]

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA, unless you are the ambassador for a foreign nation. Ambassadors, their family and their staff are NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA.

The ONLY people not "under the jurisdiction of the USA" members of the foreign service of a different country.

Trump needs too stop trying to amend the Constitution by Executive Order.

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Wait, so any time an American leaves the USA, and they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, then Trump can take their citizenship away?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

It's actually TRUE. But anyway.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)"

"The Court stated that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted "in the light of the common law" which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."

"The Court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China"."

So, four ways you can not be under the US's jurisdiction while being born in the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, because it makes no sense for a sovereign country to have such a policy. It was NEVER the intent of the 14th Ammendment.

Does a law go from intent, or from what it actually SAYS?

If you don't like what it says, CHANGE IT.

 

[BS Filter]

Actually, there are those who have been intentionally misrepresenting the Wong Kim Ark case for decades, and that includes our FIFTH COLUMN media and their Yellow Journalists.

Yes. That's the case I was referring to that started this lie.

 

[pknopp]

Wait, so any time an American leaves the USA, and they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, then Trump can take their citizenship away?

Other parts of the Constitution covers that. Did you all miss government 101 in school?

 

[pknopp]

Does a law go from intent, or from what it actually SAYS?

If you don't like what it says, CHANGE IT.

Basically that is what Robert's told Trump's attorneys.

 

[SweetTea]

Does a law go from intent, or from what it actually SAYS?

If you don't like what it says, CHANGE IT.

We have a Supreme Court to interpret the law. The 14th needs re-interpreting.

 

[pknopp]

We have a Supreme Court to interpret the law. The 14th needs re-interpreting.

LOL, how quick the tides turn. LOL

 

[SweetTea]

LOL, how quick the tides turn. LOL

Just curious, do you actually believe the intent of the 14th was to allow a person to sneak across our border to have a baby who is a US citizen? Think about when it was passed and what was going on at the time. What other countries would allow such a loophole to their immigration law? Why do Democrats want such a law that is harmful to the US

 

[pknopp]

Just curious, do you actually believe the intent of the 14th was to allow a person to sneak across our border to have a baby who is a US citizen?

The intent was for any baby born here to be a citizen.

Think about when it was passed and what was going on at the time. What other countries would allow such a loophole to their immigration law? Why do Democrats want such a law that is harmful to the US

You'll have to ask Democrats if you want their opinion.

 

[SweetTea]

The intent was for any baby born here to be a citizen

Nope, it wasn't because that would have been stupid. They weren't stupid.

You'll have to ask Democrats if you want their opinion.

What is your opinion.