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

[pknopp]

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



What is your opinion.

I stated my opinion. An opinion it looks like the court is going to side on.

 

[SweetTea]

I stated my opinion. An opinion it looks like the court is going to side on.

Utter stupidity and political correctness will be our downfall. The authors of the 14th are rolling in their graves.

 

[Crepitus]

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

It's not "unsubstantiated" any more than the the 14th amendment is "unwritten".

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Ah yes, anything you don't like needs "re-interpreting" to the way you do like.

Maybe we "re-interpret" the Second Amendment to mean "bear arms" because it was all about bears.

 

[johnwk]

It's not "unsubstantiated" any more than the the 14th amendment is "unwritten".

Where in the text of our federal Constitution does it declare U.S. citizenship is granted to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil?

 

[johnwk]

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

Actually, it does not need to be re-interpreted. There is nothing in our federal Constitution granting U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or a U.S. S. C. opinion declaring U.S. citizenship is granted by our constitution to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. In fact one U.S. Court opinion, UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, confirms U.S. citizenship was acknowledge by the Court after the following conditions were met:

(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.

 

[SweetTea]

Ah yes, anything you don't like needs "re-interpreting" to the way you do like.

Maybe we "re-interpret" the Second Amendment to mean "bear arms" because it was all about bears.

Common sense dictates that allowing people to come into the country illegally and have babies that were US citizens was never the intent of the 14th.

Regardless, why would any citizen of the US that believes in our sovereignty support that now? How does this help our country now? What other sovereign countries allow such? Why not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Common sense dictates that allowing people to come into the country illegally and have babies that were US citizens was never the intent of the 14th.

Regardless, why would any citizen of the US that believes in our sovereignty support that now? How does this help our country now? What other sovereign countries allow such? Why not?

Common sense also dictates not allowing every individual to own guns.

Are we doing "common sense Constitution" rather than "what's written in the Constitution" now?

Beware what you drool after.

 

[SweetTea]

Common sense also dictates not allowing every individual to own guns.

Actually, it dictates that we should. An unarmed populace is very easily controlled. I know big government Democrats can't ever imagine their precious government ever doing them wrong, but world history shows it is very possible.

No answer as to how birthright citizenship helps the US?

 

[johnwk]

Common sense also dictates not allowing every individual to own guns.

Are we doing "common sense Constitution" rather than "what's written in the Constitution" now?

Beware what you drool after.

Your asinine deflection is noted.

Our Supreme Court would have to assume the powers of our legislature, or a sitting constitutional convention, to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nations born on American soil, and such assumption of power would totally subjugate the right of the people to give their consent through their elected representatives, and likewise assume the exclusive power delegated to Congress by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 5

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

Under our Constitution the Supreme Court is the discoverer of the law and not its maker!

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Justice SUTHERLAND, J., dissenting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, it dictates that we should. An unarmed populace is very easily controlled. I know big government Democrats can't ever imagine their precious government ever doing them wrong, but world history shows it is very possible.

No answer as to how birthright citizenship helps the US?

But.... the armed populace of the USA is "very easily controlled".... Look at what Trump's doing.

The left controls their people, the right controls their people. People are complacent and stupid.

I'm not actually in favor of birthright citizenship. However, the Constitution says so.

Don't like it, change the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your asinine deflection is noted.

Our Supreme Court would have to assume the powers of our legislature, or a sitting constitutional convention, to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nations born on American soil, and such assumption of power would totally subjugate the right of the people to give their consent through their elected representatives, and likewise assume the exclusive power delegated to Congress by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 5

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

Under our Constitution the Supreme Court is the discoverer of the law and not its maker!

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Justice SUTHERLAND, J., dissenting.

**** off.

 

[Care4all]

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

The exceptions were two-

1 Ambassadors and diplomats who were allegiant to their own foreign govt as representatives for their govt, and their family members.

2 American Indians who through treaties with us, had tribal rule, on their reservations....tribal jurisdiction.

All persons with the two exceptions exempted which are listed above, bore US Citizens when delivered here on our soil.

This was all gone over and debated at the time...there was no room left for taking another meaning on to what they said and meant....

All persons, was all persons...with only the two exceptions above, that were not under our jurisdiction.

These people sold or gave up all of their possessions and gave up their homes and family left there, to come here to the United States....there is no legal obligation or allegiance to the country they chose to abandon...like with those foreign diplomats who work in this country for their alien government who are given diplomatic immunity by us.

Prior to the 14th under our law, (in this case, we followed Common Law)....

ALL PERSONS born on our soil were born citizens at birth, with the two exceptions mentioned above, and a third exception of those born to slaves here.

After the 14th it stayed ALL PERSONS born on our soil, and included those born of slaves.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The exceptions were two-

1 Ambassadors and diplomats who were allegiant to their own foreign govt as representatives for their govt, and their family members.

2 American Indians who through treaties with us, had tribal rule, on their reservations....tribal jurisdiction.

All persons with the two exceptions exempted which are listed above, bore US Citizens when delivered here on our soil.

This was all gone over and debated at the time...there was no room left for taking another meaning on to what they said and meant....

All persons, was all persons...with only the two exceptions above, that were not under our jurisdiction.

These people sold or gave up all of their possessions and gave up their homes and family left there, to come here to the United States....there is no legal obligation or allegiance to the country they chose to abandon...like with those foreign diplomats who work in this country for their alien government who are given diplomatic immunity by us.

Prior to the 14th under our law, (in this case, we followed Common Law)....

ALL PERSONS born on our soil were born citizens at birth, with the two exceptions mentioned above, and a third exception of those born to slaves here.

After the 14th it stayed ALL PERSONS born on our soil, and included those born of slaves.

But... I fink that "all persons" only applies to MAGA sporters. And I fink that.... who is I kidding, I don't fink at all.

 

[johnwk]

The exceptions were two-

Quote from the 14th Amendment where it unequivocally states, U.S. citizenship is granted by our constitution to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Please explain how Trump's E.O. titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship redefines citizenship as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Mick2]

Common sense also dictates not allowing every individual to own guns.

"Every individual" can't own guns, dummy.

Why do you think Hunter Biden lied ATF Form 4473 about his drug addiction?

 

[Care4all]

Quote from the 14th Amendment where it unequivocally states, U.S. citizenship is granted by our constitution to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Please explain how Trump's E.O. titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship redefines citizenship as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nope. You have to state where it mentions banning them.

It doesn't.

Therefore they are included in ALL Persons.

 

[johnwk]

Nope. You have to state where it mentions banning them.

It doesn't.

Therefore they are included in ALL Persons.

According to you they are, but not according to those who framed and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment.

 

[pknopp]

Common sense dictates that allowing people to come into the country illegally and have babies that were US citizens was never the intent of the 14th.

Regardless, why would any citizen of the US that believes in our sovereignty support that now? How does this help our country now? What other sovereign countries allow such? Why not?

As Roberts pointed out, it's still the Constitution. If you feel it needs changed, work to change it or you are left with simply ignoring it when groups decide they don't like it.

 

[SweetTea]

But.... the armed populace of the USA is "very easily controlled".... Look at what Trump's doing.

The left controls their people, the right controls their people. People are complacent and stupid.

I'm not actually in favor of birthright citizenship. However, the Constitution says so.

Don't like it, change the Constitution.

I disagree. The intent was not to allow what is going on today and the term jurisdiction needs to be revisited. Also, there are diplomatic exceptions, so clearly it wasn't meant to be absolute.

The biggest issue for me is the intent. They didn't foresee this being abused as it is today because we didn't have an immigration problem as we do today. Most Democrats support it, not because of their desire to uphold the Constitution in the strictest sense, but as a social justice platform. It is obviously detrimental to the US, but they don't seem to care.