Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case

[leftwinger]

//Such stupid boardStailALL. Sickening ALLStain//

 

[JGalt]

No I did not. Thats fucked up thoughts entirely in your own head. Seek help!

No, bro. I planted that bug in your head because that was the response you thoroughly expected.

You know nothing about me. I'm not the one who's gonna deny your accusations because I know that nothing I could say or do would convince you otherwise. Therefore I feed off your inner fears, magnify them, and give them right back to you.

Fun, ain't it?

 

[JohnDB]

Birthright citizenship is likely going to go Trump's way.

I was listening to the oral arguments today....
And the arguments and reasoning behind this illegal alien citizenship baby working is seriously flawed and the Justices pointed out the serious flaws during the oral arguments despite Ketenji's ridiculous comments.

I'm predicting no more anchor babies. Especially considering the commentary by the framers and the repudiation of future crime stated by Sotomayor.

Now, considering that the Southern Border has become a political football of late....

This will mostly cement it to some degree for a while.

 

[Care4all]

Not sure what you are saying here

Wong Ark parents came to the US like everyone else, there were no legals or illegals at the time from my understanding....

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, barred Chinese people from becoming naturalized citizens, including his parents...one of the arguments against him being let back in to his U.S. domicile, and not being a citizen was tied to his parents being barred from citizenship under law because they were subjects of the Chinese emperor, and him being their child was subject to the emperor as well....

His parents did not permanently stay in their U.S. domicile, they returned home to China about 5 years before this Wong Kim Ark attempted to leave and reenter in 1895...leaving was fine, but re-entering he was stopped.

Bottom line, he was a US Citizen because he was born here, regardless of Chinese immigrants like his parents being barred from becoming naturalized citizens.

 

[Care4all]

Birthright citizenship is likely going to go Trump's way.

I was listening to the oral arguments today....
And the arguments and reasoning behind this illegal alien citizenship baby working is seriously flawed and the Justices pointed out the serious flaws during the oral arguments despite Ketenji's ridiculous comments.

I'm predicting no more anchor babies. Especially considering the commentary by the framers and the repudiation of future crime stated by Sotomayor.

Now, considering that the Southern Border has become a political football of late....

This will mostly cement it to some degree for a while.

Hmmmm, from listening to it, I think it could be a 7 to 2, or an 8 to 1 decision against Trump's stance and for, birthright citizenship.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" English Angle Lash "

* Subjects Of Us Jurisdiction Not Simply Subject To It *

Hmmm. Can you show us where in the 14th amendment... your opinion, can be found?

What does the term thereof mean in your opinion ?

The meaning of the abbreviated phrase " subject to the jurisdiction " is direct , however what does the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " mean , or should fools be allowed to defer to deductions by intellectual cowards conjecturing that the meanings are the same ?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hmmmm, from listening to it, I think it could be a 7 to 2, or an 8 to 1 decision against Trump's stance and for, birthright citizenship.

Minimum 7-2. Justice Alito for one.

Justice Thomas for the other once she decides to tell Clarence.

WW

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are missreading it of course.

This isn't a written documents, is the transcript of a speach.

You can't chop it up you have to read it in context. In the speach "foreigners, aliens who belong to", the foreigners aliens are descritive of amabassadors. But some try to do is place and "AND" in between mentally to change the context to "foreigns, aliens, AND those who" changing foreigners and aliens from descriptive of ambassadors to a list of different categories.

But anyone with half an education sees the difference.

WW

You misspelled misreading, speech, descriptive, ambassadors, and foreigners.
You must be talking to yourself! 

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why are you lying? I just posted in post #140 that the guy who wrote it clearly meant that it did not include children of aliens.

Did you not see that post, or what? I have never known you to lack integrity.

And I'll be honest with you, until I read that, I was on your side of this issue.

What I read in black and white as to what this amendment means changed my mind.

Intent matters not when the text says the opposite.

 

[JohnDB]

Hmmmm, from listening to it, I think it could be a 7 to 2, or an 8 to 1 decision against Trump's stance and for, birthright citizenship.

It will likely be 6/3 like usual....
The three women being their normal selves.
The arguments made by many of the senior justices are not investigative but for fun. That's the part people generally don't understand.

When you are good at something competitive and have been for a long time you miss having someone decent to have a real discussion or debate with. Life gets boring when having a battle of wits with unarmed people. You aren't looking for information, your mind has already been made....but you are going to enjoy the chance at the game with someone armed for a change. And of course you are going to lead them into traps....and oral arguments did just that.

Because the geography of birth in America cannot determine citizenship forcibly without willful choice or else it's going to cause international chaos. A diplomat's child born here in America cannot be forced to have American citizenship. Nor can that child apply for citizenship. (Asylum maybe....but doubtful)
This is due to ongoing relationships with the entire world's nations. We start forcing citizenship upon unsuspecting diplomats....we WILL have all sorts of problems in the international community.

We are NOT like the Borg from star trek.
And it's ridiculous to become anything similar. The entire world would rise up against us for such things.

Just because people wish to shortcut the process towards American citizenship does not mean that they should be allowed to do so. There are literally thousands of agencies currently in existence that advertise gaining American citizenship through anchor babies...and for a fee they will get you pregnant with a client husband (also paying fees) so that the both of you can get citizenship through your child in one of their hotel/hospitals. (Really disgusting behavior by everyone involved but many people are very desperate and predators are everywhere).

So....
That's why the SCOTUS is going to go Trump's way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If one of my neighbor's cows breaks through my fence and then gives birth on my property, they're still not my cow and not my calf.

If the cow and the calf continue to live on your property you have the right to claim them. Ever hear possession is 9/10ths of the law?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It will likely be 6/3 like usual....
The three women being their normal selves.
The arguments made by many of the senior justices are not investigative but for fun. That's the part people generally don't understand.

When you are good at something competitive and have been for a long time you miss having someone decent to have a real discussion or debate with. Life gets boring when having a battle of wits with unarmed people. You aren't looking for information, your mind has already been made....but you are going to enjoy the chance at the game with someone armed for a change. And of course you are going to lead them into traps....and oral arguments did just that.

Because the geography of birth in America cannot determine citizenship forcibly without willful choice or else it's going to cause international chaos. A diplomat's child born here in America cannot be forced to have American citizenship. Nor can that child apply for citizenship. (Asylum maybe....but doubtful)
This is due to ongoing relationships with the entire world's nations. We start forcing citizenship upon unsuspecting diplomats....we WILL have all sorts of problems in the international community.

We are NOT like the Borg from star trek.
And it's ridiculous to become anything similar. The entire world would rise up against us for such things.

Just because people wish to shortcut the process towards American citizenship does not mean that they should be allowed to do so. There are literally thousands of agencies currently in existence that advertise gaining American citizenship through anchor babies...and for a fee they will get you pregnant with a client husband (also paying fees) so that the both of you can get citizenship through your child in one of their hotel/hospitals. (Really disgusting behavior by everyone involved but many people are very desperate and predators are everywhere).

So....
That's why the SCOTUS is going to go Trump's way.

Jackson has not a clue, but she will vote against Trump as will most of the other justices, especially the other two liberals who indicated in their questioning serious doubts that Trump can interpret the 14th amendment as not being what it clearly states. I believe one or two conservatives will "flip script" and go with the "intent" argument despite a past record of being strict constructionists. 7-2 or 6-3 to rule Trump's EO unconstitutional. That is my prediction.

 

[JoeB131]

It will likely be 6/3 like usual....
The three women being their normal selves.
The arguments made by many of the senior justices are not investigative but for fun. That's the part people generally don't understand.

When you are good at something competitive and have been for a long time you miss having someone decent to have a real discussion or debate with. Life gets boring when having a battle of wits with unarmed people. You aren't looking for information, your mind has already been made....but you are going to enjoy the chance at the game with someone armed for a change. And of course you are going to lead them into traps....and oral arguments did just that.

Because the geography of birth in America cannot determine citizenship forcibly without willful choice or else it's going to cause international chaos. A diplomat's child born here in America cannot be forced to have American citizenship. Nor can that child apply for citizenship. (Asylum maybe....but doubtful)
This is due to ongoing relationships with the entire world's nations. We start forcing citizenship upon unsuspecting diplomats....we WILL have all sorts of problems in the international community.

We are NOT like the Borg from star trek.
And it's ridiculous to become anything similar. The entire world would rise up against us for such things.

Just because people wish to shortcut the process towards American citizenship does not mean that they should be allowed to do so. There are literally thousands of agencies currently in existence that advertise gaining American citizenship through anchor babies...and for a fee they will get you pregnant with a client husband (also paying fees) so that the both of you can get citizenship through your child in one of their hotel/hospitals. (Really disgusting behavior by everyone involved but many people are very desperate and predators are everywhere).

So....
That's why the SCOTUS is going to go Trump's way.

Wow, you are delusional.

Did you hear the arguments? Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, and Gorsuch all thought Sauer was full of shit.

Trump tried to intimidate them by showing up personally, but scampered off when he wasn't getting his way.

7-2 against Trump, this one is a no-brainer.

 

[protectionist]

200+ posts into this thread and has anybody mentioned Sen. Jacob Howard yet ?

Hopefully the Supreme Court is better aware of him than the posters in this thread.

 

[JoeB131]

200+ posts into this thread and has anybody mentioned Sen. Jacob Howard yet ?

Hopefully the Supreme Court is better aware of him than the posters in this thread.

Doesn't matter.

The 14th clearly says anyone born here is a citizen, and this has been supported by 129 years of legal precedence.

The court will rule against Trump, probably for no other reason than to preserve its own authority and credibility.

Otherwise, once you decide that the Constitution is whatever SCOTUS says it is, the next Democrat will just expand the court to 12 justices and stack it with 4 more liberals.

 

[protectionist]

Hmmmm, from listening to it, I think it could be a 7 to 2, or an 8 to 1 decision against Trump's stance and for, birthright citizenship.

What is more important that what it WILL be , is what it SHOULD be.

 

[Care4all]

You are wrong, there is a comma between "aliens," and "who belong to," indicating that they are two separate articles, not a subset of the same.

All persons, is why the decision was made that he was a citizen, regardless of his parents being Chinese and under the law of the time, were ineligible to become citizens.

You are wrong, there is a comma between "aliens," and "who belong to," indicating that they are two separate articles, not a subset of the same.

Senator Howard didn't list them as separate categories. He used "foreigners" and "aliens" as adjectives to describe the families of diplomats.


His exact quote from the 1866 congressional debate was:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

Legal scholars note that he was using a list of descriptive words for the exact same group of people. In his view, "foreigners" and "aliens" were just further descriptions of the diplomatic families who were immune to U.S. law.

-----------------

Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship | Constitutional Accountability Center

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us to tackle immigration reform in good faith.

It was thus disheartening to see Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, seriously mislead the public in a letter to the editor printed in the Los Angeles Times. Writing about the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship at birth for all children born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, Rep. Smith asserted: “during the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, a senator who helped draft the amendment said it would ‘not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.’” However, this was an incomplete quote. Had Rep. Smith included the entire quote—or better yet, included the entire quote and helped explain its significance—it would not have supported his reading of the 14th Amendment. Perhaps that is why he cut the quote off where he did.

Such distortions of history are unhelpful at best. Here is the full quote from the 1866 Congressional Globe, which is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard, principal draftsman of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
The reason why this is important is because anti-citizenship advocates seize upon the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” They argue that illegally present immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The incomplete portion of the quote used by Rep. Smith in his L.A. Times letter appears to support the view that the Citizenship Clause was drafted to exclude children of “foreigners” who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

But the full sentence shows otherwise. Sen. Howard’s description of the only class of children born on U.S. soil who would not be U.S. citizens automatically at birth was merely a summary of the widely accepted understanding that children of foreign diplomats would not be birthright citizens. This is because of the legal fiction that diplomats, while physically present here, are sort of floating along in a little bubble of their home country—hence the concept of diplomatic immunity. Sen. Howard used the terms “foreigners” and “aliens” in the sentence quoted above to describe those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” If Howard were intending to list several categories of excluded persons (e.g., foreigners, aliens or families of diplomats) he could have said so. Instead, the language he used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats.

Indeed, the history of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause shows that citizenship at birth for children of “foreigners” was expressly contemplated. For example, Sen. Edgar Cowan expressed concern that the citizenship proposal would expand the number Chinese in California and Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit “trespass” within the United States. Supporters of the Citizenship Clause did not take issue with Cowan’s understanding of the effect of the Clause, but instead defended it as a matter of sound policy. Sen. John Conness of California declared: “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . . .”

 

[WorldWatcher]

Senator Howard didn't list them as separate categories. He used "foreigners" and "aliens" as adjectives to describe the families of diplomats.


His exact quote from the 1866 congressional debate was:





Legal scholars note that he was using a list of descriptive words for the exact same group of people. In his view, "foreigners" and "aliens" were just further descriptions of the diplomatic families who were immune to U.S. law.

-----------------

Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship | Constitutional Accountability Center

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us to tackle immigration reform in good faith.

It was thus disheartening to see Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, seriously mislead the public in a letter to the editor printed in the Los Angeles Times. Writing about the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship at birth for all children born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, Rep. Smith asserted: “during the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, a senator who helped draft the amendment said it would ‘not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.’” However, this was an incomplete quote. Had Rep. Smith included the entire quote—or better yet, included the entire quote and helped explain its significance—it would not have supported his reading of the 14th Amendment. Perhaps that is why he cut the quote off where he did.

Such distortions of history are unhelpful at best. Here is the full quote from the 1866 Congressional Globe, which is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard, principal draftsman of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
The reason why this is important is because anti-citizenship advocates seize upon the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” They argue that illegally present immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The incomplete portion of the quote used by Rep. Smith in his L.A. Times letter appears to support the view that the Citizenship Clause was drafted to exclude children of “foreigners” who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

But the full sentence shows otherwise. Sen. Howard’s description of the only class of children born on U.S. soil who would not be U.S. citizens automatically at birth was merely a summary of the widely accepted understanding that children of foreign diplomats would not be birthright citizens. This is because of the legal fiction that diplomats, while physically present here, are sort of floating along in a little bubble of their home country—hence the concept of diplomatic immunity. Sen. Howard used the terms “foreigners” and “aliens” in the sentence quoted above to describe those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” If Howard were intending to list several categories of excluded persons (e.g., foreigners, aliens or families of diplomats) he could have said so. Instead, the language he used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats.

Indeed, the history of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause shows that citizenship at birth for children of “foreigners” was expressly contemplated. For example, Sen. Edgar Cowan expressed concern that the citizenship proposal would expand the number Chinese in California and Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit “trespass” within the United States. Supporters of the Citizenship Clause did not take issue with Cowan’s understanding of the effect of the Clause, but instead defended it as a matter of sound policy. Sen. John Conness of California declared: “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . . .”

The only way they can justify it in their minds is:

• Ignore it is a transcript of a spoken speech.
• Change it to a list rather than adjectives describing those on diplomatic missions by mentally in serting an "AND" after aliens.

WW

 

[Care4all]

Why are you lying? I just posted in post #140 that the guy who wrote it clearly meant that it did not include children of aliens.

Did you not see that post, or what? I have never known you to lack integrity.

And I'll be honest with you, until I read that, I was on your side of this issue.

What I read in black and white as to what this amendment means changed my mind.

MisterBeale.... Let me ask you a logical question that should clear up your confusion.

If all foreigner and alien, (which are synonymous,) born on this soil are not citizens at birth as you claim the Howard statement meant, (which it does not), then why would he even need to describe the children of foreign ambassadors and ministry diplomats, when they would already be included in the group of foreigners you claim are excluded from their child's birthright citizenship?

This is why you, and others, are wrong on Howard's argument/statement.

 

[JohnDB]

Jackson has not a clue, but she will vote against Trump as will most of the other justices, especially the other two liberals who indicated in their questioning serious doubts that Trump can interpret the 14th amendment as not being what it clearly states. I believe one or two conservatives will "flip script" and go with the "intent" argument despite a past record of being strict constructionists. 7-2 or 6-3 to rule Trump's EO unconstitutional. That is my prediction.

I think your prediction is more hopeful wishing than anything.

Such a decision would create both international chaos and a new constitution without a constitutional convention.

Especially when the original Framers left a clear commentary communication on precisely what the ammendment's limits would be.

If you wish to change the constitution there are clearly written instructions on how such could be accomplished. However, we can't even get congress to do much of anything lately except go on break and trade stocks.