Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Not All Xenos Need to Be Phobed

Senator Howard wanted to avoid calling diplomats "foreigners and aliens," which are pejorative terms, which is also why he made those two terms redundant, reinforcing his patriotism without insulting the honored guests.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

They cant be charged with a crime.




You said something but I dont know what.

Imbecile Minds Controlled by Ambition

There's no need to go into legalese to avoid the undeniable truth that no one can get a legal right through illegal means. Therefore, the Amendment can't be interpreted so illogically. Subsequent decisions of the despicable SCROTUS junta revealed a hubris that its supremacy covered the right to violate rational interpretation.

 

[pknopp]

Imbecile Minds Controlled by Ambition

There's no need to go into legalese to avoid the undeniable truth that no one can get a legal right through illegal means. Therefore, the Amendment can't be interpreted so illogically. Subsequent decisions of the despicable SCROTUS junta revealed a hubris that its supremacy covered the right to violate rational interpretation.

Still no clue what you are rambling about.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Subject to the Jurisdiction there of, has a defined meaning that was argued and settled, no??

Patriots Need to Stare Down Stare Decisis

Conservatives who are not activists are afraid to overturn previous interpretations by Liberals. Such low-energy weaklings should be rejected by Populists.

An ideology that puts the desires of gate-crashing foreigners first will obliterate American independence from within, so it has the same effect as treason. The Nine Nasty Nerds feel alienated from the American people and decide laws out of a bitter resentment of and sense of superiority over those who don't cross-dress in robes and use gavels as brass knuckles.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Still no clue what you are rambling about.

What Makes Parrots Speechless

You know exactly what I am talking about. Pretending ignorance is a Netrix trick used for avoiding debates where you have no case, such as gaining legal rights through illegal means. The innocence of the anchor baby is irrelevant.

 

[Care4all]

Patriots Need to Stare Down Stare Decisis

Conservatives who are not activists are afraid to overturn previous interpretations by Liberals. Such low-energy weaklings should be rejected by Populists.

An ideology that puts the desires of gate-crashing foreigners first will obliterate American independence from within, so it has the same effect as treason. The Nine Nasty Nerds feel alienated from the American people and decide laws out of a bitter resentment of and sense of superiority over those who don't cross-dress in robes and use gavels as brass knuckles.

Ahem....the authors of the 14th were the party of Lincoln....Republicans...who fought for equal protection and cetain rights for ALL PERSONS...

Both John Bingham and Jacob Howard were prominent members of the Republican Party.


At the time the 14th Amendment was drafted (1866), they were specifically identified as Radical Republicans. This was a wing of the party that held several core beliefs following the Civil War:

• Abolition and Equality: They were the most aggressive advocates for the permanent end of slavery and the establishment of full civil rights for formerly enslaved people.
• Congressional Power: They believed Congress, rather than the President (then Andrew Johnson), should lead the process of "Reconstruction"—the rebuilding of the Southern states.
• Federal Authority: They pushed for the federal government to have the power to protect individuals if their own state governments tried to deny them basic rights.

The Republican Party of that era was the party of Abraham Lincoln, and its "Radical" faction was instrumental in ensuring that citizenship and equal protection were written into the Constitution to prevent Southern states from reinstating systems similar to slavery.

None of us would be citizens if our migrating ancestors did not birth citizens....

 

[BackAgain]

A newborn baby is found at the steps of the local fire station.

No idea who the parents are. Is the child a citizens or do we deport it?

Come off it.

It almost certainly would get ruled on by a court. And the legal issue would probably boil down to a presumption in favor of citizenship. One rule for all. For all the times such a novel factual and legal scenario is real. Maybe two times — per decade?

 

[pknopp]

Come off it.

It almost certainly would get ruled on by a court. And the legal issue would probably boil down to a presumption in favor of citizenship. One rule for all. For all the times such a novel factual and legal scenario is real. Maybe two times — per decade?

They would absolutely be a citizen. Not probably.

 

[BackAgain]

They would absolutely be a citizen. Not probably.

Your assurance is utterly baseless

I suspect that any such abandoned newborn would be given the benefit of a legal presumption. So, I believe the child would be determined to be a US citizen.
But it isn’t a certainty.

One quick example. On the day the illegal immigrant parents abandon the child, they may be unidentified. But, the kid’s DNA may very well establish that his biological parents are mommy and daddy who had on some prior arrest matter left their own DNA behind.

 

[pknopp]

Your assurance is utterly baseless

I suspect that any such abandoned newborn would be given the benefit of a legal presumption. So, I believe the child would be determined to be a US citizen.
But it isn’t a certainty.

One quick example. On the day the illegal immigrant parents abandon the child, they may be unidentified. But, the kid’s DNA may very well establish that his biological parents are mommy and daddy who had on some prior arrest matter left their own DNA behind.

And being born here the baby would still be a citizen.

 

[BackAgain]

And being born here the baby would still be a citizen.

You’re a simpleton. And you’re wrong.

Assuming the SCOTUS addresses at all the significant question of whether the 14th Amendment means that children born here to illegal alien parents are “birthright” (sic) citizens, then your unsupported mere opinion may get agreed with.

But for now, your fallacy is silly. You have assumed your desired conclusion as your main premise. And you think it’s of any value to then “reach” your preconceived position.

 

[pknopp]

You’re a simpleton. And you’re wrong.

Assuming the SCOTUS addresses at all the significant question of whether the 14th Amendment means that children born here to illegal alien parents are “birthright” (sic) citizens, then your unsupported mere opinion may get agreed with.

But for now, your fallacy is silly. You have assumed your desired conclusion as your main premise. And you think it’s of any value to then “reach” your preconceived position.

Trump isn't going to win this one. Odds are far higher he won't even be president when the ruling is released.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump isn't going to win this one. Odds are far higher he won't even be president when the ruling is released.

There is no truth at all in your stupid final comment.

And it’s not the President who wins or loses this legal battle. It’s the American people who will lose if SCOTUS follows your mindless advice.

 

[pknopp]

There is no truth at all in your stupid final comment.

And it’s not the President who wins or loses this legal battle. It’s the American people who will lose if SCOTUS follows your mindless advice.

Abiding by the Constitution is never losing.

 

[BackAgain]

Abiding by the Constitution is never losing.

It’s abiding by the Constitution that I am hoping FOR.

You’re against it.