Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case

[Care4all]

So let me see if I have this right.

We (Trump included) have submitted that the precedent is wrong and never what the Authors of the 14th intended NOR should have intended. . . and your counterargument is to cite the very precedent that is being challenged?

We already know what the authors intended Chuz, and have known for the past 150 years since written, and confirmed with precedent cases early on and since then.

This was just pouring tax payer money down the drain from the get go...a frivolous attempt at rewriting our constitution.

Prior to the 14th ....under US law (English common law of jus soli)ALL PERSONS born on our soil were born citizens with the only exceptions being children of Slaves, and Native Americans with treaty governance....who were addressed separately shortly thereafter by Congress.

After the 14th, it became ALL PERSONS born on our soil including children born by slaves.

If you have time, spend some more time learning our history....it's interesting and enlightening!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subject-To Versus Subject-Of "

* Retarded Reap Consequences Of Their Own Stupidity *

This issue is do illegal aliens have the same citizenship rights as legal immigrants?

The us public at large , including us jurisprudence and political institutions are too stupid to explain or apply linguistic meaning to the term thereof ( there of ) , and choose to abridge us 14th amendment clause to a simpleton analysis of " subject to the jurisdiction " .

All within us official domain are subject to us jurisdiction and entitled to equal protection of negative liberties , however not all within us official domain are subjects of us jurisdiction and entitled to positive liberty .

Citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment , it is not a negative liberty of protection .

Having watched enough of the senate hearings in advance of pleadings about birthright ( sic ) citizenship before scotus , both sides presented imbecilic subject-to arguments and completely ignored subject-of analysis , so the consequences of expedience for political correctness and excuses from ignorance will result in the obvious .

 

[JohnDB]

 

[SweetSue92]

Nope. Y'all seem to be the dumb ones, who believe what you are brainwashed to believe without a single bit of proof or evidence that democrats are getting illegals to vote, and to vote for them.. We aren't the brainwashed cult, you are.... Sadly, the only ones who can't see that, is the denying cult members, themselves....everyone else sees it, clear as day....honestly.

That's all right. In 10 years, illegal votes won't matter. Blue states and towns are bleeding residents because Democrats made life so bad, people are moving out. Makes red states more populous, thus getting more electoral numbers and reps.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[mudwhistle]

No one depends on the votes from illegals. THAT is made up out of whole cloth by Trumpers. There is ZERO evidence that democrats are getting illegal's to illegally vote, let alone to vote for them.

That is 100% fake news, and 100% unprovable....because it is a made up lie.

Democrats aren't bringing illegals here out of kindness.

They're bringing them here to use them. That's human-trafficking.

They have them voting for them and stealing from taxpayers with them.

 

[mudwhistle]

" Subject-To Versus Subject-Of "

* Retarded Reap Consequences Of Their Own Stupidity *

The us public at large , including us jurisprudence and political institutions are too stupid to explain or apply linguistic meaning to the term thereof ( there of ) , and choose to abridge us 14th amendment clause to a simpleton analysis of " subject to the jurisdiction " .

All within us official domain are subject to us jurisdiction and entitled to equal protection of negative liberties , however not all within us official domain are subjects of us jurisdiction and entitled to positive liberty .

Citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment , it is not a negative liberty of protection .

Having watched enough of the senate hearings in advance of pleadings about birthright ( sic ) citizenship before scotus , both sides presented imbecilic subject-to arguments and completely ignored subject-of analysis , so the consequences of expedience for political correctness and excuses from ignorance will result in the obvious .

Yeah.....you think we're too stupid to understand.

And when it comes to most No Kings folks....you're absolutely correct.

But when you break into this country and hide from authorities you don't get to stay here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where is the above claim found in the Constitution, to support that claim?

The Constitution being the supreme law of the land and all.

That's what "under the jurisdiction of" means!

 

[mudwhistle]

Page 2890. Read that guy that introduced the amendment. Matters little what that guy thinks;

Yep...."this will not include persons who are born in the United States who are foreigners,....."

Pretty clear cut to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yep...."this will not include persons who are born in the United States who are foreigners,....."

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

 

[JoeB131]

Oral Arguments going on now. So far, the Court seems skeptical of Trump's EO.

Personally this stuff is often frustrating to me. It should be obvious that if you illegally break into our nation, your child doesn't get citizenship. But here we are, a do-nothing Congress, so we're relegated to this.

No, we are required to do this because this is what the Constitution clearly says.

Of course back then, there were no "illegal immigrants" because if you got here, you were in.

No reason to punish kids for what their parents did.

1.5 million babies born here with help from "birth tourism" companies, mainly in Russia and China. Most modern nations would not, and do not, put up with this. But I guess you love paying all these taxes for illegal babies to have immediate citizenship.

Shit, we'd be blessed if we had more Chinese-Americans.

 

[sparky]

Page 2890.

only you would dig that far Mr B....

After the 14th, it became ALL PERSONS born on our soil including children born by slaves.

the word the scotus seems fixated on being domiciled C4all.....

~S~

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Nope. YOU can't chop it up and parse words.....because the intent is absolutely clear.

Foreigners born in the United States aren't intended to be made into citizens automatically. There's a comma placed between foreigners and aliens born to ambassadors. The comma separates the two. If they had been the same the sentence would have had a linking word like "and, or". But there wasn't any.

Only way your argument works is if you ignore this fact.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

So much of your argument, like all leftists, is your inability to understand the obvious.

That forces us to have to explain it to you, and you simply refuse to understand the facts at hand.

 

[Care4all]

Democrats aren't bringing illegals here out of kindness.

They're bringing them here to use them. That's human-trafficking.

They have them voting for them and stealing from taxpayers with them.

View attachment 1238298

They DO NOT HAVE ILLEGALS VOTING FOR THEM....that is a LIE, unproven, lacks any evidence of fact.

Maybe they understand that Americans stopped having children at the rate needed to first take care of and then replace ....the baby boomer population to keep the economy moving forward and this is for some kind of financial soundness needed by our country for our future??? To them, it is not voters that are needed, but people ....to keep the economic engine going forward in America???

Maybe they simply don't viscerally hate, people of a different color or nationality than them, or hate the poor or strangers with less than them, and simply want these other humans to be treated HUMANELY, when deporting them instead of with joyful cruelty? I'm in this last group.

 

[Care4all]

That's all right. In 10 years, illegal votes won't matter. Blue states and towns are bleeding residents because Democrats made life so bad, people are moving out. Makes red states more populous, thus getting more electoral numbers and reps.

There are no illegal voter movements in the Democratic party. THAT is made up out of whole cloth....there is no evidence of illegals voting in mass, let alone for Democrats....how many times does this need to be said?

Please STOP LYING.

 

[Care4all]

only you would dig that far Mr B....

the word the scotus seems fixated on being domiciled C4all.....

~S~

And....? The constitution's 14th has only two tests to meet....
one is Born on American soil,
and the other is being under the jurisdiction there of...where only those with foreign diplomatic immunity children born here are exempt.

Domicile was used and mentioned a lot in the Ark court case for purely their situation of existence, the facts in their case alone, and was not used as a test for citizenship, but the decision was solely on the constitution's two tests mentioned in bold above....

 

[Care4all]

" Subject-To Versus Subject-Of "

* Retarded Reap Consequences Of Their Own Stupidity *

The us public at large , including us jurisprudence and political institutions are too stupid to explain or apply linguistic meaning to the term thereof ( there of ) , and choose to abridge us 14th amendment clause to a simpleton analysis of " subject to the jurisdiction " .

All within us official domain are subject to us jurisdiction and entitled to equal protection of negative liberties , however not all within us official domain are subjects of us jurisdiction and entitled to positive liberty .

Citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment , it is not a negative liberty of protection .

Having watched enough of the senate hearings in advance of pleadings about birthright ( sic ) citizenship before scotus , both sides presented imbecilic subject-to arguments and completely ignored subject-of analysis , so the consequences of expedience for political correctness and excuses from ignorance will result in the obvious .

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

 

[MisterBeale]

We already know what the authors intended Chuz, and have known for the past 150 years since written, and confirmed with precedent cases early on and since then.

This was just pouring tax payer money down the drain from the get go...a frivolous attempt at rewriting our constitution.

Prior to the 14th ....under US law (English common law of jus soli)ALL PERSONS born on our soil were born citizens with the only exceptions being children of Slaves, and Native Americans with treaty governance....who were addressed separately shortly thereafter by Congress.

After the 14th, it became ALL PERSONS born on our soil including children born by slaves.

If you have time, spend some more time learning our history....it's interesting and enlightening!

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.

 

[JohnDB]