The Myth of Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional and Historical Refutation

[j-mac]

Bullshit. Non citizen are also subject to the jurisdiction.........

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on birthright citizenship?


AI Overview

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on birthright citizenship, most notably in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, according to SCOTUSblog. This decision has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases and remains the established precedent.

Should Dred Scott still be the law of the land then?

Just wondering….

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Should Dred Scott still be the law of the land then?

Just wondering….

Is that the best that you can do…..a false equivalency logical fallacy?? The fact is that Dred Scott was overturned, Kim Ark has not been

 

[j-mac]

Is that the best that you can do…..a false equivalency logical fallacy?? The fact is that Dred Scott was overturned, Kim Ark has not been

That's right, and it at the time was precedent...You progressives always love to point to the constitution as a living, breathing document. That means that as the SCOTUS changes, the interpretation also can change. That is the reason that the Founding Fathers put in there that the only way to codify a popular changing of our Constitution was to go through the high bar of the Amendment process...

This should have been taught to you very early in your scholastic career...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's right, and it at the time was precedent...You progressives always love to point to the constitution as a living, breathing document. That means that as the SCOTUS changes, the interpretation also can change. That is the reason that the Founding Fathers put in there that the only way to codify a popular changing of our Constitution was to go through the high bar of the Amendment process...

This should have been taught to you very early in your scholastic career...

And how does any of the refute the point that I made?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Bullshit. Non citizen are also subject to the jurisdiction.........

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on birthright citizenship?


AI Overview

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on birthright citizenship, most notably in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, according to SCOTUSblog. This decision has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases and remains the established precedent.

Birthright citizenship is intended for American citizens.
It was never intended for foreign nationals who illegally crossed our border.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Birthright citizenship is intended for American citizens.
It was never intended for foreign nationals who illegally crossed our border.

Except that the 14th Amendment says nothing about legal status .......so unless you were there , you really have no way of knowing that.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means American citizens, not foreign nationals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Appeal to ignorance logical fallacy:

AI Overview

An appeal to ignorance, also known as argument from ignorance, is a logical fallacy where a proposition is claimed to be true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true. Essentially, it argues that a lack of evidence against a claim proves the claim is valid, or that a lack of evidence for a claim proves it invalid.

 

[j-mac]

And how does any of the refute the point that I made?

Because your point is not exactly the whole truth...While non citizens are subject to our laws, and jurisdictions, there is a difference between those that are here legally and those that are not.

For example, someone from say, Spain is here on a tourist visa, they are subject to the laws of the US, and are expected to honor our laws, just as Spain would expect American tourists to honor their laws. So, if they break the law, then while here legally they are allowed the protections of our rights, as long as the violations don't constitute bad behavior....

Now, let's look at the illegal immigrant here. First they have broken our law by the mere way they came to be here in our country. So, the adjudication they are subject to is a hearing in front of an immigration judge, who can here their claims and decide whether or not they get to stay. If the judge orders deportation, then that is/was their due process.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because your point is not exactly the whole truth...While non citizens are subject to our laws, and jurisdictions, there is a difference between those that are here legally and those that are not.

For example, someone from say, Spain is here on a tourist visa, they are subject to the laws of the US, and are expected to honor our laws, just as Spain would expect American tourists to honor their laws. So, if they break the law, then while here legally they are allowed the protections of our rights, as long as the violations don't constitute bad behavior....

Now, let's look at the illegal immigrant here. First they have broken our law by the mere way they came to be here in our country. So, the adjudication they are subject to is a hearing in front of an immigration judge, who can here their claims and decide whether or not they get to stay. If the judge orders deportation, then that is/was their due process.

A lot of blather that does not in any way address the issue at hand

 

[toobfreak]

If they are born here, they didn't "invade".

So, you'd be all for Hitler and Eva Braun being brought here to stand trial for WWII crimes against humanity, and if while here, Eva gave birth, you'd be the first in line to declare Hitler's child now a full US citizen and eligible to run for our president!

Better still--- my money is on you voting for him, too.

 

[j-mac]

A lot of blather that does not in any way address the issue at hand

Oh, sure it does, you just have nothing for rebuttal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, sure it does, you just have nothing for rebuttal.

Bovine excrement! The 14th Amendment says what it says and it does not say what you want it to say. Uncle Clarence and his fellow texturalists on the SCOTUS are going to have to jump through a few hoops to get around that fact

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, you'd be all for Hitler and Eva Braun being brought here to stand trial for WWII crimes against humanity, and if while here, Eva gave birth, you'd be the first in line to declare Hitler's child now a full US citizen and eligible to run for our president!

Better still--- my money is on you voting for him, too.

Holy frankenfuck !! You really had to reach deep into your ass to pull that one out!!

 

[j-mac]

Bovine excrement! The 14th Amendment says what it says and it does not say what you want it to say. Uncle Clarence and his fellow texturalists on the SCOTUS are going to have to jump through a few hoops to get around that fact

My guess is that based on long standing precedent, the Roberts court won’t upset that apple cart, but we will have to find a way to address legislatively births through tourism to stop loopholes to the amendment.

 

[Rogue AI]

Simple;

Amendment XIV​

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Try reading it all the way to the end. You may even notice the flaw in your position.

 

[sartre play]

SO now you want to get rid of the 14th Amendment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The mother invaded to have an anchor baby. Illegal ***** should have been sent back along with her illegal alien baby. You know, this wouldn't even be much of an issue if Biden and the Democrats didn't illegally let them in.....Hell they INVITED illegals. Now there are tens of millions here which makes it impossible to enforce our immigration laws which was the reason the Biden admin let them in. I believe Biden was so far gone he didn't even know what he was doing or saying. We need to find out who is responsible for this invasion and prosecute them.

You people need to get a ******* grip. Your nativist, xenophobic, racist horseshit is disgusting. These people come to the US seeking a better life, many are fleeing violence and persecution. They have a right to seek asylum

Trump promised to remove the criminals and I supported that, but now they are targeting many others including those who are undergoing the asylum process, those who were granted temporary protection status and even naturalized citizen who have not committed any crimes and are not a threat to national security. And all the while, they are encouraging white South Africans to emigrate to the US -people who’s claim to genocide is very questionable- because they can “be more easily assimilated . Blatant white nationalism.

I would have slightly more respect for you people-which still is not much- if you would just admit that you just want a white Christian, English speaking nation. Rather , you cowards couch it thinly veiled racist rhetoric about how they are harming the country and taking away from Americans The fact is that most have been here for a long time, are part of their communities, pay taxes and get few if any benefits in return.

 

[Unkotare]

The mother invaded to have an anchor baby. ...

No such thing.