The Supreme Court and the "politics" of birthright citizenship and of course changing tunes of history.

[Raynine]

I watched arguments from the Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship, and I am convinced that our immigration policies have been manipulated to subvert the intent of what the framer’s wanted for political purposes. The framers did the best they could with what they had, but there was no way they could anticipate the dystopian society we live in today. The 14th Amendment is not a document stating that a person born on US soil regardless of how a birth mother arrived, is magically a US citizen entitled to everything a domestic citizen has including the right to vote. The framers could not have considered what is happening today with an odious phenomenon loose in our time to baffle the people with technical language and fool them into concluding that the framer’s wanted a system where anyone arriving in a pregnant, illegal border crashing female was an automatic American.

In the minds of some a person born on US soil is a citizen of America regardless of how they arrived. It seems simple enough, but it is more complex in the modern world, and the framers of the 14th Amendment trying to emancipate slaves while granting them citizenship could never have contemplated future events that would unfold in such unpredictable ways. The Dred Scot Decision of 1857 flat out said that black slaves were not US citizens regardless of whether they were born in the US. So, the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1866 and ratified in 1868 to clarify that black slaves born in the US were indeed US citizens. That is the birthright the framers had in mind. It was an important component of the Civil War reconstruction effort. The Amendment was clear on the slave point but just three decades later it was tested in a different way.

In 1898, a suit was brought by Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese parents residing in the US for about 20 years. Wong’s parents returned to China and stayed there. They were subjects of the Emperor of China and at the time could not naturalize under US law. Wong who had lived in America his entire life remained in the US working as a cook in San Francisco, but at age 21 he went to visit his family in China. He was subsequently denied re-entry into the US as not a US citizen.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a racist hurdle that no Chinese immigrant could clear, and it was designed that way for the Chinese just as Dred Scot was for slaves. At the time the Chinese were blamed for depressing wages and overrunning communities especially in California. So, it was decided to make it impossible for Chinese immigrants to attain citizenship. They could domicile but never become citizens. Wong Kim Arc’s predicament was relatable and understandable, so the courts broadened the interpretation of jurisdiction to include Chinese immigrants as entitled to the English Common Law definition, Just Soli, on soil, and considered it settled with no knowledge of what could come later.

Around 2010 strategic exploitation entered the picture in a big way, and Jus Soli was suddenly twisted to include anyone who was born of a pregnant sojourner that entered the country illegally. This gave rise to birth tourism, and it is a big business today. Both major political parties in the US know this is wrong, but an advantage lurks for any group that can change the voting demographic in major elections. Putting a foot on the scale is all it takes to win close elections. If one party can invite hundreds of thousands of refugees to trapse across continents under the false flag of escaping oppression a huge friendly voting bloc can be created to vote for that party. Joe Biden threw open US borders and multitudes of potential new voters came pushing and shoving across like teenagers crashing the gates of Woodstock in 1969-no tickets necessary!

One Party in the US sees an opportunity to fundamentally change the voting mindset in the country to gain power and turn the US into a one-party state. That party knows the gate crashers are not going to sympathize with a party that discourages illegal entry with immigration policies that protect the sovereignty of domestic Americans. They are going to get a vote and use that vote to support the party that invited them here. Democrats are taking the long view on this, and they know if they can pull this off, they can hold power virtually forever.

They know it is wrong, but they do not care because it is a means to an end that will give them an advantage the framers could not have foreseen. Even the best legal minds in the nation cannot argue that the framers intended the US to be a global sanctuary for all the people of the world. It is absurd. But they want power and borderless entry points are the fastest way to get it. They knew it was wrong once, what changed? Votes maybe?

chuck schumer arguing against illegal aliens in 2009 you tube - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

 

[JoeB131]

I watched arguments from the Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship, and I am convinced that our immigration policies have been manipulated to subvert the intent of what the framer’s wanted for political purposes. The framers did the best they could with what they had, but there was no way they could anticipate the dystopian society we live in today. The 14th Amendment is not a document stating that a person born on US soil regardless of how a birth mother arrived, is magically a US citizen entitled to everything a domestic citizen has including the right to vote. The framers could not have considered what is happening today with an odious phenomenon loose in our time to baffle the people with technical language and fool them into concluding that the framer’s wanted a system where anyone arriving in a pregnant, illegal border crashing female was an automatic American.

Actually, that's exactly what they wanted, because the US was doing everything it could at the time to encourage immigration. The ironic thing was that REPUBLICANS at the time were encouraging immigration to fill up all those new states they were carving out of the West.

It was only when those immigrants started voting Democratic, did the Repukes decide they didn't like immigration anymore.

One Party in the US sees an opportunity to fundamentally change the voting mindset in the country to gain power and turn the US into a one-party state. That party knows the gate crashers are not going to sympathize with a party that discourages illegal entry with immigration policies that protect the sovereignty of domestic Americans. They are going to get a vote and use that vote to support the party that invited them here. Democrats are taking the long view on this, and they know if they can pull this off, they can hold power virtually forever.

So essentially, after demonizing people for generations, you are wondering why they won't vote for you? Are you freaking serious?

I wish this were the case. In the last election, 42% of Hispanics and 40% of Asians still voted for Cheeto Hitler (although this had more to do with what a clusterscrew the Democratic ticket was that time.

The thing is, new immigrants are more culturally conservative than White Americans, on the whole. They don't like abortion, or gay marriage, or boys in dresses.

 

[my2¢]

In the minds of some a person born on US soil is a citizen of America regardless of how they arrived.

Are you referring to natural birth as opposed to cesarean section?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Actually, that's exactly what they wanted, because the US was doing everything it could at the time to encourage immigration. The ironic thing was that REPUBLICANS at the time were encouraging immigration to fill up all those new states they were carving out of the West.

It was only when those immigrants started voting Democratic, did the Repukes decide they didn't like immigration anymore.




So essentially, after demonizing people for generations, you are wondering why they won't vote for you? Are you freaking serious?

I wish this were the case. In the last election, 42% of Hispanics and 40% of Asians still voted for Cheeto Hitler (although this had more to do with what a clusterscrew the Democratic ticket was that time.

The thing is, new immigrants are more culturally conservative than White Americans, on the whole. They don't like abortion, or gay marriage, or boys in dresses.

After being told over and over and over again for the past thirty years leftists still pretend there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, that's exactly what they wanted, because the US was doing everything it could at the time to encourage immigration. The ironic thing was that REPUBLICANS at the time were encouraging immigration to fill up all those new states they were carving out of the West.

It was only when those immigrants started voting Democratic, did the Repukes decide they didn't like immigration anymore.




So essentially, after demonizing people for generations, you are wondering why they won't vote for you? Are you freaking serious?

I wish this were the case. In the last election, 42% of Hispanics and 40% of Asians still voted for Cheeto Hitler (although this had more to do with what a clusterscrew the Democratic ticket was that time.

The thing is, new immigrants are more culturally conservative than White Americans, on the whole. They don't like abortion, or gay marriage, or boys in dresses.

Gawd you are ignorant of history, Republicans have never been in favor on uncontrolled immigration. During the time you are talking about, immigrants had to have a sponsor that guaranteed they would never be a burden on the government, they had to be better for criminality and health. Since the shipping companies had to return failed immigrants at their own costs, immigrants were carefully screened by the shipping companies before being allowed to board for passage, then screened again by the US Government at their port of entry.

 

[JoeB131]

After being told over and over and over again for the past thirty years leftists still pretend there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration

Sure there's a difference. Legal immigration requires too much time and too much money.

So far, to get my wife sponsored for permanent residency, I've had to file 250 pages of documentation and pay $3350.00 in legal and filing fees.

This is on top of the seven years she languished in the Asylum application with no action being taken on her case, despite her situation being one the US has railed about for decades (the mistreatment of Christians in China).

That's why I want to SCREAM whenever I hear any idiot talk about "legal" immigration.

 

[JoeB131]

Gawd you are ignorant of history, Republicans have never been in favor on uncontrolled immigration. During the time you are talking about, immigrants had to have a sponsor that guaranteed they would never be a burden on the government, they had to be better for criminality and health. Since the shipping companies had to return failed immigrants at their own costs, immigrants were carefully screened by the shipping companies before being allowed to board for passage, then screened again by the US Government at their port of entry.

Right, Republicans never liked immigrants... which is why this is a country full of people whose ancestors were born somewhere else.

Go away, you are too stupid to be let out in public.