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

[AZrailwhale]

Why is it legally or morally wrong?

Legally, this has been the law for over 100 years. YOu are born here, you are a citizen.

Morally, that's just a matter of opinion. If you are a racist douchenoodle, then yup, this is really bad, but most of us don't care.

Because the clear language of the Amendment and the contemporary thoughts of the authors specifically excluded citizens of other countries, Indians, foreign troops and diplomats and their families from the act.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Two illegals can't make a US citizen, just as two foreign diplomats can't.

The 14th currently says they do. You need to change that.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Admiral Rockwell Tory is correct.

There are simply babies. There are no anchor babies.

 

[kyzr]

The 14th currently says they do. You need to change that.

if diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" how can illegal aliens or people here on visas be????
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

If 10 million Russians invaded the U.S. and occupied the east coast for a number of years in a war, would their spawn then be anchor baby U.S. citizens? Hell no. Now work backward from that extreme example to the next, millions of foreign ILLEGALS who broke our laws jumping across our border and occupying the U.S. Then proceeded to break all manner of our laws. Why in the hell would their anchor babies become U.S. citizens???

Who gives a shit what some clown senator in 1868 was saying, this shit today wasn't going on back then and they didn't have to deal with the ENEMY WITHIN Democrats blatant traitorous behavior.

 

[Muhammed]

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

It needs to stop.

We also need to abolish dual citizenship.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

if diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" how can illegal aliens or people here on visas be????
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

View attachment 1239495

Because they are under orders of their home government. They are not here voluntarily like any other visitor/illegal.

Thank you for your concern. Now legislate the restriction by changing the 14th. That is what SCOTUS will be telling you.

 

[Concerned American]

The Democrat Party treats American Citizens as their opposition.

I shutter to think what would happen if the framers saw what our gov't has evolved to. I think they would start killing every gov't representative, senator, potus, vp and cabinet member. Can't say that I think it would be a bad thing.

 

[skews13]

Two illegals can't make a US citizen, just as two foreign diplomats can't.

So the Trumps are illegal? Interesting.

 

[skews13]

It needs to stop.

We also need to abolish dual citizenship.

So all you need is two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the states, and you're all set.

 

[jacksonlamb]

if diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" how can illegal aliens or people here on visas be????
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

View attachment 1239495

This was decided 128 years ago. End of story.

 

[Muhammed]

So all you need is two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the states, and you're all set.

Wrong. Just follow the constitution.

My position is 100% constitutional.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Wrong. Just follow the constitution.

My position is 100% constitutional.

SCOTUS does not agree.

 

[Muhammed]

SCOTUS does not agree.

Obviously I agree with the dissent.

What it really breaks down to is Vattel vs. Blackstone. And I believe it is very evident the founders embraced Vattel's ideas on allegiance and citizenship deriving from heritage and natural law. They rejected Blackstone's idea that any person born on a monarch's soil owes allegiance to them for life via divine right.

We fought a war over this.

 

[kyzr]

Because they are under orders of their home government. They are not here voluntarily like any other visitor/illegal.
Thank you for your concern. Now legislate the restriction by changing the 14th. That is what SCOTUS will be telling you.

Diplomats and illegals are also not US citizens "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

You are probably right based on the SCOTUS questions, but non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to make a US citizen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Diplomats and illegals are also not US citizens "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

You are probably right based on the SCOTUS questions, but non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to make a US citizen.

Then we need to change the wording of the 14th. Right?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I shutter to think what would happen if the framers saw what our gov't has evolved to. I think they would start killing every gov't representative, senator, potus, vp and cabinet member. Can't say that I think it would be a bad thing.

You probably do! Most people shudder.