Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Syriusly]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Plyler v. Doe clearly states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Of course their children- the ones born here and born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

*sigh* Plyler was about due process rights! You have due process rights on the basis of being a human being.

A Texas statute denying free public education to undocumented immigrants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The case has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. It was a 5-4 decision that, in my opinion, was judicial overreach. That was also the dissenting opinion because this was the job of Congress. You cling to a footnote in the majority opinion, which wasn't the basis of the case.

Plyler v. Doe clearly states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Of course their children- the ones born here and born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Because the 14th Amendment requires only two things:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

 

[Syriusly]

"Plyler construed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires every State to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others.

To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe.

But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike.

And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

No one is saying that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" of the US.... but that is NOT the requirement of the 14th. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is much more than "within the jurisdiction" and it has a completely different context.

Explain to us how jurisdiction means two different things within the same paragraph of the 14th Amendment?

And explain why you think Wong Kim Ark was wrong when they said that they do mean the same thing

It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."- Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Or even more completely- and more informatively:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

"Plyler construed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires every State to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others.

To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe.

But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike.

And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

No one is saying that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" of the US.... but that is NOT the requirement of the 14th. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is much more than "within the jurisdiction" and it has a completely different context.

I realize there are "constitutional scholars" everywhere, discussing the ins and outs of this specific issue and there is a wide range of opinions. But the Supreme Court has never had a case ruling on the specific issue of citizenship solely by birth right. That's never happened. All you can do is piece together an argument based on rulings in unrelated cases.

Now you may be right or wrong, I don't know, the case hasn't been brought. Even if it is, the Court can be wrong... they've been wrong numerous times in history, it wouldn't be a first. But I'll be damned if you're going to run around proclaiming this is somehow "settled law" when it isn't!

Its pretty settled when the Supreme Court recognizes without comment that the child born in the USA to illegal alien parents is a U.S. citizen
The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country

 

[paperview]

"Plyler construed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires every State to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others.

To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe.

But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike.

And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

No one is saying that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" of the US.... but that is NOT the requirement of the 14th. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is much more than "within the jurisdiction" and it has a completely different context.

I realize there are "constitutional scholars" everywhere, discussing the ins and outs of this specific issue and there is a wide range of opinions. But the Supreme Court has never had a case ruling on the specific issue of citizenship solely by birth right. That's never happened. All you can do is piece together an argument based on rulings in unrelated cases.

Now you may be right or wrong, I don't know, the case hasn't been brought. Even if it is, the Court can be wrong... they've been wrong numerous times in history, it wouldn't be a first. But I'll be damned if you're going to run around proclaiming this is somehow "settled law" when it isn't!

lol. You're really tying yourself up in knots here to try and make this one flush out for you. Subject to doesn't mean within the ...

It sure does. Here.

One another case in that link footnoted, and referred to in a SCOTUS opinion:
[41] 471 U.S. 444, 446. Cf. INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 (1981) (upholding Attorney General’s discretion not to suspend deportation for illegal aliens despite hardship for their U.S. citizen children); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 771 (1950) (“[T]he Court [has] held its processes available to ‘an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here.’”) (quoting Yamatayo v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903)).

 

[Camp]

Trump cultist are dishonestly attempting to make it appear that Trump is not being a bold faced liar about having "a great many constitutional experts" promoting these rejected points of law. His contentions have no merit or credibility. The cultist just want to make it appear there is a debate where there in none. Trump's 14th Amendment and birthright claims and ideas are scams. All these cultist are doing is trying to muddy the waters. They have been repeating the same garbage all week. All week they have been bombarded with legal briefings, links to court rulings, judgments from genuine confirmed constitutional scholars, etc. that prove beyond a doubt that they are pushing garbage.

 

[Boss]

Explain to us how jurisdiction means two different things within the same paragraph of the 14th Amendment?

Well, fucktard... because words mean different things used in different context... even in the same paragraph. What usually doesn't happen in the same paragraph is a repeat of the same thing in the same context... unless you're speaking to a mental patient.

And no, Plyler did not state that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction. It found they are "within the jurisdiction" and in the specific case of Plyler, meet the criteria of the 14th because the government had recognized them as "subject to jurisdiction" with their own actions.

Okay.. so here's the deal... The state or local government can't say... we know you're an illegal alien and we're not going to deport you but we're going to make you pay more for education or we're not going to provide the service because you're illegally here. By the government accepting they are illegal aliens and not taking action to deport them, they have accepted their 'allegiance' and they are now "subject to jurisdiction" under the 14th. You can't deny their constitutional rights once that has happened. This is what Plyler ruled... I think it was an incorrect ruling, but that is the ruling nonetheless. It still isn't a confirmation of automatic birthright citizenship.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

 

[Boss]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

*assuming you meant "aren't" here.

Okay... So let's take a philosophical leap of faith here and say you are correct in the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default.

I get that argument. But then what? The parents are illegal, they've broken the law. The child is here as a result of them having broken the law. Is the remedy to reward them too with citizenship? Should we deport the parents and keep the citizen children? What exactly would you recommend?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.

But for some reason, doing that to someone who is breaking the law every single day they are in this country illegally, is considered wrong and inhumane. Something isn't right about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump cultist are dishonestly attempting to make it appear that Trump is not being a bold faced liar about having "a great many constitutional experts" promoting these rejected points of law. His contentions have no merit or credibility. The cultist just want to make it appear there is a debate where there in none. Trump's 14th Amendment and birthright claims and ideas are scams. All these cultist are doing is trying to muddy the waters. They have been repeating the same garbage all week. All week they have been bombarded with legal briefings, links to court rulings, judgments from genuine confirmed constitutional scholars, etc. that prove beyond a doubt that they are pushing garbage.

is it Any wonder some on the left are skeptical of Any capitalist with Only social plans and no capital plans that involve multibillion dollar bonuses for the People.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

I get that argument. But then what? The parents are illegal, they've broken the law. The child is here as a result of them having broken the law. Is the remedy to reward them too with citizenship? Should we deport the parents and keep the citizen children? What exactly would you recommend?.

In my opinion the parents should be given two options:
a) they can voluntarily take their citizen child with them when they are deported or
b) make arrangements for their citizen child to be left in the custody of someone- family or friends

 

[Syriusly]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.t.

If you were that woman- and you were an illegal alien- you could not rob that bank and then claim you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because you are here illegally.

That is why a child born to you here would be a U.S. citizen- because you- and your baby- would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

*assuming you meant "aren't" here.

Okay... So let's take a philosophical leap of faith here and say you are correct in the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default.

I get that argument. But then what? The parents are illegal, they've broken the law. The child is here as a result of them having broken the law. Is the remedy to reward them too with citizenship? Should we deport the parents and keep the citizen children? What exactly would you recommend?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.

But for some reason, doing that to someone who is breaking the law every single day they are in this country illegally, is considered wrong and inhumane. Something isn't right about it.

You do realize, don't you, that simply having a child who is a US citizen does not exempt a person from deportation? Were you under the mistaken assumption (one of many, for you) that just by having a baby who is a US citizen entitles an illegal alien to stay? It does not. All you need do is read the other Supreme Court case that recognized that Wong Kim Ark held that being born in the US and not being the child of a diplomat makes you a citizen to understand that. INS v. Rios-Pineda. INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985) The illegal immigrant in that case had a son who was a US citizen because the son was born here. Despite that, he was ordered to be deported. He challenged that order and the Supreme Court affirmed the deportation order. The only thing that the law does is permit a person who is here illegally to petition for a suspension of his deportation if he has been here for more than seven years, if he has not engaged in other crimes and if he can prove that his deportation would work a substantial hardship on a child or spouse who is a citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Explain to us how jurisdiction means two different things within the same paragraph of the 14th Amendment?

Well, fucktard... because words mean different things used in different context... even in the same paragraph. What usually doesn't happen in the same paragraph is a repeat of the same thing in the same context... unless you're speaking to a mental patient..

You have yet to be able to support that the same word in the same paragraph means two different things.

And you have yet to address that Wong Kim Ark said that they do mean the same thing.

I understand you think I am a 'fucktard'- because that is how you view anyone who dares have a different opinion than your own- and who shows how idiotic your claims are-

So explain why you think the Justices in Wong Kim Ark are fucktards for disagreeing with you



It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."- Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Or even more completely- and more informatively:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Did I write anything about "illegal immigrants? Hell No! Did I write anything about Charles Manson or the right to bear arms? Hell No! Did I write anything about criminals? Hell No! You're dodging to avoid addressing what I did write!

Oh, I did address what you said:

...if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

In 1865, the "law of the land as determined by SCOTUS ruling" was that negro slaves were property and not citizens with Constitutional rights. Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to change the law established by SCOTUS ruling.

So did you fail HS civics or were you asleep in class that day?

In 1923, Congress acted again to make Native Americans born on US soil, American citizens. Now you would THINK that the SCOTUS could have done this by applying the OBVIOUS intention of the 14th amendment... but I guess the justices weren't as sharp as today's liberal! Back then, the court had found that the 14th didn't apply to Native Americans born on US soil... so Congress passed an act.

And if you have time... We can go through at least a dozen more cases where Congress defied the glorious Supreme Court and passed laws which contravened their decisions. Now if you don't want to live in a society with trilateral government, you need to get Bernie or Hillary to speak up on this. I think much of the country would be interested to know you think we should be a nation ruled by a Supreme Court instead of a representative republic with three co-equal branches.

Here is your post, to which I responded dipstick:
"Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?" < Boss Post # 761 >

His my full post (#767) in its full context in response, asshole :
"The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!"

Don't ever misquote me out of context again jackass and use the quote option so the post in question can be located, dullard! You are despicable!

Why the **** are you trying to conflate naturalization and birthright citizenship, FOOL? They are two separate things!!~!! Wake up Smack!

The reason native Americans were not impacted by Amendment XIX rested upon a specific clause (“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”) included in the amendment that distinguished them because of their allegiance to their own hierarchy within their own sovereign lands within the territorial boundaries of the US, Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of their own tribal Nations Jesus, Mary and Joseph you're dense! At least try to understand what you're so damned confused about. Try going to the Congressional Research Service's Annotated Constitution to edify thyself

You claim that Congress enacted a law in 1923 making Native Americans The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was signed into law by President Coolidge on June 2, 1924. One of the main reasons for its passage was to honor the thousands of Native Americans who put on the uniform of the United States during WWI. It provided Native Americans DUAL CITIZENSHIP. That had NOT a damned thing we were discussing regarding US v. Wong. It was just another rouse by you to keep from addressing points I made displaying your gross errors, shit for brains!

You wrote above in post #770:
"And if you have time... We can go through at least a dozen more cases where Congress defied the glorious Supreme Court and passed laws which contravened their decisions. Now if you don't want to live in a society with trilateral government, you need to get Bernie or Hillary to speak up on this. I think much of the country would be interested to know you think we should be a nation ruled by a Supreme Court instead of a representative republic with three co-equal branches."

You have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this entire topic is far above your ability to comprehend! The main function of SCOTUS is judicial review. You really need to read and understand the writings of Blackwell, Hamilton in Federalist #78, Marshall and Story to understand the role the Article III courts play. But you won't do it because you are so damn conceited that you know it all already and anyone that contests your warped vision of Constitutional law is automatically wrong in spite of your obvious and routine errors, lies and distortions!

Another ******* thing you dimwit! History and Civics are two different and discreet subjects of study. They are NOT the same. Now go get that tall pointy hat, put it on and sit on that stool in the corner!

 

[Boss]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.t.

If you were that woman- and you were an illegal alien- you could not rob that bank and then claim you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because you are here illegally.

That is why a child born to you here would be a U.S. citizen- because you- and your baby- would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Maybe you are missing my analogy... I wasn't talking about someone illegally here robbing a bank. The bank robbing was an example of breaking the law, like an illegal alien is doing every day they are here. Yet... they can pop out a baby and claim immunity because they have their "anchor baby." Having a baby doesn't seem to be an excuse to ignore breaking the law in other cases. We don't forgive other law breakers on the grounds they have a baby at home they need to take care of.... their "anchor baby" who ties them to their home and prevents us from punishing them. It's insane.

People who have violated our laws and come here illegally, have to be punished for breaking the law... not rewarded with citizenship because they plopped out a kid. You wanna call the kid a citizen... fine... but you've still got to punish the parent for breaking the law. So do you take the kid away when you deport them? Is THAT the right thing to do? Do you leave it up to the parent? Should a court decide? How do you propose we deal with that? I am open to suggestions as long as the illegal alien is deported.

 

[Boss]

You have yet to be able to support that the same word in the same paragraph means two different things.

Well, I think I did, so I guess we disagree.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.t.

If you were that woman- and you were an illegal alien- you could not rob that bank and then claim you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because you are here illegally.

That is why a child born to you here would be a U.S. citizen- because you- and your baby- would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

People who have violated our laws and come here illegally, have to be punished for breaking the law... not rewarded with citizenship because they plopped out a kid. You wanna call the kid a citizen... fine... but you've still got to punish the parent for breaking the law. So do you take the kid away when you deport them? Is THAT the right thing to do? Do you leave it up to the parent? Should a court decide? How do you propose we deal with that? I am open to suggestions as long as the illegal alien is deported.

I call the child born in the United States a citizen for the same reason I would call you a citizen.

We can punish the parents because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I mentioned before- we cannot deport a citizen- but if the child's parents decide to bring the child with them when they are deported- then that is their choice. Otherwise, they give up custody of the child to friends or family or some other responsible adults.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Illegal aliens coming into the country are* the ones being born here. can you conceive that point without obfuscation?

*assuming you meant "aren't" here.

Okay... So let's take a philosophical leap of faith here and say you are correct in the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default.

I get that argument. But then what? The parents are illegal, they've broken the law. The child is here as a result of them having broken the law. Is the remedy to reward them too with citizenship? Should we deport the parents and keep the citizen children? What exactly would you recommend?

If I were a woman and I went and robbed a bank... i.e.; broke the law... I couldn't run to my "sanctuary" house with the loot and plop out a baby, then claim you can't arrest me because of my anchor baby! That doesn't excuse me from breaking the law. The government would take my baby and I'd go to jail.

But for some reason, doing that to someone who is breaking the law every single day they are in this country illegally, is considered wrong and inhumane. Something isn't right about it.

Yes, I meant aren't. I take full responsibility for my egregious typo! See how easy that is, Boss? Make an error, own up to it!

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not ******* the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

Your specious logic is notwithstanding. Your logic is non existent with your thoughts being false and your arguments illogical being base on false assumption and ignorance!

I'm not going to look up the post but somewhere in here I said I do not know what the just answer should be. I'm not going to set myself up as Solomon. I'm not going to pretend there exists a JUST answer to the issue. I'm not that callous and I'm sure as hell not a politician to play God with the lives of others. He will let us know the right thing to do in time.

 

[Syriusly]

You have yet to be able to support that the same word in the same paragraph means two different things.

Well, I think I did, so I guess we disagree.

Clearly you haven't. You have yet to explain how you believe you are right- and the Supreme Court was wrong

It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."- Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Or even more completely- and more informatively:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why does Trump have so much trouble getting people to understand what he says?

Does he need a translator?

The "people" who have difficulty with some of what he says are laughable liberals.

Deliberate conflation is their SOP.