Trump Challenges Equal Endowment Of Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Migrants

OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
328
Points
140
" No Count Casting Shadows On The Internet Pretending To Be Relevant "

* Excuses For Insufficiency *

What the hell are you talking about now, fool?
You know damned well , turd burgler .
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
96,174
Reaction score
10,749
Points
2,030
...no wonder the us is in this situation with respect to illegal immigration....
What does your ignorance have to do with "this situation"? What does your misunderstanding of free speech have to do with "this situation"? What does you deserving to be dropped on your head have to do with "this situation"?
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
15,027
Reaction score
4,200
Points
290
" Reality Of Current Policy "

* Stop It *

What does your story about what you saw at a market mean anything?
The left swears that illegal migrants are not entitled to equal endowment but every time the illegal migrant slides another kid across home plate over the border they get another bolster of social subsistence .
Did you know these people at the market? If not, how could you know their citizenship status? BTW: what was this thing about "the religion of secular humanism"? What does any religion, which, incidentally, we all are supposed to choose for ourselves, have to do with this subject? Moreover, you need not discuss religion and the "public coffers." Religions get tax exemptions in this country, and the taxpayers foot the bill to provide services for them, everything from police, fire, trash-hauling, and fixing and plowing the roads and sidewalks. You also don't know if this family follows a religion that prohibits birth control.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
" Reality Of Current Policy "

* Stop It *

What does your story about what you saw at a market mean anything?
The left swears that illegal migrants are not entitled to equal endowment but every time the illegal migrant slides another kid across home plate over the border they get another bolster of social subsistence .
Right wingers only allege to care about natural rights in abortion threads.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
" Citizens Choice Over Migration "

* Maintain Focus *

Are you diverting away from children of illegal migrants as the focus of this thread ?
Only right wingers have no market friendly solutions only their socialism on a national basis. Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing.
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
328
Points
140
" Standing For Nothing Falling For Anything "

* Extra Sensory Perception *

Did you know these people at the market? If not, how could you know their citizenship status?
Do not speak the language , carrying state food card , dragging children around , is an obvious giveaway ; note , those becoming us citizens must prove self reliance and self sufficiency else they will be denied citizenship as a matter of policy .

* Taxpayer Under Duress By Tax And Spend Religion *
BTW: what was this thing about "the religion of secular humanism"? What does any religion, which, incidentally, we all are supposed to choose for ourselves, have to do with this subject? Moreover, you need not discuss religion and the "public coffers."
There is NOT a difference between religion and creed and the religion of secular humanism is a reference to the left wing which does not found non profit organizations from philanthropic private donations to fund its charities , rather it feels that its religion is entitled pilfer public coffers for its charities .

* Assuming Too Much About Religious Tax Exemption *
Religions get tax exemptions in this country, and the taxpayers foot the bill to provide services for them, everything from police, fire, trash-hauling, and fixing and plowing the roads and sidewalks.
Federal income tax is an indirect tax based upon commerce for which institutions designated as religions are exempt ; however , property tax is a direct tax and each state and local municipalities may tax religious institutions based upon its property holdings which is used for local police , fire , trash-hauling , etc . .

And so we are left with an ad hoc state by state (if not county by county) analysis of religious property tax exempt ion . One solution would be to draw a bright line: no exemption at all or exemption only for the primary sanctuary. An alternative would be to base property tax exemption on whether the property is used for a related purpose utilizing the body of law that has developed under Section 513 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to unrelated business income. Either would be better than spending the nonprofit’s money and the government’s money on legal fees and court costs .

* More On Denying Accountability *
You also don't know if this family follows a religion that prohibits birth control.
No doubt the puritanical imbeciles of deontology to go forth and multiply offer no reasonable limitation and decline any responsibility for the slums they create and only offer their pity and seek to magnify their own position .

* More Disingenuous Defense Of Take The Money And Run Beijing Biden *
What's True
The Biden Cancer Initiative, a charity founded by U.S. President-elect Joe Biden and soon-to-be first lady Jill Biden in 2017, spent more than $3 million on salaries when it was in operation.
What's False

Although the charity spent no money on cancer research grants, this fact is misleadingly framed in that the Biden Cancer Initiative wasn't a grant-giving organization.
 
Last edited:

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
96,174
Reaction score
10,749
Points
2,030
... those becoming us citizens must prove self reliance and self sufficiency else they will be denied citizenship as a matter of policy .
...
That's not true.
 

Street Juice

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
428
Points
210
Location
Baltimore
trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution.
The Constitution does not need to be changed. You people are really something with the false stories. Birthright citizenship is nothing more than a custom. Trump could, indeed, bring us up to the standard of almost every other country in the world.
 
Last edited:

Street Juice

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
428
Points
210
Location
Baltimore
umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

There is a difference between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction". The rule of thumb is, if there is an authority that can draft you into war, you are subject to that authority. If a war were to break out while a Thai tourist were here seeing the sights, the US could not draft him into the army, hand him a rifle and a bus ticket to Winnipeg and send him off. Therefore, the Thai tourist isn't subject to the US, and if he has a kid while sight-seeing, the kid is Thai and goes home with its parents.

Same for illegals.
 

Street Juice

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
428
Points
210
Location
Baltimore
" Partisan Arguments With Basics Of Citizenship Endowment "

* Depends On Whether One Enters The Front Door Invited Or The Window Uninvited *


Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.
The phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " literally means to be a subject by title of a legal agreement whereby the us vets the subject and authorizes their immigration to the united states and assumes jurisdiction to issue their " equal protection " and to an agreed extent their " endowments " as otherwise , technically , the country of origin remains responsible and must petition the us for justice through diplomacy .

The thread title stipulates " equal endowment " is being challenged because that is distinct from " equal protection " , as citizenship is an endowment .

The basis of a court challenge based upon wong kim ark is that the wong family had been legally allowed into the united states as subjects by title in us legal immigration system whereby us assumed jurisdiction for their well being .

An illegal migrant does not qualify as being a subject by title in us jurisdiction and their children are likewise to be given jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of their parents origin .


Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
The U.S. government claimed that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant "to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States"—an interpretation, based on international law, which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country via the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from a parent).[97][98]
That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
So if Israel dupes us into declaring war on Iran, and the Iranian ambassador happens to be in town, we can draft him and send him off to fight Iran?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
96,174
Reaction score
10,749
Points
2,030
...The rule of thumb is, if there is an authority that can draft you into war, you are subject to that authority. ...
There is no such "rule of thumb." Don't try to make shit up and expect everyone to buy it.
 

Street Juice

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
428
Points
210
Location
Baltimore
There is no such "rule of thumb." Don't try to make shit up and expect everyone to buy it.

Buy this, dumbass, the author of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, made it abundantly clear during Senate debates that it does not apply to alien children:

It excludes not only Indians but persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Likewise, Howard’s co-author, Sen. Lyman Trumball of Illinois, said that the phrase meant complete jurisdiction:

not owing allegiance to anybody else.

Allegiance. French a-legiance, homage. Latin ad-ligare, to tie, bind. The tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
96,174
Reaction score
10,749
Points
2,030
There is no such "rule of thumb." Don't try to make shit up and expect everyone to buy it.

Buy this, dumbass, the author of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, made it abundantly clear during Senate debates that it does not apply to alien children:

It excludes not only Indians but persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Likewise, Howard’s co-author, Sen. Lyman Trumball of Illinois, said that the phrase meant complete jurisdiction:

not owing allegiance to anybody else.
...
None of that means anything. The only thing that has any practical bearing is how the highest court has interpreted the law. Your personal bitterness means nothing. 'Definitions' you pull out of your ass mean less than nothing.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution.
The Constitution does not need to be changed. You people are really something with the false stories. Birthright citizenship is nothing more than a custom. Trump could, indeed, bring us up to the standard of almost every other country in the world.
Not mere custom after 1808. Anyone born in the US is naturally born a US citizen.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

There is a difference between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction". The rule of thumb is, if there is an authority that can draft you into war, you are subject to that authority. If a war were to break out while a Thai tourist were here seeing the sights, the US could not draft him into the army, hand him a rifle and a bus ticket to Winnipeg and send him off. Therefore, the Thai tourist isn't subject to the US, and if he has a kid while sight-seeing, the kid is Thai and goes home with its parents.

Same for illegals.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
" Partisan Arguments With Basics Of Citizenship Endowment "

* Depends On Whether One Enters The Front Door Invited Or The Window Uninvited *


Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.
The phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " literally means to be a subject by title of a legal agreement whereby the us vets the subject and authorizes their immigration to the united states and assumes jurisdiction to issue their " equal protection " and to an agreed extent their " endowments " as otherwise , technically , the country of origin remains responsible and must petition the us for justice through diplomacy .

The thread title stipulates " equal endowment " is being challenged because that is distinct from " equal protection " , as citizenship is an endowment .

The basis of a court challenge based upon wong kim ark is that the wong family had been legally allowed into the united states as subjects by title in us legal immigration system whereby us assumed jurisdiction for their well being .

An illegal migrant does not qualify as being a subject by title in us jurisdiction and their children are likewise to be given jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of their parents origin .


Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
The U.S. government claimed that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant "to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States"—an interpretation, based on international law, which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country via the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from a parent).[97][98]
That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
So if Israel dupes us into declaring war on Iran, and the Iranian ambassador happens to be in town, we can draft him and send him off to fight Iran?
Ambassadors are not subject to US jurisdiction.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top