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

[Monk-Eye]

" 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]

...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"?

 

[Unkotare]

...

What the hell are you talking about now, fool?

You know damned well..... .

So you don't know, or you're afraid to say?

 

[Lysistrata]

" 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]

" 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]

" Citizens Choice Over Migration "

* Maintain Focus *

Hispanic women no longer account for the majority of immigrant births in the U.S.

Much of the downturn in the share of immigrant births to Hispanics has been driven by a decline in births among Mexican-origin women.

www.pewresearch.org

Why Birthrates Among Hispanic Americans Have Plummeted (Published 2019)

As fertility rates across the United States continue to decline, some of the largest drops have been among Hispanics. One big reason: generational difference.

www.nytimes.com

Hispanic women are helping drive the recent decline in the U.S. fertility rate - Child Trends

www.childtrends.org

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.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" 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 . .

https://www.bwwlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Religious-Property-Tax-Exemptions.pdf

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 *

Did Biden Charity Spend Millions on Salaries, Nothing on Research?

Sometimes disinformation states the facts correctly but frames them misleadingly.

www.snopes.com

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.

 

[Unkotare]

...Do not speak the language ...

You don't know that.

 

[Unkotare]

... carrying state food card , ...

That does not indicate citizenship.

 

[Unkotare]

... dragging children around ...

US citizens don't have children?

 

[Unkotare]

... 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]

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.

 

[Street Juice]

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]

" 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 .

Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? " * Opining Proposition * Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother . To avoid humanitarian...

www.usmessageboard.com

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

" 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 .

Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? " * Opining Proposition * Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother . To avoid humanitarian...

www.usmessageboard.com

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.