Trump is correct in Trump v. Barbara

[frigidweirdo]

Did you miss United States v. Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as per our Supreme Court.

Yeah, I got that a long time ago. I was expecting you TO MAKE YOU CASE.

Instead you don't make your case. You just copy and paste.

 

[johnwk]

Yeah, I got that a long time ago. I was expecting you TO MAKE YOU CASE.

I did make my case concerning United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It is not applicable to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as per our Supreme Court.
.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Decided March 28, 1898

Syllabus

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

 

[Jets]

Four threads on this topic?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Like those mentioned in the Snyder Act, creating a new category of natural born U.S. citizenship for Indians who were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

Also see the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900, extending U.S. birthright citizenship to the Citizens of Hawaii; the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, giving Puerto Ricans U.S. statutory birthright citizenship; and in 1940, Congress codified many previous laws and explicitly included persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as U.S. citizens at birth.

Does not matter, John.

 

[johnwk]

Four threads on this topic?

Unlike others, this one confirms our S.C. is unauthorized to create a new group of identifiable persons as natural born citizens upon their birth. Our system puts that decision in the hands of the States and people therein under Article V, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives . . . Congress or their President.

 

[TimFitz]

I suspect it's a long shot but it will be a banner day if SCOTUS agrees with Trump....As they well should.

Back during Biden's open border you looked at the pics and every other woman of breeding age crossing our border was preggers.....No way should their crotch fruit be citizens.

The argument the Trump team is making, claiming Article 2 entitles a President to unlimited Presidential power to issue unlimited Executive Orders, and then daring Congress to do something about it, is a clear formula for tyranny.

And you’re cheering for it.

 

[1srelluc]

The argument the Trump team is making, claiming Article 2 entitles a President to unlimited Presidential power to issue unlimited Executive Orders, and then daring Congress to do something about it, is a clear formula for tyranny.

And you’re cheering for it.

Well, I guess it's a good thing Trump is not a King then.

 

[johnwk]

The argument the Trump team is making, claiming Article 2 entitles a President to unlimited Presidential power to issue unlimited Executive Orders, and then daring Congress to do something about it, is a clear formula for tyranny.

And you’re cheering for it.

Your stupid debating trick is noted: exaggerating Trump's actions, and then arguing against your own exaggeration.

 

[Jets]

Unlike others, this one confirms our S.C. is unauthorized to create a new group of identifiable persons as natural born citizens upon their birth. Our system puts that decision in the hands of the States and people therein under Article V, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives . . . Congress or their President.

That is your opinion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I did make my case concerning United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It is not applicable to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as per our Supreme Court.
.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Decided March 28, 1898

Syllabus

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Nope.

 

[johnwk]

That is your opinion.

Well, if that is the case, please point to the wording in our federal Constitution authorizing our S.C. to create a group of identifiable persons blessed with the priceless privilege of U.S. natural born birthright citizenship.

 

[johnwk]

Nope.

Well, that is very special of you to disagree with what the S.C. held, and avoid substantiating your claim.

 

[TimFitz]

Well, I guess it's a good thing Trump is not a King then.

Are you cheering for the idea of Trump as king?

That’s what his lawyers are asking the Supreme Court.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, that is very special of you to disagree with what the S.C. held, and avoid substantiating your claim.

Jeez, you're not very good at this, are you?

 

[johnwk]

Jeez, you're not very good at this, are you?

Says the one who has yet to provide an intelligent rebuttal

 

[Crepitus]

You people seem to find plenty of wiggle room on "shall not be infringed" now don't you?

We'll just wait and see what the robes have say about it all and let the chips fall where they may.

YOu omitted most of the amendment.