Trump is correct in Trump v. Barbara

[frigidweirdo]

But not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment as understood by those who crafted the amendment.

If I am in error, please provide a quote from a member of the 39th Congress which crafted the 14th Amendment, showing that member, or any member of the 39th Congress, sought to bestow natural-born United States citizenship upon the offspring of foreign nationals who have shown their hostility toward the United States and its laws upon their illegal entry into the United States.

We don't need to.

They had a problem, that problem was black people who the racists didn't want as citizens, and the Native Americans who had been given a special status.

So they worked to find a way to make sure the children of black slaves and free blacks got citizenship every time, and they worked it so that Native American children also got citizenship.

In doing so they barred foreign diplomats and those at war with the US from citizenship for their children. That's how they did it.

So, they made something, they wrote something and that's what they wrote.

Shall we take your argument that "they didn't intend that when they wrote it" for the Bill of Rights?

First Amendment: They didn't mean it to cover the internet, because they didn't know what the internet was. It also didn't include Scientology. So they could make Scientology a national religion

Second Amendment: They didn't mean it to include modern weaponry. So there's no right to any weapon that didn't exist in 1791

Third Amendment: Only houses that existed in 1791 cannot have soldiers quartered in them. Then again, only soldiers from 1791 could be considered soldiers.

I could go on being silly. Just like you're being silly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And your quote confirms, Senator Conness was not proposing or agreeing to granting natural-born birthright citizenship to the offspring of foreign nationals, who show their hostility towards the United States by violating U.S. law upon their entry into the United States. The fact is, never once, during the framing of the 14th Amendment, was the question presented and debated, by the members of the 39th Congress . . . " should the offspring of foreign nationals, who show hostility towards the United States, be granting U.S. citizenship upon their birth?"

Under our system of law, whether you like it or not Jets, the people get to decide, under Article V, the granting of a new identifiable group of persons entitled to the priceless privilege of U.S. birthright citizenship, or, the people's elected representatives, meaning Congress or their elected President, get to make that decision, but not our unelected members who sit on our Supreme Court. Madison summarized the above as follows:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our unelected S.C. members] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___-Federalist Paper No. 47



JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

It also doesn't talk about the children of parents who play chess. So what?

 

[jacksonlamb]

jacksonlamb: You have never show that your assertions and forever long arguing gives anyone the sense SCOTUS with dump anchorbabies.

Your unsubstantiated assertion is noted . . . again.

The fact is, you failed to provide a quote from your link which establishes the crafters of the 14th Amendment, sought to bestow natural-born United States citizenship upon the offspring of foreign nationals who have shown their hostility toward the United States and its laws upon their illegal entry into the United States.

frigidweirdo: And you have still failed to prove that what they wrote didn't cover the children of foreign parents.

Nowhere does it say "if you are hostile towards the US, your children will not get citizenship". It says if your parents are AT WAR with the US then they won't.

 

[busybee01]

Our U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing Trump v. Barbara, a case which challenges President Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”. Factually speaking, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as natural-born citizens of the U.S. See: 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which begins:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Unfortunately, the myth that the majority S.C. opinion in Wong Kim Ark recognized U.S. natural-born birthright citizenship among the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals is still accepted as fact, when the truth is, the question addressed by the Court in Wong did not involve a child born on American soil to parents who were illegal entrant foreign nationals, and who violated U.S. law upon entering the U.S. How could the court have taken up the question, and offered and opinion to such a question when the Fourteenth Amendment was being framed legal entry of foreign nationals into the United States was essentially governed by state laws and largely unrestricted?

The fact is, no S.C. opinion, nor have the American people or their representatives, knowingly, willing and intentionally, have granted U.S. birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Supreme Court members, by the terms of our Constitution, do not have constitutional authority to create a new identifiable group of persons bestowed with the priceless privilege of natural born U.S. citizenship. That authority, which involves a political matter and decision, has rightfully been placed in the people's hands under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives, which was previously exercised by Congress on June 2, 1924, 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.

It seems self-evident that our Supreme Court must apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849) to Trump v. Barbara and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question creating a new identifiable group of persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people themselves, under Article V, by a constitutional amendment, or by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President. As such, Trump's E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” appears to be within the Presidents' Article 2, policy making decision power. Should Congress object to Trump’s E.O., Congress is vested with power, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to adopt appropriate legislation enforcing the amendment.

For our Supreme Court members to not follow Luther v. Borden and create, by its Trump v. Barbara opinion, a new group of identifiable persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, would not only usurp legislative authority, ignore our system’s separation of powers, but likewise subjugate the very reason for having elections, during which time the people have a say in setting new public policy by whom they elect, and did so when electing Donald J. Trump as their president.

Let us not forget a warning succinctly stated by James Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

This is the biggest piece of nonsense. The plain text of the amendment states that anyone born in the US is a citizen except for the children of diplomats. In Senate debate, the author of the amendment was asked about whether it would apply to people here illegally and he stated it would. The politicians of the time accepted that interpretation. The current Supreme Court consists of 6 Republicans and 3 judges. For them to admit this shows this is the correct interpretation.