Trump repeats call for Supreme Court to end automatic U.S. birthright citizenship.

[johnwk]

See: Trump says birthright citizenship 'must be abolished' ahead of Supreme Court ruling

"WASHINGTON, DC: President Donald Trump, on Thursday, June 11, renewed his push to end birthright citizenship, arguing that the United States can no longer sustain a policy that automatically grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil."

There are few things which are indisputable and our Supreme Court ought to take them into consideration when deciding Trump v. Barbara, which questions U.S. birthright citizenship.

During the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

Likewise, there is no Supreme Court ruling to be found which took up the question, “Is a child born on American soil to a foreign national who violated United States law upon entry into the United States, a natural-born United States citizen upon birth”?

Additionally, our system requires consent of the governed in matters which affect the peoples’ general welfare and their daily lives. U.S. birthright citizenship, without question, affects the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. Consent of the governed may be satisfied via Article V, our system’s amendment process, or, through the people’s elected representatives acting on their behalf . . . their Congress or President. If an unelected majority on our Supreme Court hands down a decision which effectively recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth, they will have subjugated that part of our system which requires consent of the governed.

JWK

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

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The SC birthright citizenship decision will be announced in few weeks.
Birthright Citizenship was never intended for non citizens.
But, I don't have confidence in this SC.

 

[johnwk]

The SC birthright citizenship decision will be announced in few weeks.
Birthright Citizenship was never intended for non citizens.
But, I don't have confidence in this SC.

I can't imagine how they could hand down a decision which effectively recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth when there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude the drafters, of the 14th Amendment, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

 

[my2¢]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Those born here didn't enter the U.S. illegally. And I certainly do not wish those born here to be granted immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.

What I most oppose is the insistence of Democrats that the parents of these kids should be allowed to stay in America. They state their opposition of kids being separated from their parents when common sense is clear that there isn't anything keeping these kids from leaving with their parents.

 

[excalibur]

Even native Indians needed a special law to gain citizenship.

 

[johnwk]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Those born here didn't enter the U.S. illegally. And I certainly do not wish those born here to be granted immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.

What I most oppose is the insistence of Democrats that the parents of these kids should be allowed to stay in America. They state their opposition of kids being separated from their parents when common sense is clear that there isn't anything keeping these kids from leaving with their parents.

Bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons [the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals] is not within the province of unelected Supreme Court members to decide.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If the SC correctly decides that non citizens are nor eligible for birthright citizenship, it will crush the Democrat Party.
There will be protests and riots

 

[my2¢]

Bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons [the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals] is not within the province of unelected Supreme Court members to decide.

You need to study the 3 branches of government as such ruling does fall within the judicial and not the executive branch.

 

[task0778]

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret existing law, not create new ones. I don't see how ending birthright citizenship has any basis in current law, and so it isn't in their purview to rule that way. It might be Congress that needs to legislate that. I can see where the status quo needs to be changed, but the Supreme Court isn't the way to do it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

See: Trump says birthright citizenship 'must be abolished' ahead of Supreme Court ruling

There are few things which are indisputable and our Supreme Court ought to take them into consideration when deciding Trump v. Barbara, which questions U.S. birthright citizenship.

During the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

Likewise, there is no Supreme Court ruling to be found which took up the question, “Is a child born on American soil to a foreign national who violated United States law upon entry into the United States, a natural-born United States citizen upon birth”?

Additionally, our system requires consent of the governed in matters which affect the peoples’ general welfare and their daily lives. U.S. birthright citizenship, without question, affects the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. Consent of the governed may be satisfied via Article V, our system’s amendment process, or, through the people’s elected representatives acting on their behalf . . . their Congress or President. If an unelected majority on our Supreme Court hands down a decision which effectively recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth, they will have subjugated that part of our system which requires consent of the governed.

JWK

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

Trump doesn't care about the Constitution, never has, never will.

 

[johnwk]

You need to study the 3 branches of government as such ruling does fall within the judicial and not the executive branch.

Our Judicial Branch of government is not vested with power to create a new identifiable group of persons as being recognized as natural born U.S. citizens. That power is vested in the people's hands under Article V, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives . . . Congress or their elected President.

This is 101 civics.

 

[johnwk]

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret existing law, not create new ones. I don't see how ending birthright citizenship has any basis in current law, and so it isn't in their purview to rule that way. It might be Congress that needs to legislate that. I can see where the status quo needs to be changed, but the Supreme Court isn't the way to do it.

See Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which is very much in harmony with your thinking.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret existing law, not create new ones. I don't see how ending birthright citizenship has any basis in current law, and so it isn't in their purview to rule that way. It might be Congress that needs to legislate that. I can see where the status quo needs to be changed, but the Supreme Court isn't the way to do it.

In this case, though, the SCOTUS is not being asked to create new laws. They are (as you said) being asked to apply the Constitution to the laws and policies that the leftardz are trying to challenge.

 

[toobfreak]

If the SC correctly decides that non citizens are nor eligible for birthright citizenship, it will crush the Democrat Party.
There will be protests and riots

Which just further PROVES the importance of killing this sham.

Show me one American born overseas who was immediately incorporated by force of law as an automatic citizen there.

If we had Hitler and Eva Braun here today to stand trial, and Eva had Hitler's son here, democrats would be demanding he be our next president.

 

[johnwk]

In this case, though, the SCOTUS is not being asked to create new laws. They are (as you said) being asked to apply the Constitution to the laws and policies that the leftardz are trying to challenge.

It is not only interesting to note, but pertinent to the subject of the thread, that from the very beginning of our nation's founding, and when debating our Nations` first RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790, page ll56, Annals of Congress, Representative Burk emphatically states the introduction of some foreign nationals ought to be considered “. . . as a high misdemeanor.”


Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

And yet, under the Biden Administration, millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and terrorist foreign nationals were invited into the United States.

It's time for our Supreme Court to deal with the Biden Administration's criminal conduct. And, upholding Trump's E.O.Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which changes existing unwritten policy, will do just fine.

 

[Winston]

I can't imagine how they could hand down a decision which effectively recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth when there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude the drafters, of the 14th Amendment, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

That is completely untrue. During the Constitutional debate it was bought up, extensively. The senators knew full well what it meant, as Conness put it, anyone born in the United States, regardless of the status of their parents, is granted citizenship.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is completely untrue. During the Constitutional debate it was bought up, extensively. The senators knew full well what it meant, as Conness put it, anyone born in the United States, regardless of the status of their parents, is granted citizenship.

Link

 

[Winston]

Link

https://tmkeck.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/l0k-congressionaldebateonthe14thamendment.pdf

 

[egp320i]

See: Trump says birthright citizenship 'must be abolished' ahead of Supreme Court ruling

There are few things which are indisputable and our Supreme Court ought to take them into consideration when deciding Trump v. Barbara, which questions U.S. birthright citizenship.

During the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

Likewise, there is no Supreme Court ruling to be found which took up the question, “Is a child born on American soil to a foreign national who violated United States law upon entry into the United States, a natural-born United States citizen upon birth”?

Additionally, our system requires consent of the governed in matters which affect the peoples’ general welfare and their daily lives. U.S. birthright citizenship, without question, affects the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. Consent of the governed may be satisfied via Article V, our system’s amendment process, or, through the people’s elected representatives acting on their behalf . . . their Congress or President. If an unelected majority on our Supreme Court hands down a decision which effectively recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth, they will have subjugated that part of our system which requires consent of the governed.

JWK

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

This circumvents how it was written long ago

the founders did not think people would sneak across the southern border, it did not exist

if they have a crystal ball their wording would be precise and enforced

this is simple bend the rules and get left wing activists/judges to allow it

it's been ABUSED for ages.......trump wants to finally end it.........it should be ended

not being used as intended by the founders who could not see the future, times change
our laws need to along with the current times and situations

 

[johnwk]

This circumvents how it was written long ago

the founders did not think people would sneak across the southern border, it did not exist

if they have a crystal ball their wording would be precise and enforced

this is simple bend the rules and get left wing activists/judges to allow it

it's been ABUSED for ages.......trump wants to finally end it.........it should be ended

not being used as intended by the founders who could not see the future, times change
our laws need to along with the current times and situations

Considering unwritten "policy" has been followed for decades, and that "policy" is no longer embraced by the vast majority of the American people as witnessed by the election of Trump, who has promised to change that "policy", I find it difficult to imagine that a majority of our Supreme Court members would meddle in a lawful changing of "policy" which is clearly articulated in Trump’s E.O.Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

Let us not forget that our system intentionally provides for elections in order for the people to change existing public policy. Currently, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, as a natural born citizen of the United States.


Are we to forget the good people of the United States endured and suffered under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years?

If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new identifiable group of natural born citizens, extending it to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.


Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority to decide, and must be decided by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President, or the people themselves under Article V."

JWK

The Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,’ or ‘common sense.’ ... We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role. — Chief Justice Warren Burger, dissenting in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)