Trump supports immigration visas backed by Musk: ‘I have many H-1B visas on my properties’

[jc456]

The court case was:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "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 domicile 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", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has been posted in immigration threads many times. Perhaps you should memorize it, so we don't have to embarrass you yet again!

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

except, this

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
.
.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

And, from your own link

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[11] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[12] 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.[13][14] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The unelected ambulance chasers on the SC

Spell it correctly then. Demogod is not a valid word.

WTF would you want to elect judges? You want the Democrats to load the Supreme Court if they win Congress?

 

[jc456]

SCOTUS says otherwise.

they don't make laws.

 

[Curried Goats]

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

I don't give a shit about the feelings of the frail whites who wrote that article. That's not how it works in practice, Cuck.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You didn't read the court case, did you? It's there in black and white. Get someone else to read it for you and tell you what it means. Maybe then you will understand.

In regard to diplomats, they have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are diplomatic representatives of a foreign country. Ever hear of diplomatic immunity?

Want a good lesson in diplomatic immunity that's pretty accurate? Watch Lethal Weapon II. It's about your speed.

 

[konradv]

they don't make laws.

It’ll never pass.

 

[jc456]

It’ll never pass.

what won't? they aren't lawmakers. They can interpret all they want, the fact is,

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[11] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[12] 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.[13][14] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

 

[Mac-7]

Spell it correctly then. Demogod is not a valid word.

WTF would you want to elect judges? You want the Democrats to load the Supreme Court if they win Congress?

So you are a spelling nazi too?

Thats a sure sign of your defeat

 

[jc456]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You didn't read the court case, did you? It's there in black and white. Get someone else to read it for you and tell you what it means. Maybe then you will understand.

from your own link you provided. Jurisdiction.

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[11] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[12] 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.[13][14] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

 

[konradv]

what won't? they aren't lawmakers. They can interpret all they want, the fact is,

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[11] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[12] 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.[13][14] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

If a law is what’s needed, Congress needs to pass it or previous rulings stand. I don’t think it stands a chance.

 

[jc456]

If a law is what’s needed, Congress needs to pass it or previous rulings stand. I don’t think it stands a chance.

there is a law, the 14th amendment. It isn't for illegals. It was for children of slaves.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

they don't make laws.

They interpret laws, which apparently is something you cannot get through your thick head.

 

[jc456]

They interpret laws, which apparently is something you cannot get through your thick head.

well apparently from your own link, even the lower courts don't use it.

 

[Curried Goats]

there is a law, the 14th amendment. It isn't for illegals. It was for children of slaves.

Until you get the Supreme Court to affirm that your feelings mean **** all to how citizenship is actually recognized in this country.

 

[konradv]

there is a law, the 14th amendment. It isn't for illegals. It was for children of slaves.

The 14th Amendment isn’t a law. Like when SCOTUS said CO couldn’t take Trump off the ballot without a law, same here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

from your own link you provided. Jurisdiction.

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[11] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[12] 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.[13][14] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

You really need to seek help. There is nothing there that disagrees with what I have stated repeatedly. Yes, people disagree. People like you who are uneducated and reactionary generally are. Until someone changes the Constitution or gets the SCOTUS to change the definition of jurisdiction, you are still sucking hind teat!

If want to argue something different, file a lawsuit or get your Congressional rep to submit an Amendment to change the current case law.

Now, do you think you can wrap that tiny little mind around that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

well apparently from your own link, even the lower courts don't use it.

Quote it then! You really suck at backing up your statements, but it is mainly because you can't. The words don't match your interpretation, and you don't get to interpret.

 

[jc456]

You really need to seek help. There is nothing there that disagrees with what I have stated repeatedly. Yes, people disagree. People like you who are uneducated and reactionary generally are. Until someone changes the Constitution or gets the SCOTUS to change the definition of jurisdiction, you are still sucking hind teat!

If want to argue something different, file a lawsuit or get your Congressional rep to submit an Amendment to change the current case law.

Now, do you think you can wrap that tiny little mind around that?

Well they will be removed when trump takes over, again, there are no laws to support otherwise

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you are a spelling nazi too?

Thats a sure sign of your defeat

No, I have an education and to most people words mean thing. I am sorry they don't to you,

 

[jc456]

Quote it then! You really suck at backing up your statements, but it is mainly because you can't. The words don't match your interpretation, and you don't get to interpret.

I did, you ignored it