Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[San Souci]

" Keep Rowing "

* Court Of Public Opinion And Reciprocity *

The roe v wade is not dead , rather roe v wade has been usurped by dumbfounded conclusion by a scotus , now guilty of sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments , as well as being guilty of malfeasance against title 1 section 8 of us code .

Bullshit. The was absolutely NO Mention of murdering babies in the Constitution,. ROE violated the 14th. Not Dobbs.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Wong Kim Ark case was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. The Court ruled that a child born in the United States to parents who are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government automatically becomes a U.S. citizen at birth1. This interpretation was based on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "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."

Some argue that this decision deviated from the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was primarily aimed at ensuring citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. However, the majority opinion in the case emphasized that the Amendment was declaratory in form and enabling in effect, extending citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who is subject to its jurisdiction2.

constitutioncenter.org

But just 30 years earlier, when they passed the amendment, that wasn't the case. We know this from the debates. This is why I asked, do we have any examples of BRC to non citizen parents, between the passage of 14A and the Ark decision.

In those debates, they said "jurisdiction" meant "complete jurisdiction", in that the person owes no allegiance to any other country, and that the country they are born in has complete jurisdiction over the person.

A baby, by nature cannot be claimed to be under the jurisdiction of the united states, because the baby is under the jurisdiction of its parents, who are, in turn, not a citizen of the US, but under the jurisdiction of another country, and that country can claim to have jurisdiction over them, both in the law, and in allegiance.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

But just 30 years earlier, when they passed the amendment, that wasn't the case. We know this from the debates. This is why I asked, do we have any examples of BRC to non citizen parents, between the passage of 14A and the Ark decision.

In those debates, they said "jurisdiction" meant "complete jurisdiction", in that the person owes no allegiance to any other country, and that the country they are born in has complete jurisdiction over the person.

A baby, by nature cannot be claimed to be under the jurisdiction of the united states, because the baby is under the jurisdiction of its parents, who are, in turn, not a citizen of the US, but under the jurisdiction of another country, and that country can claim to have jurisdiction over them, both in the law, and in allegiance.

Please ask pertinent questions.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Triple Sweat Ease See Litigation Mitigation "

* Creed Of Motto E Pluribus Unum Espouses Independence Through Equal Protection Among Individuals *

We know you don't get it.

Your contempt for the law is noted.

Bullshit. The was absolutely NO Mention of murdering babies in the Constitution,. ROE violated the 14th. Not Dobbs.

With which of the following statements would you agree to be consistent with us 14th , 9th and 10th amendments :
" a state does not have the power to abrogate us federal constitution " ?
" all federal constitutional protections do not need to be enumerated " ?
" a rite to abortion does not need to be enumerated " ?
" a state is proscribed from abrogating a rite to equal protection from us 14th amendment " ?
" a rite to equal protection includes a live birth requirement " ?
" a state is proscribed from abrogating a rite to equal protection that includes a live birth requirement " ?
" a state is proscribed from providing a equal protection that includes a rite to life to any thing that has not satisfied a live birth requirement " ?
?

None need explain a logically of course statement to supreme court justices , whereby dobbs is dumbfounded made clear from alito comments that a potential life from roe v wade was not sufficiently explained , as if an ability to survive an imminent live birth at natural viability was not in lieu of a live birth requirement . even as the same scotus contradicted its dobbs conclusion through opinions against txsb8 .

The logically of course statement of blackmun concluded an establishment of constitutionally obvious limits of legitimate state interest , especially within a republic founded upon equal protection of individuals and a live birth requirement , whether an individual is a federate , a state , a corporate , or a civil litigant .

Any individual is entitled to legal standing that its enumerated rite of equal protection in us 14th amendment also includes a live birth requirement , and as states do not have the power to abrogated an enumerated rite of equal protection that includes a live birth requirement , states are proscribed from providing constitutional protections to any thing which has not met a live birth requirement .

By constitution , neither a federate , nor a us state can provide constitutional protections to things which has not met a live birth requirement .

As states are providing a constitutional protections by securing a rite of life for a thing which has not met a live birth requirement , states are in violation of us 14th , 10th and 9th amendments .

As there is not a difference between edicts and tenets of a creed and a religion ; and , those whose edicts and tenets of creed seek to violate us 14th , 10th and 9th amendments , as well as debase foundations of us republic , for independence of the individual through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , those are also in addition violation of us 1st amendment .


Else , let us hear the suit for libel , for slander , for violating principles of non violence , or for violating principles of individualism , elucidated here in through free speech , rather than censured through institutions of fee speech , as a matter of public record over rhetoric , which the fee press would then be sanction to report .

Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion " * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism * Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...

www.usmessageboard.com

Us 9th amending is to be otherwise understood as an equal protection clause of constitution , where us republic and us republicanism espouse independence of the individual through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals .

Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests

" Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests " * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism * Prologue : Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...

www.usmessageboard.com

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

* THREAD T O P I C - Civis Etas Unis Sum Sovereignty Of Us Citizenship *

Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment

" Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment " * Meaning For And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause * Consider the terms " born " and " naturalized " in relationship with the clause of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " from us...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[ThisIsMe]

Please ask pertinent questions.

i did, do you know of any examples? I ask that, not as a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious because I haven't seen any, despite looking for it. All the articles I see say that Wong Kim Ark was the first BRC case, which tells me that it did not exist all the way back to 1866

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Colloquial Meaning In Thereof Is Subjects Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Apply Common Law Clueless Of Linguistics *

i did, do you know of any examples? I ask that, not as a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious because I haven't seen any, despite looking for it. All the articles I see say that Wong Kim Ark was the first BRC case, which tells me that it did not exist all the way back to 1866

A premise that us does not have jurisdiction over its territorial domain is false and mute , however not every individual within us republic is also a subject of us jurisdiction .

The term thereof is flagrantly omitted by sycophants seeking to usurp us 14th amendment and us sovereignty , as the term thereof deconstructs to the terms there and of , which alludes to citizens of etas unis and those whom are subjects by title in us legal immigration system by visa .

 

[San Souci]

" Triple Sweat Ease See Litigation Mitigation "

* Creed Of Motto E Pluribus Unum Espouses Independence Through Equal Protection Among Individuals *



With which of the following statements would you agree to be consistent with us 14th , 9th and 10th amendments :
" a state does not have the power to abrogate us federal constitution " ?
" all federal constitutional protections do not need to be enumerated " ?
" a rite to abortion does not need to be enumerated " ?
" a state is proscribed from abrogating a rite to equal protection from us 14th amendment " ?
" a rite to equal protection includes a live birth requirement " ?
" a state is proscribed from abrogating a rite to equal protection that includes a live birth requirement " ?
" a state is proscribed from providing a equal protection that includes a rite to life to any thing that has not satisfied a live birth requirement " ?
?

None need explain a logically of course statement to supreme court justices , whereby dobbs is dumbfounded made clear from alito comments that a potential life from roe v wade was not sufficiently explained , as if an ability to survive an imminent live birth at natural viability was not in lieu of a live birth requirement . even as the same scotus contradicted its dobbs conclusion through opinions against txsb8 .

The logically of course statement of blackmun concluded an establishment of constitutionally obvious limits of legitimate state interest , especially within a republic founded upon equal protection of individuals and a live birth requirement , whether an individual is a federate , a state , a corporate , or a civil litigant .

Any individual is entitled to legal standing that its enumerated rite of equal protection in us 14th amendment also includes a live birth requirement , and as states do not have the power to abrogated an enumerated rite of equal protection that includes a live birth requirement , states are proscribed from providing constitutional protections to any thing which has not met a live birth requirement .

By constitution , neither a federate , nor a us state can provide constitutional protections to things which has not met a live birth requirement .

As states are providing a constitutional protections by securing a rite of life for a thing which has not met a live birth requirement , states are in violation of us 14th , 10th and 9th amendments .

As there is not a difference between edicts and tenets of a creed and a religion ; and , those whose edicts and tenets of creed seek to violate us 14th , 10th and 9th amendments , as well as debase foundations of us republic , for independence of the individual through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , those are also in addition violation of us 1st amendment .


Else , let us hear the suit for libel , for slander , for violating principles of non violence , or for violating principles of individualism , elucidated here in through free speech , rather than censured through institutions of fee speech , as a matter of public record over rhetoric , which the fee press would then be sanction to report .

Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion " * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism * Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...

www.usmessageboard.com

Us 9th amending is to be otherwise understood as an equal protection clause of constitution , where us republic and us republicanism espouse independence of the individual through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals .

Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests

" Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests " * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism * Prologue : Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...

www.usmessageboard.com

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

* THREAD T O P I C - Civis Etas Unis Sum Sovereignty Of Us Citizenship *

Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment

" Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment " * Meaning For And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause * Consider the terms " born " and " naturalized " in relationship with the clause of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " from us...

www.usmessageboard.com

Screw all that. It is STILL murder. The little whores should use protection.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Naughty Naughty Often Needful And Not Unlawful "

* Carnality Of Canines Seeking Veracity And Claiming Innocence *

Screw all that. It is STILL murder. The little whores should use protection.

The term murder is based on positive law , law that is posited , law that is put in place , as murder is not law of nature .

What about the 3% major congenital abnormalities leading to elective abortion with cause ?

What about the 3% maternal complications leading to elective abortion with cause ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You guys have given your opinions and reasoning over and over and over.

It just does not cut it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

" Colloquial Meaning In Thereof Is Subjects Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Apply Common Law Clueless Of Linguistics *

A premise that us does not have jurisdiction over its territorial domain is false and mute , however not every individual within us republic is also a subject of us jurisdiction .

The term thereof is flagrantly omitted by sycophants seeking to usurp us 14th amendment and us sovereignty , as the term thereof deconstructs to the terms there and of , which alludes to citizens of etas unis and those whom are subjects by title in us legal immigration system by visa .

Yeah...what he said!

 

[JoeB131]

So before the 14th amendment, there was no such thing as birthright citizenship, at least there wasn't a name for it.

Actually, it was understood for free-born white people. It only became an issue when non-White Chinese started coming over and expecting naturalization.

14A was written in 1866
Chinese exclusion act was written in 1882
Wong kim ark decided in 1898

wong kim ark was generally considered the beginning of birthright citize ship. So the question is, how was BRC viewed between 1866 and 1898? It would appear they had the original meaning, up until cotus reinterpreted the 14A in 1898, right?

Nope, not even close. Birthright citizenship was assumed long before the 14th Amendment. It was only when some bigots tried to restrict Chinese people that it needed clarification.

Before that, the meaning would have been what the senators who passed the bill intended, correct?

Nope. Not even close. Birthright citizenship has existed in English Common law long before there was an America.

The 14th Amendment just defined those rights for those who were previously slaves.

That's all fine, but it still didn't mean the Supreme Court had a right to create a law. Dobbs did not ban abortion because that too would not be within the authority of the scotus. All it did was return the issue to the states, nothing more.

The Supreme court didn't create a law, it found existing laws to be a violation of women's right to bodily autonomy as spelled out in the 14th Amendment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, it was understood for free-born white people. It only became an issue when non-White Chinese started coming over and expecting naturalization.



Nope, not even close. Birthright citizenship was assumed long before the 14th Amendment. It was only when some bigots tried to restrict Chinese people that it needed clarification.



Nope. Not even close. Birthright citizenship has existed in English Common law long before there was an America.

The 14th Amendment just defined those rights for those who were previously slaves.


The Supreme court didn't create a law, it found existing laws to be a violation of women's right to bodily autonomy as spelled out in the 14th Amendment.

You forget, there was dissent in the wong case, meaning, there were those that didn't agree:

A history of birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court

This article was updated on Feb. 6 at 2:04 p.m. Shortly after being sworn into office on Jan. 20 for a second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order […]

www.scotusblog.com

Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissented, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan. In his view, Wong was not a U.S. citizen because he could not be “completely subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States: As Chinese citizens, his parents had a duty to the emperor of China, and a federal law, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, barred them from becoming U.S. citizens. So although the 14th Amendment may have been intended to establish citizenship for Black people in the United States, Fuller reasoned, it was “not designed to accord citizenship” to people like Wong.

There's the phrase, again, that was used in the debates of the 14thA. "Complete jurisdiction". This shows that there was disagreement, and that some of the justices were seeing it, and even using the same language, as those who wrote the amendment.

Birthright citizenship was assumed long before the 14th Amendment.

That's because there were no laws at all about illegals or anything addressing BRC. 14A was the first approach to the subject and was the limiting factor. My question is, was there any BRC to non citizen parents AFTER 14A but before wong. It seems there wasn't, which means for that 30 year period, they must have operated on the words of the writers of the 14A, it wasn't until 1898 when that all changed.

The 14th Amendment just defined those rights for those who were previously slaves.

It was more than that. You can't just discard the words of the people who were there, writing the text of the amendment...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

JoeB knows his stuff, and Thisisme is learning from him.

 

[San Souci]

" Naughty Naughty Often Needful And Not Unlawful "

* Carnality Of Canines Seeking Veracity And Claiming Innocence *

The term murder is based on positive law , law that is posited , law that is put in place , as murder is not law of nature .

What about the 3% major congenital abnormalities leading to elective abortion with cause ?

What about the 3% maternal complications leading to elective abortion with cause ?

What about the 50 cents it costs to use a condom?

 

[JoeB131]

You forget, there was dissent in the wong case, meaning, there were those that didn't agree:

There's the phrase, again, that was used in the debates of the 14thA. "Complete jurisdiction". This shows that there was disagreement, and that some of the justices were seeing it, and even using the same language, as those who wrote the amendment.

But they were in the minority, so the ruling as written stands.

That's because there were no laws at all about illegals or anything addressing BRC. 14A was the first approach to the subject and was the limiting factor. My question is, was there any BRC to non citizen parents AFTER 14A but before wong. It seems there wasn't, which means for that 30 year period, they must have operated on the words of the writers of the 14A, it wasn't until 1898 when that all changed.

Well, that's kind of the problem. You can't declare people illegal and then say that rights that their children enjoy under the clearly written words of the constitution don't apply to them. We've done this in the past, such as Jim Crow or the internment of Japanese Americans, and bad things resulted.

You guys don't seem to understand the chaos you are unleashing. Now EVERYONE will have to prove their parents were here legally. Can you lay hands on documentation about your parents? Mine died back in the 1980s, I don't know if I could or not. (And it's not a moot point, my father was born in Germany and came over here as a child.) I know that my sister had a copy of my grandfather's naturalization documents, but she passed away in 2019, and I have no idea where those documents have gotten off to.

It was more than that. You can't just discard the words of the people who were there, writing the text of the amendment...

Sure I can. They didn't put their concerns into the wording of the amendment, so why now largely irrelevant musings they had at the time don't matter.

I would love to apply the musing about the Second Amendment only applying to miitias and rejected wording that made it clear that's what they were talking about injected into the gun debate, but the bad syntax of the Second means crazy people can have guns because of militias that no longer exist.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

But they were in the minority, so the ruling as written stands.



Well, that's kind of the problem. You can't declare people illegal and then say that rights that their children enjoy under the clearly written words of the constitution don't apply to them. We've done this in the past, such as Jim Crow or the internment of Japanese Americans, and bad things resulted.

You guys don't seem to understand the chaos you are unleashing. Now EVERYONE will have to prove their parents were here legally. Can you lay hands on documentation about your parents? Mine died back in the 1980s, I don't know if I could or not. (And it's not a moot point, my father was born in Germany and came over here as a child.) I know that my sister had a copy of my grandfather's naturalization documents, but she passed away in 2019, and I have no idea where those documents have gotten off to.


Sure I can. They didn't put their concerns into the wording of the amendment, so why now largely irrelevant musings they had at the time don't matter.

I would love to apply the musing about the Second Amendment only applying to miitias and rejected wording that made it clear that's what they were talking about injected into the gun debate, but the bad syntax of the Second means crazy people can have guns because of militias that no longer exist.

The minority opinion has no force.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But they were in the minority, so the ruling as written stands.



Well, that's kind of the problem. You can't declare people illegal and then say that rights that their children enjoy under the clearly written words of the constitution don't apply to them. We've done this in the past, such as Jim Crow or the internment of Japanese Americans, and bad things resulted.

You guys don't seem to understand the chaos you are unleashing. Now EVERYONE will have to prove their parents were here legally. Can you lay hands on documentation about your parents? Mine died back in the 1980s, I don't know if I could or not. (And it's not a moot point, my father was born in Germany and came over here as a child.) I know that my sister had a copy of my grandfather's naturalization documents, but she passed away in 2019, and I have no idea where those documents have gotten off to.


Sure I can. They didn't put their concerns into the wording of the amendment, so why now largely irrelevant musings they had at the time don't matter.

I would love to apply the musing about the Second Amendment only applying to miitias and rejected wording that made it clear that's what they were talking about injected into the gun debate, but the bad syntax of the Second means crazy people can have guns because of militias that no longer exist.

But they were in the minority, so the ruling as written stands.

I understand, it is just like it is today, the people with fewer members on the court are overruled, but it shows that people were thinking of it like the original intent conveyed.

Well, that's kind of the problem. You can't declare people illegal and then say that rights that their children enjoy under the clearly written words of the constitution don't apply to them

These were things before the 14A was written. I'm talking about after it was written. I'm not sure what happened before the 14A was written, what examples of BRC to non citizen parents there were, there isn't much documenting about people from other countries arriving in america and giving birth. However, at some point, rules were established to regulate it. Among those rules was the 14A. From that point on, it became the law of the land

Now EVERYONE will have to prove their parents were here legally

That's silly. I'm a citizen by birth of my parents who were also citizens. You are too. To suggest everyone will have to trace their lineage is silly. It would be impossible to do. Still, it doesn't change what the intent of the cotus was.

Sure I can. They didn't put their concerns into the wording of the amendment, so why now largely irrelevant musings they had at the time don't matter.

Then we can say the same thing about the wording of anything in the cotus. None of it is actually defined, so we can make up our own meanings on everything. So, if a future court changes the meaning, then I guess that's what we go by for the foreseeable future.

The difference of the 2A is that the wording is clear and no ambiguity is there, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Still, that doesn't stop many leftys from bringing in those musings, and TRYING to pass gun legislation, suggesting gun bans, and in fact, we DO have gun restrictions on the books, that, if you read the cotus for the words only, are unconstitutional. Someone had to have determined that people didn't need automatic rifles and that the cotus didn't intend on people having them. Where did they get that idea then? Because those words were not written in the cotus itself.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand, it is just like it is today, the people with fewer members on the court are overruled, but it shows that people were thinking of it like the original intent conveyed.

Nope. Settled law for 126 years. It's why three different courts have slapped Cheeto Hitler down on this one. .

These were things before the 14A was written. I'm talking about after it was written. I'm not sure what happened before the 14A was written, what examples of BRC to non citizen parents there were, there isn't much documenting about people from other countries arriving in america and giving birth. However, at some point, rules were established to regulate it. Among those rules was the 14A. From that point on, it became the law of the land

Well, there isn't much documenting because in those days, they WANTED immigrants to come over, when they were white people. So it was usually pretty easy to get naturalized and your kids were considered citizens the moment they popped out of the womb.

The only reason for the wording of the 14th being as explicit as it was because slaves were not considered citizens under the awful Dred Scot ruling.

Then we can say the same thing about the wording of anything in the cotus. None of it is actually defined, so we can make up our own meanings on everything. So, if a future court changes the meaning, then I guess that's what we go by for the foreseeable future.

The difference of the 2A is that the wording is clear and no ambiguity is there,

There's a lot of ambiguity there, see US v. Miller to start with. In fact, up until the Crazy that is Heller, it was basically accepted that the militia clause gave states and the feds rights to regulate gun ownership.

That's silly. I'm a citizen by birth of my parents who were also citizens. You are too. To suggest everyone will have to trace their lineage is silly. It would be impossible to do. Still, it doesn't change what the intent of the cotus was.

How can you prove that?

To give you an example, my next-door neighbor at my previous residence was married to an undocumented immigrant. She was born in Texas and lived here her whole life. When ICE deported him after a DUI, she made a sponsorship claim based on their marriage to get him back.

The immediate response of USCIS was to challenge HER birthright. You see, she wasn't born in a hospital, she was born at home with a midwife attending. So they tried to claim the midwife forged a document.

This is the kind of insanity you guys are proposing.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This question has been settled for more than 120 years.

The Court will not accept any new appeals.

 

[MarathonMike]

You are pissy because the U.S.Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, and your Lardass Messiah is not allowed to crap on the U.S.Constitution.

A Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order​

Blah Blah Blah. You forgot to remind us "WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!!". You liars pretend like you are upholding the Constitution when you twist the words of the 14th Amendment to hand citizenship to the babies of illegal immigrants. LIAR.