Trump's Birthright citizenship E.O. is spot on according to our Founders

johnwk

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
5,338
Reaction score
2,875
Points
930
.

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.



There is nothing un-constitutional with respect to President Trump's E. O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

In fact, changing current federal policy as stated in Trump's E.O., is not only constitutional, but is in total harmony with our federal government's first duty to advance the "general welfare" of the United states and her citizens.

If a majority members on our S.C. strikes down Trump's E.O. and creates a new category of natural born citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will be acting in defiance of our Constitution's command which puts the people's elected representatives, Congress and President, in charge of setting public policy.

.JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
 
According to the Founders? Really?

You asked em right?

He found a speech from Edmund Burke. Of course, he ignores the rebuttal from Jackson. Of course, it don't make a damn what the founders think since we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution passed after all the founders were dead. The applicable place to go would be the debates over the 14th amendment but the right won't go there.
 
According to the Founders? Really?

You asked em right?
I read the miracle they crafted.

Congress, the people's elected representatives, are granted exclusive power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment Section 5, it delegates to Congress, the people's elected representatives, a "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment.

Unwritten policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, as a citizen of the United States upon birth. If I am in error, quote the statute by which the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Changing current federal policy as stated in Trump's E.O., is not only constitutional, but is in total harmony with our federal government's first duty to advance the "general welfare" of the United states and her citizens.

If a majority members on our S.C. strikes down Trump's E.O. and creates a new category of natural born citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will be acting in defiance of our Constitution's command which puts the people's elected representatives, Congress and President, in charge of setting public policy.
 
He found a speech from Edmund Burke. Of course, he ignores the rebuttal from Jackson. Of course, it don't make a damn what the founders think since we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution passed after all the founders were dead. The applicable place to go would be the debates over the 14th amendment but the right won't go there.
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American Citizens.
We have a constitutional right to control our borders and immigration.
 
He found a speech from Edmund Burke. Of course, he ignores the rebuttal from Jackson. Of course, it don't make a damn what the founders think since we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution passed after all the founders were dead. The applicable place to go would be the debates over the 14th amendment but the right won't go there.
winston if there was a woman from another country who was 8 months pregnant standing at the entrance to come in here,would you let her in or tell her to come back after her pregnancy is over?...
 
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American Citizens.
We have a constitutional right to control our borders and immigration.
I swear, I don't know if there is anything more ignorant than that claim. So, Democrats are racist yet Republicans want to keep out people of color. But you are correct, WE have a right to control our borders. Not the big fat orange turd. In short, Congress controls immigration, not the executive branch.
 
I swear, I don't know if there is anything more ignorant than that claim. So, Democrats are racist yet Republicans want to keep out people of color. But you are correct, WE have a right to control our borders. Not the big fat orange turd. In short, Congress controls immigration, not the executive branch.
Bullshit.

Search Assist
The President of the United States has significant authority over immigration policy, including the ability to enforce immigration laws, set refugee admissions, and implement travel bans
 
Bullshit.

Search Assist
The President of the United States has significant authority over immigration policy, including the ability to enforce immigration laws, set refugee admissions, and implement travel bans
Nobody says he doesn't. But he sure as hell doesn't have the right to change the %@#&(*&%@ Constitution.
 
Nobody says he doesn't. But he sure as hell doesn't have the right to change the %@#&(*&%@ Constitution.
He isn't. He is asking the SCOTUS to check the legality of birthright citizenship. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Nobody says he doesn't. But he sure as hell doesn't have the right to change the %@#&(*&%@ Constitution.
Trump's Executive Order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House is setting public policy and is not violating any terms set forth in our Constitution.

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.

If you disagree, substantiate your claim with the federal statute stating the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is granted the status of a natural born citizen of the United States.
 
Trump's Executive Order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House is setting public policy and is not violating any terms set forth in our Constitution.

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.

If you disagree, substantiate your claim with the federal statute stating the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is granted the status of a natural born citizen of the United States.
I get all that. But, the thing is, that debate happened almost 100 years ago and it was settled with the 14th amendment. What Trump is attempting to do is change the interpretation of, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Do you really want to establish the fact that the United States has no jurisdiction over illegal immigrants? Hell, if we have no jurisdiction over them how can they be illegal?
 
I get all that. But, the thing is, that debate happened almost 100 years ago and it was settled with the 14th amendment.

It was settled?

It is asserted by Petitioners in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), challenging Trump’s E.O. ”Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship” that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has already settled the question of whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are natural born U.S. citizens upon birth, and yet, the circumstances surrounding the Wong case are by far, extremely different from whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are automatic U.S. citizens.

The facts surrounding the Wong case are, Wong’s parents were permitted in the United States under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, they were legally domiciled residents in the United States at the time of Wong's birth in 1873; had been settled in the U.S. for quite some time; they were carrying on a lawful business; and Wong's parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

By the above stated facts, Wong’s parents, for all intents and purposes, seemingly voluntarily placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood by its crafters.


The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever 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. Answering this question one way or the other turns out to be a political matter, and one to be determined by the people’s elected representatives, their Congress or President, and is a non-justiciable matter under the United States system of government and its separation of powers.

If you disagree with me, provide your documentation.
 
15th post
The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever 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. Answering this question one way or the other turns out to be a political matter, and one to be determined by the people’s elected representatives, their Congress or President, and is a non-justiciable matter under the United States system of government and its separation of powers.

If you disagree with me, provide your documentation.

What flipping exhaustive review? Pretty simple really, I focus on Conness we represented California at the time. The debate surrounded Mongolians and Gypsies, they were the boogiemen back then like the Hispanics are now. Lots of ground to cover in the link, I would focus on the end of May.

But Conness came right out and said it. He dismissed the whole gypsy thing and accurately stated that no one had more experience with the "Mongolians" than California. He knows many came here illegally. He knows that many won't stay, even mentioning that they even send their dead bodies back to China. He said, it didn't matter, and his interpretation was the one that ended up being understood.

Now, to Wong,

Wong’s parents were permitted in the United States under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, they were legally domiciled residents in the United States at the time of Wong's birth in 1873; had been settled in the U.S. for quite some time; they were carrying on a lawful business;

Ah, sounds so quaint. It just leaves out the fact that Wong's parents left and went back to China. Hell, after returning from China visiting them was when Wong was detained.
 
Last edited:
I swear, I don't know if there is anything more ignorant than that claim. So, Democrats are racist yet Republicans want to keep out people of color. But you are correct, WE have a right to control our borders. Not the big fat orange turd. In short, Congress controls immigration, not the executive branch.
Actually it is the Democrats who are the racists.
They are conducting a Demographic war against White voters.
 
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American Citizens.
We have a constitutional right to control our borders and immigration.
Yes, you do, within the restraints of the Constitution.

And this issue of children born to non-citizens on soil subject to US jurisdiction was rendered 128 years ago.

You are overruled and the law of the land is sustained.
 
Yes, you do, within the restraints of the Constitution.

And this issue of children born to non-citizens on soil subject to US jurisdiction was rendered 128 years ago.

You are overruled and the law of the land is sustained.

You forgot to substantiate your claim with acceptable documentation that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are natural born citizens of the United States. In fact Wong Kim Ark highlight specific conditions resulting in Wong's natural born citizenship status:

Wong’s parents were permitted in the United States under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868,

they were legally domiciled residents in the United States at the time of Wong's birth in 1873;

had been settled in the U.S. for quite some time;

they were carrying on a lawful business;

and Wong's parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Under the above stated facts, Wong’s parents, for all intents and purposes, seemingly placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood by its crafters, and thus, was a natural born citizen of the U.S.

Your suggestion that the Wong case is applicable to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who give birth on American soil, and have invaded our borders and violated our laws upon entry, such children are natural born citizens, is without merit and unsubstantiated by the Wong case you mention.
 
Back
Top Bottom