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

[Harry Dresden]

Come on in.

so you are for people taking advantage of our system?...you are part of the problem...

 

[Winston]

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.

You seemed rather confident in that but I am not just not seeing here. Were Wong's parents here legally, well sure, under the Burlingame treaty, which was rescinded. Furthermore, I can pull the court documents, I don't think rather or not Wong's parents were here legally was even mentioned in the court hearing. But in the end, you have to examine the Congressional Debates to find your answers. You claim, "after and extensive review". I call total bullshit. I have left you the link. You can begin on May 30th, page 2869. Conness is pretty clear here, third column. "Children born to ALL parentage". He didn't say citizens, he didn't say legal immigrants, he flipping said ALL.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

supreme.justia.com

There is the case files. Take notice of this in the summary.

Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China

Much has been said about "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" claiming those subject to a foreign power are not subject to our jurisdiction, which is totally stupid horseshit. But there you have it, hell in Wong the Court openly conceded the fact that Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China.

You now have all the debates on the 14th amendment. You have all the court proceedings, rulings, and filings concerning Wonk. I believe I have documented my position, and not with some damn post from some right wing ass idiot that has never so much as looked at the Congressional Record. You use something from there to support your position, everything after that is noise.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I don't have to. Ark is all that is necessary. You simply have not carried your burden of proof. It is like you are up to 150 feet on Mount Everest.

 

[Moonglow]

.

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

The Naturalization Law of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Law of 1795.

 

[Winston]

so you are for people taking advantage of our system?...you are part of the problem...

Wow. So tell me, when Trump uses tax laws to avoid paying income taxes on millions of dollars of income, he is a good businessman. But yet, is taking advantage of the system? When a wealthy individual uses that nice little accelerated depreciation bit in the one big beautiful bill and writes off the entire cost of his new Gulfstream, is that not taking advantage of the system?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Wow. So tell me, when Trump uses tax laws to avoid paying income taxes on millions of dollars of income, he is a good businessman. But yet, is taking advantage of the system? When a wealthy individual uses that nice little accelerated depreciation bit in the one big beautiful bill and writes off the entire cost of his new Gulfstream, is that not taking advantage of the system?

geezus christ is everything about fuc-king donald trump with you people?.....are you for foreigners taking advantage of this countries generosity?.....which many of them do......try not to think about your boogeyman winston i know you can do it.....

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

Why do countries have borders?

 

[Winston]

Why do countries have borders?

Different reasons. Probably the most secure border in the world. North Korea. The purpose, to keep people IN. Is that what you want?

 

[Winston]

geezus christ is everything about fuc-king donald trump with you people?.....are you for foreigners taking advantage of this countries generosity?.....which many of them do......try not to think about your boogeyman winston i know you can do it.....

It doesn't have to be Trump. My question is when does taking advantage of the system become a bad thing and not a good thing?

 

[johnwk]

The Naturalization Law of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Law of 1795.

Are you talking about the 1795 Act which sets specific conditions under which aliens may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States as follows?

First. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the States, or of the territories north west or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.


Is that the Act you are talking about?

 

[johnwk]

Wow. So tell me, when Trump uses tax laws to avoid paying income taxes on millions of dollars of income, he is a good businessman. But yet, is taking advantage of the system? When a wealthy individual uses that nice little accelerated depreciation bit in the one big beautiful bill and writes off the entire cost of his new Gulfstream, is that not taking advantage of the system?

Your nitwitted and arrogant TDS deflection confirms your disingenuousness.

 

[johnwk]

Different reasons. Probably the most secure border in the world. North Korea. The purpose, to keep people IN. Is that what you want?

Do you have a lock on your entrance door? Do you decide who may enter your home and who may not?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It doesn't have to be Trump. My question is when does taking advantage of the system become a bad thing and not a good thing?

you just cant answer that can you?...its a bad thing when someone is trying to get something for their own gain and could care less about being an American citizen,and yes winston there are many who come here just to get what they can get and could care less about this country....

 

[johnwk]

You seemed rather confident in that but I am not just not seeing here. Were Wong's parents here legally, well sure, under the Burlingame treaty, which was rescinded. Furthermore, I can pull the court documents, I don't think rather or not Wong's parents were here legally was even mentioned in the court hearing. But in the end, you have to examine the Congressional Debates to find your answers. You claim, "after and extensive review". I call total bullshit.

What I actually wrote was:

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.

You have offered no documentation establishing 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.

Stop making shit up.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Different reasons. Probably the most secure border in the world. North Korea. The purpose, to keep people IN. Is that what you want?

Weak dodge of a very simple question. Exactly what I expected.

 

[johnwk]

Weak dodge of a very simple question. Exactly what I expected.

That is their stock and trade . . . dodging, deflecting, instigating, obfuscating, agitating, and . . . .
making shit up

 

[g5000]

.

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

Um...retard?

Aedanus Burke opposed the ratification of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He was a racist slaveowner and an Anti-Federalist.

So your claim that he is a "Founder" whose opinion matters is pure, unadulterated, horseshit.

What's more, the author of the 14th Amendment unequivocally opposed Trump's interpretation of that amendment.

Trump and you know as much about our history as a mangy, homeless dog.

 

[Winston]

Your nitwitted and arrogant TDS deflection confirms your disingenuousness.

Don't you got some reading to do? That post has nothing to do with Trump and sorry I even used his ass. Beside, it isn't even tangential the the argument concerning the 14th amendment. And my support for birthright citizenship doesn't have a damn thing to do with Trump. Nice attempt at deflecting.

"Jus soli", absolutely instrumental in the founding of this nation. At the time, it made the United States rather unique. It is integral to the very fabric of this nation. And to be blunt, giving the federal government the authority to decide who, and who cannot be citizens, is a recipe for despotism.

 

[Winston]

Do you have a lock on your entrance door? Do you decide who may enter your home and who may not?

NO

 

[Winston]

What I actually wrote was:




You have offered no documentation establishing 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.

Stop making shit up.

What the **** you mean I have offered no documentation. Look, I understand if you are too damn lazy to study the actual debates. And I provided the link and reference to the Congressional Debates where Conness said, "regardless of parentage". And that is the thing. The only thing that is really applicable, the Congressional Debates and the Wong case files. Everything else is just opinion. Me, I dig to find my own conclusions. I am sorry you are either intellectually lazy or incapable of doing that.