Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[SwimExpert]

Have you forgotten something? How much do you think those products will cost to American consumers.?

The exact same. Prices are already set based on the maximum projected price consumers are willing to pay.

People are already struggling with existing cost of living. Are you willing to pay higher prices? Because some bullshiter didn't get his way?
Also how can we sell our products to other countries with our prices so high as it is?

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote before you responded.

 

[Ernie S.]

I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.

You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.

If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.

No, he cannot...

So obama can do whatever the **** he wants but a Conservative POTUS must follow your interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.

You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.

If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.

No, he cannot...

So obama can do whatever the **** he wants but a Conservative POTUS must follow your interpretation of the Constitution?

Obama couldn't that either, dummy.

 

[Ernie S.]

I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.

You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.

If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.

No, he cannot...

So obama can do whatever the **** he wants but a Conservative POTUS must follow your interpretation of the Constitution?

Obama couldn't that either, dummy.

But he did, didn't he asshole?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.

If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.

No, he cannot...

So obama can do whatever the **** he wants but a Conservative POTUS must follow your interpretation of the Constitution?

Obama couldn't that either, dummy.

But he did, didn't he asshole?

Nope.

 

[Boss]

Well, that is not what your beer buddies here are telling to the internet. **** Mexican govt. we don't need them. We only do very small business in Mexico etc. etc. we can built then cheaper.
You want to alternate the existing trade agreement because it's no to your advantage? Let me make it simpler. We Americans need specific how to get this done. Not just blanked saying I will renegotiate.

I can't speak for beer drinking buddies of the poster you are addressing but I've not said "**** mexico we don't need them." I certainly haven't claimed we could build things cheaper... that is insane... we can't. Not unless you want to eliminate labor unions and the minimum wage... THEN we might be able to build things cheaper. We can't compete with the cost of labor anywhere, that is what has happened to all our decent-paying jobs.

Now... We have a problem with "free trade" because it's not fair to us right now... we can't compete because we're not on a level field. It's not because "free trade" is bad... it's not bad as long as it's fair.... when it's unfair, it's very bad. So why is it unfair? Because we've had our trade agreements negotiated by idiots, political hacks or "nice guys and gals" instead of 'killers' in negotiation. So we now have a collection of "deals" that have been made, which screw us. And... someone comes along and says the way we have to fix this is to renegotiate our deals... and you think that is "crazy talk!"

So what do you propose we do? I mean... I guess we can elect Hillary who is bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporatists who are making a fortune off our trade deals? Ignore the problem some more and pretend it's all the fault of those "evil rich people" and we need to tax them more and put more socialist burden on capitalism... is that your plan?

As you agreed we can't compete with other countries because of cheaper labor.
However re-negotiate a current agreement because we didn't like it or not to our advantage. Is a lot easier to say than done.
1. All 11 to 40 millions of illegals should be deported.
2. I will re-negotiate the trade agreement if they don't. I will penalized them.
The biggest problem for people like me or many others that rely on facts is. HOW, WHAT and WHERE are the specifics in accomplishing these kind of wet dreams? Not just saying. I will do this and that. He might as well say, I will stop the Niagara Falls using a bucket.
The very sad and very shocking but lots of people are buying into this like you.

Okay... so here is the thing... A GOOD negotiator is not going to tell you exactly how everything is going to happen. The very people who he would have to work with are listening... you understand this, right? So why does he want to tell them what and how he is going to do this? Does it give him some advantage to let them have a heads-up on what he has in mind? I don't think it does, it's kind of a bonehead strategy if you ask me.

He has explained to you in as much detail as you need to know, how he IS going to do this and how it CAN be done. And I think his supporters 100% believe he means it.

Not good enough. He is talking about tariffs there are no secret about tariffs negotiations. We are not talking a used car here.

Well I didn't say anything was secret. If you don't understand why it's wise to keep your cards close to the vest in negotiation, you're an idiot I can't help. I don't know what else to tell you... I'm sorry you're an idiot?

 

[Boss]

Read the ruling, the dissent, which acknowledges that with the majority opinion anyone, with very few restrictions, who had a baby here would have given birth to an American, automatically. That is the history since that ruling, they knew it would be, and they, like you, weren't happy about it.

Nonsense. Naturalized citizens gave birth to a baby here... the baby is an American. That is your case. It had nothing to do with illegal aliens. The SCOTUS has NEVER conferred citizenship on babies of illegal aliens. The Constitution, as well as the 14th make it explicitly clear this is the responsibility of Congress.

You're full of shit, as always.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It has become clear to me that no matter how hairbrained a doofus that the RW puts for for office, if the left just protests enough, then the RW will do everything they can to get him elected, including destroying their own economy in the process. It would be sad if it were not so much to the advantage of the democrats.

 

[RKMBrown]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

Yawn

 

[charwin95]

Well, that is not what your beer buddies here are telling to the internet. **** Mexican govt. we don't need them. We only do very small business in Mexico etc. etc. we can built then cheaper.
You want to alternate the existing trade agreement because it's no to your advantage? Let me make it simpler. We Americans need specific how to get this done. Not just blanked saying I will renegotiate.

I can't speak for beer drinking buddies of the poster you are addressing but I've not said "**** mexico we don't need them." I certainly haven't claimed we could build things cheaper... that is insane... we can't. Not unless you want to eliminate labor unions and the minimum wage... THEN we might be able to build things cheaper. We can't compete with the cost of labor anywhere, that is what has happened to all our decent-paying jobs.

Now... We have a problem with "free trade" because it's not fair to us right now... we can't compete because we're not on a level field. It's not because "free trade" is bad... it's not bad as long as it's fair.... when it's unfair, it's very bad. So why is it unfair? Because we've had our trade agreements negotiated by idiots, political hacks or "nice guys and gals" instead of 'killers' in negotiation. So we now have a collection of "deals" that have been made, which screw us. And... someone comes along and says the way we have to fix this is to renegotiate our deals... and you think that is "crazy talk!"

So what do you propose we do? I mean... I guess we can elect Hillary who is bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporatists who are making a fortune off our trade deals? Ignore the problem some more and pretend it's all the fault of those "evil rich people" and we need to tax them more and put more socialist burden on capitalism... is that your plan?

As you agreed we can't compete with other countries because of cheaper labor.
However re-negotiate a current agreement because we didn't like it or not to our advantage. Is a lot easier to say than done.
1. All 11 to 40 millions of illegals should be deported.
2. I will re-negotiate the trade agreement if they don't. I will penalized them.
The biggest problem for people like me or many others that rely on facts is. HOW, WHAT and WHERE are the specifics in accomplishing these kind of wet dreams? Not just saying. I will do this and that. He might as well say, I will stop the Niagara Falls using a bucket.
The very sad and very shocking but lots of people are buying into this like you.

Okay... so here is the thing... A GOOD negotiator is not going to tell you exactly how everything is going to happen. The very people who he would have to work with are listening... you understand this, right? So why does he want to tell them what and how he is going to do this? Does it give him some advantage to let them have a heads-up on what he has in mind? I don't think it does, it's kind of a bonehead strategy if you ask me.

He has explained to you in as much detail as you need to know, how he IS going to do this and how it CAN be done. And I think his supporters 100% believe he means it.

Not good enough. He is talking about tariffs there are no secret about tariffs negotiations. We are not talking a used car here.

Well I didn't say anything was secret. If you don't understand why it's wise to keep your cards close to the vest in negotiation, you're an idiot I can't help. I don't know what else to tell you... I'm sorry you're an idiot?

Life doesn't go how you bully your opinion. You want to talk garbage because you cannot prove your idiotic baseless opinion fire away. You are grasping for breath and start insulting people. You ******* stupid. This prove to me what kind of people following Trumpbots.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This whole Trump-a-rama thing is exactly what happened with Palin worship, and will have the same result. However, I have seen this sort of thing come out the way the nuts wanted it to come out. It was back in about 1969 when Lester Maddox ran for governor of Georgia. he was going to wave his magic ax handle, and reverse all the supreme court decisions regarding integration. To the utter embarrassment of the moderates in the state, lester won. we thought that it was going to be total disaster for Georgia. However, as time unfolded, it quickly became clear that all Lester could do was make rhetoric and shout racial slurs. The courts blocked him at every turn. In the end, he simply faded away, after having done absolutely nothing in his term except make a lot of noise.

 

[Vandalshandle]

No sir. If you had been paying attention, I said crossing the border illegally would be a cap felony.
Throughout the last few days I have been advocating deporting perhaps a thousand in a well publicized crack down and allowing many many more to return home on their own.

Well, THAT'S a relief! You only want to execute NEW illegal aliens?

Where do you spend your vacations? North Korea?

 

[Boss]

I thought it to be appropriate to quote the 14th amendment wording, so that it's myth can be exposed:

"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."

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Okay.. If the argument of those who believe it confers birthright citizenship were valid, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be necessary. The clause would read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But "subject to jurisdiction thereof" is a very important phrase and it means something. Even the simple word "and" is important. So now you have a list of criteria to meet. You must be born or naturalized, and also... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens; it enters into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.

Fail. Again.

Thus the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “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.” This is the common-law doctrine of jus soli, and the meaning of the language is straightforward.

To the extent an alternative reading exists, restrictionists claim the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause creates ambiguity about the Amendment’s true meaning. Alien parents supposedly owe allegiance to a different sovereign, and therefore they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore their U.S.-born kids are not entitled to citizenship.

But “jurisdiction” defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom—and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth. It does not include foreign diplomats, who enjoy sovereign immunity, and foreign military invaders, who are supposed to obey the laws of war. By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.

Members of the 39th Congress forcefully debated birthright citizenship, with opponents arguing it would benefit the ethnic targets of the day—Indian tribes, Chinese laborers building the railroads, “gypsies.” They did not prevail. In 1898 the Supreme Court confirmed the Amendment’s original meaning in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man of Chinese descent, and it reaffirmed this understanding as recently as 1982 in Plyler v. Doe.​

Born in the U.S.A.

You can claim "FAIL" all you like and cite as many left wing sources that are wrong on this as you please... it won't ever make you right.

The question of "birthright citizenship" was answered in 1884.
Elk v. Wilkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born on an Indian reservation and later resided among whites in the non-reservation U.S. territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.[1] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880, and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth Ward of the City of Omaha.

The question then was, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within theUnited States, is, merely by reason of his or her birth within the United States, and of his afterward voluntarily separating him or herself from the tribe and taking up residence amongwhite citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of theFourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Under the constitution of the United States, Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[2] The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.[3]

Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[4]

The exclusion of Native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. At the time, two-thirds of Native Americans had already achieved citizenship.[5]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have a Native ******* American... born on US soil to his Native American parents... the court found he did not meet the "allegiance" requirement. How can Wong as well as illegal aliens, be "birthright citizens" yet a Native American can't?

Now, I understand that in the lives of liberals there are dozens and dozens of double standards but the Constitution of the United States doesn't work like that. It establishes in Article 1, that Congress has plenary power when it comes to determining who is a naturalized citizen... this could not be clearer... it is not the least bit ambiguous.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--
The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

It does not give the SCOTUS power to rule it into existence or liberal operatives the power to prospectively make it part of the Constitution. SORRY! IT'S NOT THERE!

Even the 14th Amendment leaves plenary power to Congress:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It does not say SCOTUS has power to rule whatever it pleases on this or liberals can interpret the 14th to mean whatever the hell they want. It says CONGRESS has power to enforce the provisions. CONGRESS... Got it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Read the ruling, the dissent, which acknowledges that with the majority opinion anyone, with very few restrictions, who had a baby here would have given birth to an American, automatically. That is the history since that ruling, they knew it would be, and they, like you, weren't happy about it.

Nonsense. Naturalized citizens gave birth to a baby here... the baby is an American. That is your case. It had nothing to do with illegal aliens. The SCOTUS has NEVER conferred citizenship on babies of illegal aliens. The Constitution, as well as the 14th make it explicitly clear this is the responsibility of Congress.

You're full of shit, as always.

It has nothing to do with naturalized or not. All you have to do, under anything but a few rare exceptions, is to be born here and you are an American citizen, automatically:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also dealt with the fact that people who came in illegally would get the same deal. I'm tired of you not doing your homework, so do it this time.

 

[Boss]

This whole Trump-a-rama thing is exactly what happened with Palin worship, and will have the same result. However, I have seen this sort of thing come out the way the nuts wanted it to come out. It was back in about 1969 when Lester Maddox ran for governor of Georgia. he was going to wave his magic ax handle, and reverse all the supreme court decisions regarding integration. To the utter embarrassment of the moderates in the state, lester won. we thought that it was going to be total disaster for Georgia. However, as time unfolded, it quickly became clear that all Lester could do was make rhetoric and shout racial slurs. The courts blocked him at every turn. In the end, he simply faded away, after having done absolutely nothing in his term except make a lot of noise.

So... Did Pinhead Liberals United have a meeting this morning where they decided to go after Trump as a Racist? I ask because this makes about the third pinhead I've run across today who seems to want to make this insinuation and comparison between Trump and the days of racial segregationists.

My guess is this... Some poll result came out that showed Trump was pulling an unusually high number of black votes. Realizing the disaster this spells for Democrats, the operatives are out there today trying to paint Trump as a closet racist.

My prediction is, this tactic is going to fail so badly that you will be trying to blame Republicans for bringing it up.

 

[Boss]

Read the ruling, the dissent, which acknowledges that with the majority opinion anyone, with very few restrictions, who had a baby here would have given birth to an American, automatically. That is the history since that ruling, they knew it would be, and they, like you, weren't happy about it.

Nonsense. Naturalized citizens gave birth to a baby here... the baby is an American. That is your case. It had nothing to do with illegal aliens. The SCOTUS has NEVER conferred citizenship on babies of illegal aliens. The Constitution, as well as the 14th make it explicitly clear this is the responsibility of Congress.

You're full of shit, as always.

It has nothing to do with naturalized or not. All you have to do, under anything but a few rare exceptions, is to be born here and you are an American citizen, automatically:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also dealt with the fact that people who came in illegally would get the same deal. I'm tired of you not doing your homework, so do it this time.

They were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS... MORON!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS... MORON!

Which did not, and does not, matter. And a legal immigrant is not the same as a Naturalized Citizen. If you're a Green Card holder, you're legal, but not a naturalized citizen.

"Citizenship Through Naturalization

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."


"Rights and Responsibilities of a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident)

Your Rights as a Permanent Resident

As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:

• Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
• Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
• Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions"

One is a citizen, the other is not. And legal or illegal, US v Wong said that didn't not matter. It's in the ruling. Just to shortcut the process, Wong's parents were citizens of China, not the US, and they went home sometime after the case, to China. He, being an American citizen, went back to living in the US.

 

[HenryBHough]

That $200 Billion sounds like a lot until you compare it to the Trillions that would be added to The Great Ohamasinkhole through doing nothing.

 

[Boss]

They were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS... MORON!

Which did not, and does not, matter. And a legal immigrant is not the same as a Naturalized Citizen. If you're on a Green Card holder, you're legal, but not a naturalized citizen.

"Citizenship Through Naturalization

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."


"Rights and Responsibilities of a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident)

Your Rights as a Permanent Resident

As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:

• Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
• Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
• Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions"

One is a citizen, the other is not. And legal or illegal, US v Wong said that didn't not matter. It's in the ruling. Just to shortcut the process, Wong's parents were citizens of China, not the US, and they went home sometime after the case, to China. He, being an American citizen, went back to living in the US.

What? Congress establishes naturalization? I thought SCOTUS did that?

What the living **** do you mean "legal or illegal, doesn't matter?" Of course it matters! Idiot! A legal immigrant is "subject to jurisdiction" and an illegal alien is not.

I'm going to say this again because it needs to penetrate your thick head... SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that children born of illegal aliens are citizens by birthright. NEVER! ...HAS NOT HAPPENED! DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY DO! It's not within their power according to the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm going to say this again because it needs to penetrate your thick head... SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that children born of illegal aliens are citizens by birthright. NEVER!

Yes, they have, in US v Wong. They did not care how mom and dad got here, just were you bron here, period, and almost without exception. It's in the ruling.

Congress sets naturalization, the Supreme Court deals with Constitutional items, like Amendments.