Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? "

* Opining Proposition *

Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother .

To avoid humanitarian issues such as individuals without a nation of origin , diplomatic agreements need to be in place prior to an officiate of a state not petitioning the state or federal government for a social security number .


* Joist Gist *

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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.

Contractual term - Wikipedia
Four Categories
If a contract specifies "subject to contract", it may fall into one of three categories as identified in Masters v Cameron:[36]
The parties are immediately bound to the bargain, but they intend to restate the deal in a more formalized contract that will not have a different effect; or
The parties have completely agreed to the terms, but have made the execution of some terms in the contract conditional on the creation of a formal contract; or
It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.
Subsequent authorities have been willing to recognize a fourth category in addition to those stated in Masters v Cameron.[37]
The parties intend to immediately bound by the terms agreed upon and expect to create a further contract as a replacement for the initial contract which will contain additional terms (if agreed upon).


* Family Separation Issues *

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.
...
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 

[Ropey]

No.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Perhaps When Work Is By Definition Useless "

* Am Would Answer Yes *

No.
View attachment 275539

From this perspective , the question may be malformed and unanswerable as yes or no .

A structural question is this , " How are " subject-to-contract " as law and the clause " subject to us jurisdiction " interrelated ? " .

 

[Ropey]

Good that you can internalize my encapsulation.

It's really about all the time that it's worth.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Momentum Through Facility "

* Believe As You Wish *

Good that you can internalize my encapsulation.
It's really about all the time that it's worth.

The post is persistent , its link has been forwarded to politicians , along with similar copies .

Allocation of citizenship from foreign government for children of illegal migrants would fit directly in with totalization agreements perhaps including remittance for social welfare dependencies .

Totalization agreements - Wikipedia
Totalization agreements are international tax treaties that seek to eliminate dual taxation with regards to Social Security and Medicare taxes in the United States. These agreements are made in order to accommodate foreign workers who pay FICA taxes but receive no Social Security or Medicare benefits after reaching age 65. The agreements are made between the U.S. and other individual countries, and govern international taxpayers who earn money in the U.S. The goal of totalization agreements is to eliminate dual taxation on a foreigner's income made in the U.S. as well as provide proportional Social Security benefits for the same foreign workers. Issues considered to determine if a worker is covered under either Social Security and Medicare in the United States, or the social security system in a foreign country include where the worker resides and whether the employment in a foreign country is short-term or long-term. As of August 2017, U.S. has 26 active totalization agreements.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Relevant Political Policy "

* Bump And Grind *

By ensuring that children of illegal migrants receive citizenship in the country of origin of their mother , daca is no longer a perpetual social issue and neither is the burden on us social security , and any services rendered could be charged back to the country of origin through social security totalization .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" When Will Two Wing Bet Hair Fawn "

* Aggressive Merit Based Policies *

Any individual whom by definition is not a subject by title in the united states immigration system is therefore entitled to equal protection by due process however said individual is not entitled to equal endowment of us privileges that particularly includes citizenship extensions .

The policy of jus sanguinis will be provided to children of born of migrants whom are not subjects of a title in us legal immigration system .

The assurances that jus sanguinis will occur is by diplomatic agreement with the countries of migrant origin to ensure that the maternal country of citizenship will grant citizenship to its country for the child .

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Cluing Inn Through Audio Pickups Of Mass Media Persuasions *

As pollsters reach out to my phone via text messaging asking whether my support was for trump / pence or biden / harris and the reply was that my vote is not being cast for the candidate , rather my vote is being cast based upon the agenda of policies .

As pollsters attend to the digression of responses for the policies expected from my own perspectives , the generosity of benefit received through informed consent is an object of trust most valued for provisioning will full intentions of an individual or will full intentions of of a greater individual of individuals such as a private institutions versus a bureaucratic collective .

A first expectation is to ensure the second stanza in section 1 of us fourteenth amendment , " , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , ", be applied most correct in being consistent with us constitution that is to have jus sanguinis applied to children from migrants which are not subjects of us jurisdiction .


* Additional Pet Peeves *

It should be a reiterated cliche that familiarity with correct application of the following terms should be understood : negative wrights ; positive wrights ; negative liberties ; positive liberties .

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[danielpalos]

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? "

* Opining Proposition *

Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother .

To avoid humanitarian issues such as individuals without a nation of origin , diplomatic agreements need to be in place prior to an officiate of a state not petitioning the state or federal government for a social security number .


* Joist Gist *

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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.

Contractual term - Wikipedia
Four Categories
If a contract specifies "subject to contract", it may fall into one of three categories as identified in Masters v Cameron:[36]
The parties are immediately bound to the bargain, but they intend to restate the deal in a more formalized contract that will not have a different effect; or
The parties have completely agreed to the terms, but have made the execution of some terms in the contract conditional on the creation of a formal contract; or
It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.
Subsequent authorities have been willing to recognize a fourth category in addition to those stated in Masters v Cameron.[37]
The parties intend to immediately bound by the terms agreed upon and expect to create a further contract as a replacement for the initial contract which will contain additional terms (if agreed upon).


* Family Separation Issues *

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.
...
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the law.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Insidious Motivations "

* Traitors Of Citizenship *

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the law.

Illegal migrants are not subjects by title in legal us immigration system and their country of origin maintains jurisdiction over them to include reprising offenses against their undocumented sojourning citizens , whereas the us has not agreed to accept concurrent jurisdiction , or the lack of jurisdiction thereof .

The court of us versus wong kim ark determined that the wong family was in the us legally and consequently they were legal subjects by title in us legal immigration system and therefore subject to it jurisdiction , wherefore kim was entitled to us citizenship ; alternatively , no undocumented sojourner is a subject by title in us legal immigration systems and jus sanguinin is to be applied to their offspring .

 

[danielpalos]

" Insidious Motivations "

* Traitors Of Citizenship *

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the law.

Illegal migrants are not subjects by title in legal us immigration system and their country of origin maintains jurisdiction over them to include reprising offenses against their undocumented sojourning citizens , whereas the us has not agreed to accept concurrent jurisdiction , or the lack of jurisdiction thereof .

The court of us versus wong kim ark determined that the wong family was in the us legally and consequently they were legal subjects by title in us legal immigration system and therefore subject to it jurisdiction , wherefore kim was entitled to us citizenship ; alternatively , no undocumented sojourner is a subject by title in us legal immigration systems and jus sanguinin is to be applied to their offspring .

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the laws. Natural rights apply.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Far From The Mark "

* Pretentious Hubris Of Contemporary ' Natural Rights ( sic ) ' *

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the laws. Natural rights apply.

There is the law of nature and natural freedoms ; there is no such thing as " natural rights " ; see legal positivism .

We exchange natural freedoms for protected wrights as members in a social civil contract .

 

[danielpalos]

" Far From The Mark "

* Pretentious Hubris Of Contemporary ' Natural Rights ( sic ) ' *

If they are subject to our laws, you must enforce the laws. Natural rights apply.

There is the law of nature and natural freedoms ; there is no such thing as " natural rights " ; see legal positivism .

We exchange natural freedoms for protected wrights as members in a social civil contract .

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[DGS49]

Monk-eye, there is a principle you must grasp and accept here. Once the Left has decided that something is the case, they will no longer debate it. At that point, their response to a contrary view is to call the contrarian a name. Bigot, homophobe, climate-denier, science-denier, xenophobe, misogynist...whatever. Actual discussion on the merits of the case is, as they say, closed off.

When it comes to birthright citizenship, that phenomenon provides great and long-lasting benefits to the political Left, so whether that "right" properly exists, given the literal meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment ("...and subject to the laws thereof...") and the legislative history, is NO LONGER UP FOR DISCUSSION! If you even raise it, you will be blasted in an ad hominem fashion.

Don't waste your figurative breath.

 

[danielpalos]

Proof right wingers care more about their right wing fantasy than they care about express laws. I posted an Article from a State Constitution.

Only Illegals, Infidels, Rebels, and Renegades don't care about express laws.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dealing With Clueless Beliefs And Delusional Ramblings "

* No Reference And Would Be Pathetic Anyway *

Proof right wingers care more about their right wing fantasy than they care about express laws. I posted an Article from a State Constitution.
Only Illegals, Infidels, Rebels, and Renegades don't care about express laws.

Apparently you posted it up your ass because you have provided nothing and you lack the honesty or faculties to actually understand the law .

 

[danielpalos]

" Dealing With Clueless Beliefs And Delusional Ramblings "

* No Reference And Would Be Pathetic Anyway *

Proof right wingers care more about their right wing fantasy than they care about express laws. I posted an Article from a State Constitution.
Only Illegals, Infidels, Rebels, and Renegades don't care about express laws.

Apparently you posted it up your ass because you have provided nothing and you lack the honesty or faculties to actually understand the law .

Or, you are simply a girly man with lousy argumentation skills.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Logical Fallacy For Divine Mandate "

* Pretentious Nonsense Ignoring Alienability *

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights ( sic ) , as all conjecture wrights can be alienated ; and , because fools claim rights ( sic ) to be an entitlement , based on vanity for self idealism , does not make it so .

There is a tautology of a strong anthropic principle - Infanticide in primates - Wikipedia .

The notion of inalienable rights ( sic ) relies upon a fabricated tale about a theatrical " final judgment " where all are brought to trial before " God " and divinely judged according to " laws " ; that is , a law without enforcement is not a law .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Wishful Thinking "

* Entitlement Mentality *

Or, you are simply a girly man with lousy argumentation skills.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There is natural law that is the law of nature within which nothing is assured .

 

[danielpalos]

" Logical Fallacy For Divine Mandate "

* Pretentious Nonsense Ignoring Alienability *

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights ( sic ) , as all conjecture wrights can be alienated ; and , because fools claim rights ( sic ) to be an entitlement , based on vanity for self idealism , does not make it so .

There is a tautology of a strong anthropic principle - Infanticide in primates - Wikipedia .

The notion of inalienable rights ( sic ) relies upon a fabricated tale about a theatrical " final judgment " where all are brought to trial before " God " and divinely judged according to " laws " ; that is , a law without enforcement is not a law .

We have Constitutions which recognize them and provide recourse. An advantage for political animals.

 

[danielpalos]

" Wishful Thinking "

* Entitlement Mentality *

Or, you are simply a girly man with lousy argumentation skills.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There is natural law that is the law of nature within which nothing is assured .

Only in the truer Animal Kingdom does might make right.