# Trump and "Anchor Babies"



## DGS49 (Oct 30, 2018)

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally.  The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit.  It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what?  The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town.  Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Oct 30, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> 
> The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.
> 
> ...


/----/ Libtards will fight this tooth and nail. Expect that a libtard Judge is already writing his opinion to overturn - then it will go to the USSC.


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 30, 2018)

The parents must be legal citizens........Period....if not its just a loophole and should not be allowed....


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 30, 2018)

More than one hospital on or very near the border have stopped delivering babies....due to non paying illegal immigrants trying to scam the system...


----------



## Skylar (Nov 27, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> 
> The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.
> 
> ...



The Courts have consistently found that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could'nt be prosecuted for any crime they commit here.

Yet they obviously can.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 29, 2018)

*" Simpletons For False States "*

** Pretending Validity For A Habitual Lie * *


Skylar said:


> The Courts have consistently found that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could'nt be prosecuted for any crime they commit here.
> Yet they obviously can.


You have been corrected once already and you still spout that stupidity as if it represents some level of validity or intelligence .

The illegals did not subject themselves to us jurisdiction , rather they thwarted it by arriving illegally , and their offspring are likewise not entitled to equal endowment , just as they are not entitled to equal endowment .

As illegal migrants travel abroad , it is their country of origin to which they are subjects , and should any violation of their civil wrights occur , it is their country of origin which is responsible for issuing a reprise , that might mean submitting a petition to the foreign country for prosecution or extradition of a perpetrator , which the foreign country could very well decline .

Before the formation of a social civil contract , all are subject to natural freedoms , to the moral relativism of nature ; however , to improve ones quality of life and odds of survival , one surrenders their natural freedoms for membership in a social civil contract of a constitution , while all others are subject to natural freedoms , except that those others be granted privileges by legal process to be subjects of the jurisdiction .

Thus , to state that as an illegal immigrant could not be prosecuted for a crime if they were not subjects of the jurisdiction is emphatically false , as the illegal migrant remains subject to natural freedoms with respect to the foreign government that may do with them as it decides and is able .

Further more , any supposition that protection and endowment are equivalent is absolutely false , as illegals are not entitled to social welfare and neither are their children entitled to citizenship .

Legislative Proposal :   Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother


----------



## Skylar (Nov 29, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Simpletons For False States "*
> 
> ** Pretending Validity For A Habitual Lie * *
> 
> ...



Wow. You're insults from the opening. 

You're clearly confused. As you've given us your personal opinion of what 'subject to the jursidiction thereof. And you're nobody. The courts, granted the authority to interpret the constitution, have consistently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.

And illegals are subject to the laws of the United States.

You disagree. So what? You're nobody. The body granted the authority to interpret the constitution contradicts you. Rendering your personal opinion meaningless to any intelligence discussion on the matter.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 29, 2018)

*" Non Compliance With Legal Migrant Status Is Not Subjecting To Jurisdiction "*

** Damned Straight Address Of A Habitual Lie **


Skylar said:


> Wow. You're insults from the opening.
> You're clearly confused. As you've given us your personal opinion of what 'subject to the jursidiction thereof. And you're nobody. The courts, granted the authority to interpret the constitution, have consistently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.
> And illegals are subject to the laws of the United States.
> You disagree. So what? You're nobody. The body granted the authority to interpret the constitution contradicts you. Rendering your personal opinion meaningless to any intelligence discussion on the matter.


There are none confused about the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , which is there for a reason .

The nearest the courts have come to any ruling on the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , as it applies to granting or denying citizenship , was in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia , where the court justifiably concluded that the parents were in the us in legal standing of a work visa ( subjected themselves to the legal process to sojourn ) and therefore their son born in the us was entitled to citizenship .

Alternatively , illegal migrants did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof , because they thwarted the legal process and did not acquire legal authorization to sojourn , therefore they are not entitled to all protections and definitely not entitled to an equal endowment for citizenship and that also applies to their offspring .


----------



## Skylar (Nov 30, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Non Compliance With Legal Migrant Status Is Not Subjecting To Jurisdiction "*
> 
> ** Damned Straight Address Of A Habitual Lie **
> 
> ...



Of course they did they found Wong was a US citizen. Wong was born in the US. This citizenship was granted based on WHERE he was born. Not to he was born to.

Your obtuse fallacy of logic is assuming that because his parents were legal resident that the Wong court found that ONLY the children of legal residents would be similarly accorded citizenship. *Wong doesn't find that all.* In fact, when reviewing the legal foundation of nationality at birth the Wong Court found this:

_"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom*. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.* But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)

With only ambassadors and the children of occupying armies being exempt. And the children of aliens being afforded birthright citizenship. 



> Alternatively , illegal migrants did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof , because they thwarted the legal process and did not acquire legal authorization to sojourn , therefore they are not entitled to all protections and definitely not entitled to an equal endowment for citizenship and that also applies to their offspring .



More meaningless gibberish opinion. Again, what you believe the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has no relevance to this discussion, as you're nobody. You are granted no authority under the constitution to interpret the constitution.

*The courts are. *And they've consisently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.

Which illegal immigrants most certianly are.  *The deportation of illegal immigrants under US law demosntrates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. *Else we wouldn't be able to so much as give them a parking ticket. Let alone deport them.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 30, 2018)

*" Undermining Integrity Of The Country "*

** Thwarting Accountability ** 


Skylar said:


> Of course they did they found Wong was a US citizen. Wong was born in the US. This citizenship was granted based on WHERE he was born. Not to he was born to.


The parents of wong satisfied the criteria of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " by having complied with the legal process for immigration , as they were legally domiciled and resident at the time .



Skylar said:


> *The courts are. *And they've consisently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.
> Which illegal immigrants most certianly are.  *The deportation of illegal immigrants under US law demosntrates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. *Else we wouldn't be able to so much as give them a parking ticket. Let alone deport them.


The clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " necessitates compliance with a legal process for migration and illegal migrants are not subjects of a legal document granting migration and are not compliant with the technical elements of the 14th amendment .

11 million illegal migrants represents hostility towards the united states people and a rejection of subjugation to the legal migration process .


----------



## Skylar (Nov 30, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Undermining Integrity Of The Country "*
> 
> ** Thwarting Accountability **
> 
> ...



Your assumption is that because Wong was recognized as having citizenship with legal resident parents, that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

The Wong Court does not find this. Again, read the legal foundations they cited on nationality at birth rather than ignoring it and omitting any mention of it from your reply as you just did:

_"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom*. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.* But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)


Children born to such aliens were subjects at birth. It excluded the children of ambassadors or hostile occupying armies.

Ignoring Wong isn't going to help your argument. Nor is doubling down on the same tired fallacy of logic.

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.



> The clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " necessitates compliance with a legal process for migration and illegal migrants are not subjects of a legal document granting migration and are not compliant with the technical elements of the 14th amendment .



Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. Your personal opinion has no relevance to this dicussion. Please remember that.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 30, 2018)

*" Theft Of Privilege By Proxy "*

** When A President Grows A Pair **


Skylar said:


> Your assumption is that because Wong was recognized as having citizenship with legal resident parents, that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.


Correct , that is what " subject to the jurisdiction " expects , that the parents be subjects of legal standing in the us .

Your citation reads " _predicable of aliens in amity " _and that is a contentious issue , as any illegal seeking to confiscate social subsistence through their offspring is a hostile agent .

Protection of individuals from harm is a far cry from granting them an equal endowment of social welfare , of which the parents are not entitled , and from granting them or their offspring an equal endowment of citizenship .

** Not Just Me And Apparently We Must All Be Believed To Behave Stupidly By Your Rules **


Skylar said:


> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. Your personal opinion has no relevance to this dicussion. Please remember that.


Anchor baby - Wikipedia
_*As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.*[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since *the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. *He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrantsmust surely be excluded.[31]_


----------



## Skylar (Nov 30, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Theft Of Privilege By Proxy "*
> 
> ** When A President Grows A Pair **
> 
> ...



No, that's what you imagine it means. You keep equating your personal interpretations and opinoins with the explicit findings of the court. And they are not the same thing. The Wong court *never* finds that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

*Your assumptions are exclusionary when the findings of the courts are not. *They merely affirmed that the children of legal immigrants would be citizens.  You're again engaging in obtuse logical fallacies, the 'Affirming a disjunct' fallacy, to be specific. Assuming that if being born in the US of legal residents CAN make you a citizen, that it is the ONLY way you can be a citizen.

Your conclusions simply isn't supported by the Wong Ruling, as none of your imaginary exclusions are ever made. You added those exclusions, citing yourself. And you're nobody.



> Your citation reads " _predicable of aliens in amity " _and that is a contentious issue , as any illegal seeking to confiscate social subsistence through their offspring is a hostile agent .



Again, more personal opinion fallaciously offered as caselaw. The Wong ruling NEVER finds that an illegal immigrant is a 'hostile agent'. Nor has any court. Nor does any of our laws.

*You've literally made that up.*

Nor is 'in amity' a particularly contentious term, as in the very same passage the Wong Court go on to describe the kind of aliens that *aren't* covered under birthright citizenship:



> _"But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, *or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, *were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
> 
> Wong Kim Arc (1898)_



Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. *Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.*

Just obliterating your entire argument.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 1, 2018)

** In Due Time **


Skylar said:


> Again, more personal opinion fallaciously offered as caselaw. The Wong ruling NEVER finds that an illegal immigrant is a 'hostile agent'. Nor has any court. Nor does any of our laws.


The only thing fallacious is that there has not been a court challenge about it .

Issue is that the practice of awarding us citizenship to children of illegal migrants violates the civil liberties of citizens ; and , a class action lawsuit should be brought forward against government for its malfeasance .

** King Not Confronted With Social Welfare Demans **


Skylar said:


> Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. *Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.*
> Just obliterating your entire argument.


The contention about the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " has not been obliterated , and it remains a valid premise that would require children born to unauthorized migrants ( those who do not subject themselves to us jurisdiction for approval as migrants ) be provided citizenship from the country of origin for that of the mother .

That migrants are creating anchor babies with the purpose of robbing the us public for social subsistence and that qualifies as an act of hostility .


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 1, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> 
> The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.
> 
> ...


natural rights for the natural born mean nothing to the right wing?


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 1, 2018)

*" Apply Language Purpose "*

** Reduce Legal Immigration To Countries Of Origin In Proportion To Number Of Illegals And Number Of Anchor Babies "*


danielpalos said:


> natural rights for the natural born mean nothing to the right wing?


A pretense for " natural rites " is absurd , as the " nature of mammon " is the same as any other animal .

The 14th amendment is the lynch pin for roe v wade , as an individual receives equal protection at birth ; and , if left wing fools keep debasing the validity of the clause , " subject to the jurisdiction " in the 14th amendment , such that a constitutional amendment comes to pass to remove citizenship by birth , then do not forget that they were warned .

To reach the shores of england was not an easy task and the king was not challenged with a flood of peoples clamoring for its wealth , and accessibility  is why other european countries do not have a citizenship by birth statute , whereby both parallels between conditions for england and the us fail .


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 1, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Apply Language Purpose "*
> 
> ** Reduce Legal Immigration To Countries Of Origin In Proportion To Number Of Illegals And Number Of Anchor Babies "*
> 
> ...


equal protection of the law applies with any use of our law.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 1, 2018)

*" Nuances Of Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Within Boundaries Of Jurisdiction "*

** Conceptually Insufficient Legal Terms **


danielpalos said:


> equal protection of the law applies with any use of our law.


Agreements in a social civil contract do not follow directly from a pretense for " natural rites " .

A notion of equal protection is not congruent with a notion of equal endowment .


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 1, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> 
> The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.
> 
> ...



*Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future. 
They just want more money and power.*


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 2, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Nuances Of Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Within Boundaries Of Jurisdiction "*
> 
> ** Conceptually Insufficient Legal Terms **
> 
> ...


dude; Any use of Our law requires it be Constitutional, not merely politically expedient.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 2, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> ...


right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 2, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> ** In Due Time **
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> ...



So you admit that your inane babble about 'hostile agents' isn't the Wong ruling. It isn't the constitution. It isn't the caselaw. It isn't US law. It isn't the finding of any court. Ever.

*Its just you making shit up.*

Well that only took you three days to admit.

Oh, and FYI: The courts making no mention of whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up isn't 'malfeasance'. Its just you not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. And offering us your imagination as the law.


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. *Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.*
> ...



Your laughable interpretation 'subject to the jursidiction thereof' has been obliterated, as its predicated on illegal immigrants being a 'hostile agent' or 'alien enemies' or a 'hostile occupation'.

*Something no us law nor court has ever found. *Something you pulled sideways out of your ass.

And you making shit up doesn't magically change the meaning of 'in amity' in the Wong ruling. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to birthright citizenship.

You're really not very good at this.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 2, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...



LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 3, 2018)

*" Sycophant Lying To Protect Criminal Elements "*

** Illiterate At That **


Skylar said:


> So you admit that your inane babble about 'hostile agents' isn't the Wong ruling. It isn't the constitution. It isn't the caselaw. It isn't US law. It isn't the finding of any court. Ever.
> Its just you making shit up.  Well that only took you three days to admit.  Oh, and FYI: The courts making no mention of whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up isn't 'malfeasance'. Its just you not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. And offering us your imagination as the law.


It is yourself " just making shit up " , as the only thing clearly evident is that there has not been a case ruling on whether children of a non legal migrant are entitled to citizenship , when subject to the contingency clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Your badgering and lies are simply fear that is meant to divert a legitimate challenge for which the american people are entitled and ,whenever the responsibilities of public office are inappropriately carried out , that is malfeasance .

** Hypothetical Ethics **


Skylar said:


> Your laughable interpretation 'subject to the jursidiction thereof' has been obliterated, as its predicated on illegal immigrants being a 'hostile agent' or 'alien enemies' or a 'hostile occupation'.  Something no us law nor court has ever found. Something you pulled sideways out of your ass.   And you making shit up doesn't magically change the meaning of 'in amity' in the Wong ruling. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to birthright citizenship.  You're really not very good at this.


And ' subject to the jurisdiction thereof " does not rely upon a standing of enmity , but if someone were  to come onto your property without permission ( enter the country illegally ) and intentionally fall on your property ( have an anchor baby ) that causes you to pay the insurance deductible and raised premiums , and then they demand to be socialize with your taxes , perhaps the reality of their standing as hostile would clearer sense to you .


----------



## Skylar (Dec 3, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Sycophant Lying To Protect Criminal Elements "*
> 
> ** Illiterate At That **
> 
> ...



And by 'lies', you mean the _actual_ Wong ruling, the _actual _court rulings, the _actual _US law.,....and not the hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up? Again, the Wong ruling doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. And they go into the legal foundation of birthright citizenship.

_"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom*. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.* But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)

Just exploding your hapless, poorly reasoned nonsense. As even children born to aliens are citizens at birth. Your claims that 'in amity' don't quality because illegals are a 'hostile agent' is more blithering idiocy. As neither the Wong court, nor ANY court, nor ANY US law has ever found this.

Its just you....making shit up. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Wong court is very clear on what they are referring to when excluding children born in country from citizenship: the children of ambassadors, alien enemies, and hostile occupation. None of which the Wong court, nor ANY court, nor ANY use law has ever found.

But say 'malfeasance' again. It makes me giggle.



> And ' subject to the jurisdiction thereof " does not rely upon a standing of enmity , but if someone were  to come onto your property without permission ( enter the country illegally ) and intentionally fall on your property ( have an anchor baby ) that causes you to pay the insurance deductible and raised premiums , and then they demand to be socialize with your taxes , perhaps the reality of their standing as hostile would clearer sense to you .



Your insistence that the standing of illegal immigrants is 'hostile' isn't reality. Its just more of your inane pseudo-legal gibberish backed by no law nor court ruling. Including Wong.

Is that really all you've got? Just you making up imaginary designations that no law nor court recognizes as valid and then insisting that the courts are bound to your imagination?

Perhaps the reality that your personal opinion and imaginary designations like 'hostile agent' have no relevance to a legal discussion as you are nobody would providing a clearer sense to you of the actual caselaw surrounding the issue.

As your intepretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' most definitely does rely on 'in amity'. As the Wong court made it clear that children born to aliens in amity are citizens at birth per the legal foundations of birthright citizenship.

Try again. This time with less whining and useless opinion. As you're starting to bore me.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 3, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> 
> The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth.  These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.
> 
> ...






It’s not going to change. Stop wasting energy and focus on securing the borders.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2018)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


lol.  simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.  

Liquidity in our markets is important.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 3, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."A*ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States*..."
> ...



Actually, the solution is far simpler, effective and less expensive: make E-verify mandatory and back it with teeth when an employer ignores it. A minimum 1 year prison term for any employer that doesn't use E-verify when employing someone.

The E-verify system is already there. Its available online or in on the phone. Employer focused enforcement makes sense on multiple levels, as employers are the beneficiaries of illegal labor. There are far fewer of them, so you'll need fewer resources to police them. They advertise, so you know where to find employers. They generally don't move much. We know what their names are. And you wouldn't need but a few dozen high profile examples before employers got the message.

While employee focused enforcement is just stupid. As there are far more illegals than those employing them, meaning you need orders of magnitude more enforcement...which is more expensive. They move around. They usually live in secret, making them hard to find. They change names. And if they're deported, they can come back. And even after millions of deportations, they continuing to come here because there is still work for them here. 

Its akin to going after the drug dealers rather than the drug users. And is far more effective.

And its not throwing the Employers under the bus either. *If an Employer uses E-verify and an employee passes, they are completely absolved of any responsibility if later that employee turns out to be illegal.* Its only those employers who doesn't e-verify their employees, or who ignore the results that would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 3, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2018)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 3, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2018)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


just your special pleading. 

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income.  That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 3, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



LMAO. I really need to spell it out for you?


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 3, 2018)

*" More Action Less Talk Deny Citizenship To Children Of An Illegal And Bring A Test Case To Court "*

** Feigning Legitimacy Against Opposing Odds **


Skylar said:


> And by 'lies', you mean the _actual_ Wong ruling, the _actual _court rulings, the _actual _US law.,....and not the hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up?


Anchor baby - Wikipedia
*As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.*[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since *the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. *

** Migrant Without Permission Is Disobedience And Those Heisting Social Welfare Via Anchor Babies Are Hostile **


Skylar said:


> _.. were not natural-born subjects because *not born within* the allegiance, *the obedience,* or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_


Obviously , determining whether an individual is or is not eligible as a subject was at the discretion of the king ; however , in the us , we do not have a king , rather we have citizens and clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " which are more than capable of delimiting the validity of that criteria ; and , those citizens corroborating in criminal behavior should be duly noted for their hostility .

** Political Incompetence Would Not Be The First Time **


Skylar said:


> Try again. This time with less whining and useless opinion. As you're starting to bore me.


I was bored with you about three posts ago , as you cannot seem to maintain focus on points of issue , ultimately pretending that the issues were not presented .

the definition of malfeasance
_The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust). _


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 4, 2018)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


yes, you do.  the right wing usually has Nothing but fallacy but allege their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




OK



*What percentage of Americans are on welfare? *
Through the fourth quarter of 2012, there were nearly 110 million Americans receiving some form of government assistance. That's right around 35% of the total U.S. population.





*How many Americans receive food stamps?*
As of September 2014, about 46.5 million people (or 15%) were receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).





*How many get Medicaid benefits?*
Medicaid is a health care program that provides free or low-cost care to qualifying individuals and families. As of 2012, there were some 83 million people (or 26%) receiving Medicaid benefits.





*What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare? *
Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.





*What percentage of children are on welfare? *
Children are more likely to be on welfare than adults, with 38% of kids aged 5 and under living in households that receive public assistance. Almost 35% of kids aged 6 to 10 and 32% of those in the 11- to 15-year-old range are on welfare.





*What state has the highest number of welfare recipients? *
As of 2012, California topped the list for welfare recipients, with nearly 515,000 relying on government-funded programs. Alaska, however, has the highest per capita rate with about 7% of households getting benefits.





*What state has the most people on food stamps? *
Approximately 145,000 Washington, D.C., residents receive food stamps. That's nearly 22% of the district's total population.





*How long do most people participate in the program?*
About 31% of people receiving any kind of public assistance stay in the program for a year or less. 43% receive benefits between 3 to 4 years. Housing assistance programs see the most long-term participants (over 3 years), while cash assistance program tend to have the most short-term participants (under a year).





*What do most people on welfare spend the money on?*
Many people stereotype welfare receivers as spending the money unwisely, but data shows that for families receiving assistance, 77% of the budget is used towards basic necessities such as housing, food, and transportation (compared to 65% for families not receiving assistance). Entertainment only accounts for 4.4% of the budget.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 4, 2018)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...




23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 4, 2018)

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more cost effective.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 4, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" More Action Less Talk Deny Citizenship To Children Of An Illegal And Bring A Test Case To Court "*
> 
> ** Feigning Legitimacy Against Opposing Odds **
> 
> ...



All gloriously irrelevant to your made up claim that illegal immigrants aren't 'aliens in amity' but instead 'hostile agents'.

The Wong ruling never finds that illegal immigrants are 'hostile agents'. Nor does any law. Nor does any court. You made that up, citing yourself. Which is legally irrelevant as you're nobody. Making your 'hostile agent' claim pseudo-legal claptrap.

As for Wong, it finds that the children of legal immigrants are citizens. It *never* finds that the children are illegal immigrants are not citizens. In fact, when discussing the legal foundation of birthright citizenship, the Wong court cited this:

_"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom*. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.* But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_

Children born in England, even to aliens, are citizens at birth.

You have yet to offer us any contradiction of this in the law. You merely quote your own personal opinion which has no legal relevance.



> * Migrant Without Permission Is Disobedience And Those Heisting Social Welfare Via Anchor Babies Are Hostile *



Says you, citing whatever meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you choose to make up.
The Wong ruling never finds this to be true. Nor does any court ruling. Nor does any US law.

You made it up. And your imagination has no legal relevance.



> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > _.. were not natural-born subjects because *not born within* the allegiance, *the obedience,* or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."_
> ...



Obviously, the Wong court never found that the "whether an individual is or is not eligible as a subject was at the discretion of the king"

Obviously, you're making shit up again. You citing you is always meaningless. Anytime you're citing yourself as a foundational legal principle, you've lost.

Try again. This time without the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 4, 2018)

*" Anchor Baby Fraud Thievery By Hostile Agents Thwarting Subject To Legal Jurisdiction "*

** Fleeing A Dump Demanding To Recreate The Same Dump With Better Drapes **


AzogtheDefiler said:


> 23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America


You omitted some relevant parts for the left wing , steal from the middle class , we need more state dependent voters for our luny tunes , socialist , cause .

23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America
Aside from looking at the age and gender of welfare recipients, we wanted to take things one step further. We focused on *some specific demographics to paint a more accurate image of who in America gets help through public assistance. *

_*How do ethnicities break down? *
For 2011, here's the breakdown of welfare recipients: 16.3% of Non-Hispanic Whites. 39.7% of Non-Hispanic Blacks. 36.4% of Hispanics. Hispanics represent the fastest rate of growth for any demographic group (a 15% increase since the year 2000). 
Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year._
_*What percentage of welfare recipients are immigrants? *
There are approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., both legal and illegal, and a decent number of them receive some form of welfare. For example, 20% of adult immigrants and nearly half of children from immigrant households had Medicaid coverage in 2011. About 30% of non-citizens received food stamps that same year. _


----------



## Skylar (Dec 4, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Anchor Baby Fraud Thievery By Hostile Agents Thwarting Subject To Legal Jurisdiction "*



'Hostile agents' says you, citing the same imaginary pseudo-legal batshit you made up.

*No court, nor any US law has ever found illegal immigrants are 'hostile agents'. *What's the use of a legal argument that no court nor law recognizes? You might as well be one of those sovereign citizen idiots babbling about the fringes on flags.

*Is that really all you have? *You, making shit up, backed by nothing and contradicted by the courts? As Wong makes it very clear when reviewing the legal foundation of birth right citizeship:

_*Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.* But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
_
You have no rational retort to this founded in caselaw or US law. But instead, the wasteland of ignorance also known as your imagination.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 5, 2018)

*" Legal Wrangling Nothing New "*

** Pretending Relevance Without A Valid Test **


Skylar said:


> ['Hostile agents' says you, citing the same imaginary pseudo-legal batshit you made up.


All you do is repeat the same nausea that lacks the requisite merit and you state the same about my premises .

There was an investigative report about illegal immigration that included one woman whom had left 3 children in her home country , who had two children in the us and had just had premature triplets that were in neonatal care , and she was blubbering about not being able to find work ; thus , simple facts are that us citizens decide as to what constitutes hostility and anchor babies for social welfare is sufficient .

Fact-checking the claims about 'anchor babies' and whether illegal immigrants 'drop and leave'

Anchor baby - Wikipedia
_As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]_

** Contractual Failure To Commit **


Skylar said:


> _US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)_
> You have no rational retort to this founded in caselaw or US law. But instead, the wasteland of ignorance also known as your imagination.


There is a contractual obligation that those without legal migrant status have not subjected themselves to the legal migration system , which means that the illegal sojourners maintain a criminal status through non compliance , that represent a distinct jurisdiction from the contractual obligations of the legal migration system .

Until such time that the us decides to formalize a migrant status as legal by a contractual agreement , the illegal sojourner maintain a criminal status through non compliance and are not subjects of jurisdiction within the us immigration system , rather they are illegal sojourners subject to the criminal justice system .

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).


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 5, 2018)

Never take anyone seriously who uses wiki as their main source of proof of anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 5, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Legal Wrangling Nothing New "*
> 
> ** Pretending Relevance Without A Valid Test **
> 
> ...


natural born is clearly expressed in our Constitution.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Dec 5, 2018)

*" Vague Meaning "*

** Uncertain Terms **


danielpalos said:


> natural born is clearly expressed in our Constitution.


The term applied in the 14th amendment is naturalized .


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 5, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> Never take anyone seriously who uses wiki as their main source of proof of anything.



Because you can bet such a person doesn’t know anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Vague Meaning "*
> 
> ** Uncertain Terms **
> 
> ...


so what; we didn't need our 14th Amendment.  Article Four, Section Two covers our exigencies.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 9, 2018)

I thought this thread would be about the Russian oligarch anchor babies being born at Trump hotels. Trump wants his kleptocrat pals to have kids with American citizenship. That makes it easier to launder the money.


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 12, 2018)

Yeah, Skylar is right.  An undocumented immigrant is still subject to our jurisdiction, because he is within reach of our laws.  If he jaywalks or robs a liquor store or shoots someone dead, he can be arrested as easily as you and I, and therefore he is within our jurisdiction.  The three expressed exceptions were foreign diplomats and their staff (who had the 19th century equivalent of diplomatic immunity), soldiers in an occupying army, and some Indian tribes, who at the time were treated as foreign nations.  

I know it seems silly, and we're in the minority with birthright citizenship, but that's the law as written and many times interpreted.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jan 23, 2019)

*" Political Cowardice The Challenge Jurisprudence "*

** Clear And Evident **


danielpalos said:


> dude; Any use of Our law requires it be Constitutional, not merely politically expedient.


The the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " of the us 14th amendment is a subject to contract clause that can be understood to stipulate jurisdiction as legal migrant status , the entire basis of not granting us citizenship and granting the citizenship of the mother to anchor babies is factual and not political expedience .


----------

