Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Equal protection for all not only born, but illegally here. I really don't see the viability of the 'no new Mexicans" position here. But Wong Ark's parents were legally here. Does that make a difference? I don't think so. And, I really think making it harder for illegal aliens to find work and housing, and speeding deportation, would be more achievable means to the end.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.
What does the 14th Amendment say?
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
Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.
The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.
If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.
Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.
Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.
AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.
Equal protection for all not only born, but illegally here. I really don't see the viability of the 'no new Mexicans" position here. But Wong Ark's parents were legally here. Does that make a difference? I don't think so. And, I really think making it harder for illegal aliens to find work and housing, and speeding deportation, would be more achievable means to the end.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.
What does the 14th Amendment say?
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
Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.
AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.
So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?
Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.
Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.
Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.
AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.
So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?
Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.
Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.
NOpe. If he escapes and manages to hide in the vast slums of LA, he is not subject to the Law.
Just like if he ran back to Mexico and was never caught.
If you are not caught you are not subject.
Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.
The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.
Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?
Scores of thousands of illegals are in prison.Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.
AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.
As would real conservatives and true libertarians.The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.
The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.
If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.
Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.
Which would take libs about 1 second to do.
Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.
The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.
Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?
I don't understand conservatives and this issue.
The 14th amendment is extremely clear.
Is it that they don't understand that congress can't write laws that violate the constitution? Or is it that they just don't care?
The only way to change the law is to amend the constitution. That's not very easy and I'm pretty sure that, if it actually was brought up in congress, gets two thirds to vote yes, pass it, it's still not an amendment until it's ratified by a super majority of the states. That's never going to happen. Americans aren't going to vote to take away US birth right from anyone. We all know anyone born here is a citizen. America can't issue a birth certificate for any other nation but America. People aren't going to vote for having babies who are born here but don't have citizenship to America or any other nation.
No other nation is going to hand all the states in America birth certificates to be issued to anyone born here.
Do these people think things through to their logical conclusion?
In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.
What does the 14th Amendment say?
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
Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216
I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.
These Questions.
How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.
If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?
True, but there are a variety of matters in which SCOTUS has ruled one way, in one era, then reversed itself, in another era, yes?...The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time...
True....Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. ...
True, but there are a variety of matters in which SCOTUS has ruled one way, in one era, then reversed itself, in another era, yes?...The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time...
And, if that is the case, then SCOTUS can simpy RE-interpret the 14th to hold that it was intended to provide relief to former slaves, not to open a loophole for Anchor Babies.
True....Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. ...
We're stuck with the Anchor Babies already here.
But, moving forward, that can be a different story, given the right ruling by SCOTUS.
And, of course, we can also insist that any Anchor Babies already here, be accompanied by parent or legal guardian who is legally entitled to be upon US soil.
That should take a big damned bite out of the Anchor Baby presence - dashing the hopes of Illegals who sneak into the country and then pop out their Anchor Puppies because the dumb-ass, dim-witted, soft-hearted, soft-headed Gringos can't bring themselves to send them packing...
If the court should overturn birthright citizenship then they would be saying that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the United States. This would be a really interesting interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court? Can they even be deported? What immigration judge has the right to hear their case? It's a Catch-22: if they're in the country legally, they can stay, yet if they're in the country illegally, the court has no jurisdiction over them.Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.
The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.
Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?
I agree.Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.
The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.
Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?
I don't understand conservatives and this issue.
The 14th amendment is extremely clear.
Is it that they don't understand that congress can't write laws that violate the constitution? Or is it that they just don't care?
The only way to change the law is to amend the constitution. That's not very easy and I'm pretty sure that, if it actually was brought up in congress, gets two thirds to vote yes, pass it, it's still not an amendment until it's ratified by a super majority of the states. That's never going to happen. Americans aren't going to vote to take away US birth right from anyone. We all know anyone born here is a citizen. America can't issue a birth certificate for any other nation but America. People aren't going to vote for having babies who are born here but don't have citizenship to America or any other nation.
No other nation is going to hand all the states in America birth certificates to be issued to anyone born here.
Do these people think things through to their logical conclusion?
Never said it was....Well hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind and rule how you want it to- is not exactly working for change...
True. Already conceded. But there are ways of fixing that unintended and frequently exploited loophole in the 14th, moving forward....And what you call 'Anchor Babies' are as of today- exactly as much American Citizens as you and I are...
Too much fuss. Far easier to have SCOTUS revisit the matter; relegating a new Amendment to the 'fall-back' position in the matter....You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.
