Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Obama and Immigration Executive Order

[Obiwan]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold an injunction issued by a Texas judge who struck down Obama's executive order on immigration. The EO was designed to prevent the deportations of 5 million illegal immigrants

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

Appeals court rules against Obama's plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Actually, the courts DO have bearing on a case...

Maybe the fact that Democrats won't accept that explains why pissed-off judges put so many of the rebellious bastards in prison for their illegal activities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

IMMIGRATION LAW WAS USURPED BY A RACIST SUPREME COURT IN THE 1860's BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE "MENACE" - DEPORTING THEM BECAME AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE CHINESE EMPLOYEES NEVER GOT SICK, WORK LIKE HELL, AND SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORK ETHIC - HENCE THE SCOTUS MOTHERFUCKERS RULED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THE KKK BYLAWS STATED THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE DEPORTABLE.

Wow. So are the courts racist now? I can feel the stupid taking hold...

Must... break..... free.....

 

[flacaltenn]

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Great !!! Then let each state set it's own "friends" laws... Of course -- you forget how this concept changed over time AFTER 1798... In the next century -- the Fed took full force of immigration policy and damn the states....

IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN WITHIN ITS BORDERS. IMMIGRATION LAW WAS USURPED BY A RACIST SUPREME COURT IN THE 1860's BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE "MENACE" - DEPORTING THEM BECAME AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE CHINESE EMPLOYEES NEVER GOT SICK, WORKED LIKE HELL, AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE WORK ETHIC - HENCE THE SCOTUS MOTHERFUCKERS RULED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THE KKK BYLAWS STATED THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE DEPORTABLE.

US SUPREME COURT CASE

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.


For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)



.

Funny thing that -- you can quote EITHER side of a SCourt decision and SOUND like you know the score. If it wasn't unaminous ---- there's always some flotsam or jetsam to cling to ...


But what matters is not Jefferson's view of immigration law but the CONSTITUTIONAL reservation of power to REGULATE it.. Feds don't HAVE to --- but that are empowered (and today EXPECTED) to do that job.. .

 

[OKTexas]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold an injunction issued by a Texas judge who struck down Obama's executive order on immigration. The EO was designed to prevent the deportations of 5 million illegal immigrants

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

Appeals court rules against Obama's plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Earth to dumbass, prosecutorial discretion is intended for individual cases, not whole classes of criminals.

 

[Obiwan]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold an injunction issued by a Texas judge who struck down Obama's executive order on immigration. The EO was designed to prevent the deportations of 5 million illegal immigrants

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

Appeals court rules against Obama's plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Actually, the courts DO have bearing on a case...

Maybe the fact that Democrats won't accept that explains why pissed-off judges put so many of the rebellious bastards in prison for their illegal activities.

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Great !!! Then let each state set it's own "friends" laws... Of course -- you forget how this concept changed over time AFTER 1798... In the next century -- the Fed took full force of immigration policy and damn the states....

IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN WITHIN ITS BORDERS. IMMIGRATION LAW WAS USURPED BY A RACIST SUPREME COURT IN THE 1860's BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE "MENACE" - DEPORTING THEM BECAME AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE CHINESE EMPLOYEES NEVER GOT SICK, WORKED LIKE HELL, AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE WORK ETHIC - HENCE THE SCOTUS MOTHERFUCKERS RULED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THE KKK BYLAWS STATED THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE DEPORTABLE.

US SUPREME COURT CASE

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.


For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)



.

So Texas is right in refusing to grant illegals citizenship???

And every state that doesn't want them can deport them???

You just made Trump a very happy camper, and he appreciates your support!!!

 

[Contumacious]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold an injunction issued by a Texas judge who struck down Obama's executive order on immigration. The EO was designed to prevent the deportations of 5 million illegal immigrants

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

Appeals court rules against Obama's plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Actually, the courts DO have bearing on a case...

Maybe the fact that Democrats won't accept that explains why pissed-off judges put so many of the rebellious bastards in prison for their illegal activities.

DINGLE BERRY, SIR


THERE ARE THREE INDEPENDENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

EXECUTIVE

LEGISLATIVE


JUDICIAL


IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF DISCRETION FOR PROSECUTORS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS


THE "CONSERVATIVES" JUDGES IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO LONGER WANT TO ALLOW A BLACK PRESIDENT TO HELP BROWN SKIN FOLKS.


.

 

[Contumacious]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold an injunction issued by a Texas judge who struck down Obama's executive order on immigration. The EO was designed to prevent the deportations of 5 million illegal immigrants

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

Appeals court rules against Obama's plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Actually, the courts DO have bearing on a case...

Maybe the fact that Democrats won't accept that explains why pissed-off judges put so many of the rebellious bastards in prison for their illegal activities.

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Great !!! Then let each state set it's own "friends" laws... Of course -- you forget how this concept changed over time AFTER 1798... In the next century -- the Fed took full force of immigration policy and damn the states....

IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN WITHIN ITS BORDERS. IMMIGRATION LAW WAS USURPED BY A RACIST SUPREME COURT IN THE 1860's BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE "MENACE" - DEPORTING THEM BECAME AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE CHINESE EMPLOYEES NEVER GOT SICK, WORKED LIKE HELL, AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE WORK ETHIC - HENCE THE SCOTUS MOTHERFUCKERS RULED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THE KKK BYLAWS STATED THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE DEPORTABLE.

US SUPREME COURT CASE

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.


For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)



.

So Texas is right in refusing to grant illegals citizenship???

And every state that doesn't want them can deport them???

You just made Trump a very happy camper, and he appreciates your support!!!

YES, TEXAS AND EACH OF THE 50 STATES CAN ACCEPT OR REFUSE TO GRANT THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AND RETAINED THAT POWER.


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lol. And I suggest you go read the opinion in Elk v Wilkins, Contumacious. It plainly said:

"No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”

 

[Contumacious]

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Great !!! Then let each state set it's own "friends" laws... Of course -- you forget how this concept changed over time AFTER 1798... In the next century -- the Fed took full force of immigration policy and damn the states....

IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN WITHIN ITS BORDERS. IMMIGRATION LAW WAS USURPED BY A RACIST SUPREME COURT IN THE 1860's BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE "MENACE" - DEPORTING THEM BECAME AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE CHINESE EMPLOYEES NEVER GOT SICK, WORKED LIKE HELL, AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE WORK ETHIC - HENCE THE SCOTUS MOTHERFUCKERS RULED THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THE KKK BYLAWS STATED THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE DEPORTABLE.

US SUPREME COURT CASE

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.


For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)



.

Funny thing that -- you can quote EITHER side of a SCourt decision and SOUND like you know the score. If it wasn't unaminous ---- there's always some flotsam or jetsam to cling to ...


But what matters is not Jefferson's view of immigration law but the CONSTITUTIONAL reservation of power to REGULATE it.. Feds don't HAVE to --- but that are empowered (and today EXPECTED) to do that job.. .

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE - THE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY WHENEVER IT USURPS POWER.

PREZ JEFFERSON AND THE SCOTUS RULING CLEARLY STATE THAT ALIENS ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

SO THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW IRRELEVANT - WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF FEDERAL BUREACRATS

 

[TemplarKormac]

PREZ JEFFERSON AND THE SCOTUS RULING CLEARLY STATE THAT ALIENS ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

That's bullshit.

Why is there an entire Section of the US code dedicated to them?

8 U.S.C. 1325:


(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

[Contumacious]

The racist motherfuckers in the Fifth Circuit are wrong.

There is a history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

That's how John Lennon was allowed to stay here.

Their decision ought to be reversed and the case remanded.

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Give it a rest. You would be celebrating if they had ruled in favor of Obama. The law doesn't mean shit to you.

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Quiet you.

The author(s) of the 14th Amendment never intended for illegals or their children to become citizens of our country. Both Jacob Howard and John Bingam made this clear.

Howard:

"This [the 14th Amendment] will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

-Congressional Globe, 39th US Congress 1866, p. 2890

John Bingham's concurrence:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...

-Ibid.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NEITHER I NOR THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS STATED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A ******US CITIZEN*******. BUT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A STATE CITIZEN -------ONLY HAVING THOSE RIGHTS WITHIN THE STATE'S BORDERS.


CAPISCE?

 

[Contumacious]

PREZ JEFFERSON AND THE SCOTUS RULING CLEARLY STATE THAT ALIENS ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

That's bullshit.

Why is there an entire Section of the US code dedicated to them?

8 U.S.C. 1325:


(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 USC 1325 is a bold face usurpation.


It is the law ONLY because there are not 5 Hispanic justices in SCOTUS.


.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

so what happens now? it goes to the SC who may take the case in 2018?

 

[Contumacious]

so what happens now? it goes to the SC who may take the case in 2018?

BUSINESS AS USUAL


THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SCUMBAGS KNOW THAT NONE OF THE SENATORS IS OF MEXICAN OR SOUTH AMERICAN DESCENT - HENCE NO HARM DONE -THEIR DECISION WILL NOT AFFECT PROMOTION TO SCOTUS


AND SO IT GOES

 

[TemplarKormac]

Shhhh! Don't be an armchair legal scholar.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Give it a rest. You would be celebrating if they had ruled in favor of Obama. The law doesn't mean shit to you.

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Quiet you.

The author(s) of the 14th Amendment never intended for illegals or their children to become citizens of our country. Both Jacob Howard and John Bingam made this clear.

Howard:

"This [the 14th Amendment] will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

-Congressional Globe, 39th US Congress 1866, p. 2890

John Bingham's concurrence:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...

-Ibid.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NEITHER I NOR THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS STATED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A ******US CITIZEN*******. BUT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A STATE CITIZEN -------ONLY HAVING THOSE RIGHTS WITHIN THE STATE'S BORDERS.


CAPISCE?

No. Boyd v Nebraska dealt with the citizens of the Nebraska Territory who were running for office. It held that determining citizenship was not up to the state, only that the US could determine citizenship and naturalization. The states are no longer "sovereign" as they exist as part of a sovereign nation.

Read your damn case law you idiot.

 

[Contumacious]

The Fifth Circuit ruling is NOT the Law. , its a bold face usurpation

Give it a rest. You would be celebrating if they had ruled in favor of Obama. The law doesn't mean shit to you.

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.


LET'S SEE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd PREZ SAID ABOUT IT:


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


THOMAS JEFFERSON


SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION UPHELD WAS A KKK BYLAW - WHICH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW


.

Quiet you.

The author(s) of the 14th Amendment never intended for illegals or their children to become citizens of our country. Both Jacob Howard and John Bingam made this clear.

Howard:

"This [the 14th Amendment] will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

-Congressional Globe, 39th US Congress 1866, p. 2890

John Bingham's concurrence:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...

-Ibid.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NEITHER I NOR THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS STATED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A ******US CITIZEN*******. BUT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BECOME A STATE CITIZEN -------ONLY HAVING THOSE RIGHTS WITHIN THE STATE'S BORDERS.


CAPISCE?

No. Boyd v Nebraska dealt with the citizens of the Nebraska Territory who were running for office. It held that determining citizenship was not up to the state, only that the US could determine citizenship and naturalization. The states are no longer "sovereign" as they exist as part of a sovereign nation.

Read your damn case law you idiot.

AGAIN DINGLE BERRY


ONLY CONGRESS CAN CONFER -US- US US US US US CITIZENSHIP.


A STATE CAN NOT CONFER US CITIZENSHIP.


A STATE CAN CONFER ITS CITIZENSHIP WHICH ITS ONLY GOOD WITHIN IT BORDERS


NOW WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT THE STATES ARE NO LONGER SOVEREIGN?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

 

[TemplarKormac]

ONLY CONGRESS CAN CONFER -US- US US US US US CITIZENSHIP.


A STATE CAN NOT CONFER US CITIZENSHIP.

So what are you getting at?

 

[Contumacious]

ONLY CONGRESS CAN CONFER -US- US US US US US CITIZENSHIP.


A STATE CAN NOT CONFER US CITIZENSHIP.

So what are you getting at?

THAT THE STATES CAN CONFER THEIR OWN CITIZENSHIP, ie, TEXAS CAN CONFER TEXAS CITIZENSHIP - BUT THAT IS ONLY GOOD IN TEXAS - NO OTHER STATE IS REQUIRED TO RECOGNIZE IT - AND HE WOULD HAVE NO US CITIZEN RIGHTS.NO US PASSPORT, ETC


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

NOW WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT THE STATES ARE NO LONGER SOVEREIGN?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

Because they agreed to become part of a sovereign nation. A state can't maintain its own sovereignty while existing as part of a sovereign nation. States do not possess equal sovereignty with the US Government, their admittance is acknowledgement that the law of the US is the supreme in all of the land.

As stated in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 4, and section 10 of the US Constitution, only Congress can confer citizenship. Article 6 makes clear that states are to submit to the laws (provided they are constitutional) enacted by Congress:

Section 8, Clause 4, Congressional Powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

Section 10, Powers Prohibited to the States:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI , Clause 2, Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

 

[TemplarKormac]

ONLY CONGRESS CAN CONFER -US- US US US US US CITIZENSHIP.


A STATE CAN NOT CONFER US CITIZENSHIP.

So what are you getting at?

THAT THE STATES CAN CONFER THEIR OWN CITIZENSHIP, ie, TEXAS CAN CONFER TEXAS CITIZENSHIP - BUT THAT IS ONLY GOOD IN TEXAS - NO OTHER STATE IS REQUIRED TO RECOGNIZE IT - AND HE WOULD HAVE NO US CITIZEN RIGHTS.NO US PASSPORT, ETC


.

But weren't you just telling me they couldn't?