Judge Boardman ignored facts when blocking Trump’s E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

[johnwk]

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!



The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

 

[pknopp]

It's funny how people randomly posting on a chat site believe they are more qualified to determine legal matters than those who do it daily.

The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language

The plain language. You want judges to interpret it as opposed to ruling on what it said.

Hypocritely at that.

 

[1srelluc]

Looks like a lot of liberal judges who have ruled against Trump the past couple weeks are slowly backing down.

The count is at least three I know of and maybe a fourth.

I guess someone showed them Article II and they are skeered of being recalled for judicial misbehavior.

 

[johnwk]

Looks like a lot of liberal judges who have ruled against Trump the past couple weeks are slowly backing down.

The count is at least three I know of and maybe a fourth.

I guess someone showed them Article II and they are skeered of being recalled for judicial misbehavior.

To be more accurate, they are not "liberal judges" but rather, they are notoriously evil doers working hand in hand with those working to destroy and replace our constitutionally limited Republican form of Government with an Administrative ruling class unrestrained by our written Constitution.

 

[1srelluc]

To be more accurate, they are not "liberal judges" but rather, they are notoriously evil doers working hand in hand with those working to destroy and replace our constitutionally limited Republican form of Government with an Administrative ruling class unrestrained by our written Constitution.

In other words....Assholes.

 

[johnwk]

In other words....Assholes.

Judge Boardman inflicts irreparable harm on American citizens and their children​

It is absolutely stunning and unforgivable that Judge Boardman falsely asserts, "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

The truth is, American citizens and their children will suffer an ever increasing irreparable harm if Trump’s Executive Order is enjoined and the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are continually recognized as citizens of the United States who are already taking over and overburdening the nation’s emergency health care rooms; public schools, public housing and even recreation facilities . . . all meant for America's needy citizens and their children.

How dare Judge Boardman intentionally close her eyes to the devastating consequences she knowingly inflicts upon American citizens in her quest to recognize the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens are being made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic and social needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

 

[johnwk]

Here is an example of the irreparable harm Judge Boardman is inflicting on American citizens by enjoining Trump's Executive Order:

 

[johnwk]

Public policy, not law, now recognizes anchor babies as U.S. citizens

.
As stated in the OP, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as “law”, declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth. Public policy, and only public policy, not “law”, now recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

To confirm, once again how Congress, not Judge Boardman, is authorized to grant United States citizenship to specifically identified groups, the following is another example of Congress exercising its exclusive authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to a specifically identified group.
.
See: CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes . . .( enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3. That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

So, once we prove that not “. . . every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country…”, which is what Judge Boardman falsely asserted. Public policy, not “law” enacted by Congress, has recognized the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

As demonstrated above, our “oath of allegiance” is a critical part in granting citizenship to those entering our country which then satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier “… and subject to the jurisdiction …”

Elections do have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

 

[Curried Goats]

Public policy, not law, now recognizes anchor babies as U.S. citizens

.
As stated in the OP, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as “law”, declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth. Public policy, and only public policy, not “law”, now recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

To confirm, once again how Congress, not Judge Boardman, is authorized to grant United States citizenship to specifically identified groups, the following is another example of Congress exercising its exclusive authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to a specifically identified group.
.
See: CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes . . .( enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3. That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

So, once we prove that not “. . . every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country…”, which is what Judge Boardman falsely asserted. Public policy, not “law” enacted by Congress, has recognized the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

As demonstrated above, our “oath of allegiance” is a critical part in granting citizenship to those entering our country which then satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier “… and subject to the jurisdiction …”

Elections do have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

You are stupid. Immigrants have to take the oath of office to become citizens because they weren't born here. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction part of the 14th Amendment. Everyone in this country, legal or otherwise, on vacation or residing permanently, is under the jurisdiction of the United Sates except for the designated few who are not under our jurisdiction due to agreements of diplomatic immunity. Babies born here have to take no such oath because they have what's know as jus soli. The right of soil.

 

[johnwk]

The case of Richard Greisser not being a U.S. citizen and not entitled to a U.S. Passport


See letter from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester . . . the State Department letter explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.


Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington, November 28, 1885.
No. 26.]
Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

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 in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,
T. F. BAYARD.

 

[Moonglow]

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!



The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

Elections do have consequences and over one hundred years of precedence will interfere will unconstitutional actions every damn time.

 

[Moonglow]

The case of Richard Greisser not being a U.S. citizen and not entitled to a U.S. Passport


See letter from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester . . . the State Department letter explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.


Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington, November 28, 1885.
No. 26.]
Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

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 in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,
T. F. BAYARD.

So if Richard murdered an American citizen in the USA he would not be prosecuted because he is not under the jurisdiction of the US government?

 

[WEATHER53]

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!



The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

The “judges” have moved from biased to lying

 

[WEATHER53]

So if Richard murdered an American citizen in the USA he would not be prosecuted because he is not under the jurisdiction of the US government?

We deal with what Is rather than what If. Your deflection is defeated

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Judge Boardman has it right.

"Jurisdiction" is very clear in the 1thA.

 

[johnwk]

Judge Boardman has it right.

"Jurisdiction" is very clear in the 1thA.

Only according to you and those who ignore our county's rule of law.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Only according to you and those who ignore our county's rule of law.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

Only according to those who understand the Constitution and the law.

You don't.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sorry, people. "Jurisdiction" is not what the sillies think it means. The 1898 decision has it right. It won't change.

 

[johnwk]

Sorry, people. "Jurisdiction" is not what the sillies think it means. The 1898 decision has it right. It won't change.

Seems that you have finally and inadvertently identified yourself as one of those "sillies".

 

[WEATHER53]

Only according to you and those who ignore our county's rule of law.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

Failing to note that all those babies are vast majority from long standing legal American citizens