Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Dad2three]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

WTF? Subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If an illegal alien commits a crime he can be prosecuted here.

You need to read the link I posted, you are misinterpreting "jurisdiction" for the geography context and that is NOT what it means here. And the problem is, the SCOTUS has reams and reams of deliberation on precisely what this clause means and what "jurisdiction" means in this context.

We go back to your same example in 1890... If a Native American walked off his tribal lands and killed a white man, he would be subject to US law. It would not matter that he was a Native American who was not a citizen. Everyone is already assumed subjects of US law if they are in the US... some will argue that diplomats aren't, but they are as well... they can't go on a killing spree then claim diplomatic immunity... it doesn't work that way. So this is not about geography.

Jurisdiction in this context, means (and always has meant) allegiance owed. An illegal alien's allegiance is still owed to his home country, and by virtue, his minor offspring children are as well because they are in his custody. The Wong case is not about ILLEGAL immigrants.

 

[bendog]

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

 

[Boss]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

And since anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents status, are entitled to those passports and are recognized by every branch of the government as being US citizens, your serial posts arguing they are not citizens was because why? Are you finally admitting you have been convinced that your earlier posts were wrong?

No... It has been my argument from the very start, this is a statutory policy issue and not a Constitutional 14th Amendment right. No one is "entitled" to citizenship unless Congress determines they are. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress, not subject to court rulings.

This is why there are rare cases of the SCOTUS dealing with the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th. The court recognizes the separation of powers in the Constitution and does not have the authority to "bestow" citizenship. It can ONLY rule on the basis of current US policy, which again, is set by Congress, often in accordance with the Attorney General and Executive Branch. It's a statutory policy... not a Constitutional RIGHT!

 

[paddymurphy]

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

You will have to ask the 35 or so countries who do that, almost all here in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

You completely ignore the Supreme Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"InInglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:

"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be "subject to jurisdiction" and the court found that "subject to jurisdiction" meant allegiance and this was not ever in question when it came to birthright citizenship. If anything, Wong reaffirms the 14th doesn't automatically grant citizenship by birth alone... there is another criteria which MUST be met. This is even MORE apparent when you understand Wong did not confer citizenship of Native Americans born on the same US soil, subject to the same US laws. It took an act of Congress in 1923 to grant citizenship because ONLY CONGRESS can do this.

No Native Peoples were a party to the case...

And neither were any illegal aliens or diplomats as far as I am aware. What's your point, Skippy?

You're attempting to create a circular argument now to duck your errors yet again; another STRAWMAN! The point was you INFERRED Native Americans were a party in US v. Wong, but you were wrong, not correct, IN ERROR! Wong was DENIED entry into the US as a Chinese person...AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN. He obtained a writ of habeas corpus and his case to prove birthright citizenship was finally heard by the Supremes.

No diplomats, no Native Americans and NO STRAWMEN were a party to US v. Wong; just Wong and the United States of America. The Court found that Wong was right and the US Customs folk in the Port of San Francisco WRONGFULLY DENIED Wong entry into the Country proper owing to the fact he had birthright citizenship having been born ~22 years earlier in the US! His parents' heritage DID NOT DECEND to their child. I already provided you with a passage from the decision, but here it is again!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

From August 1895 when he attempted to enter the US until March 1898 when the Supremes rendered their decision on the case, Wong was considered to be an alien and not a citizen. You should really try reading the case rather than listening to the hooting owls and their brethren loons in the Forest by the Lake.

Let's see, that places you in error with just me alone today at five(5) times but maybe six...but then who's counting, right?

Have a nice Day, Bubba!

 

[paddymurphy]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

And since anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents status, are entitled to those passports and are recognized by every branch of the government as being US citizens, your serial posts arguing they are not citizens was because why? Are you finally admitting you have been convinced that your earlier posts were wrong?

No... It has been my argument from the very start, this is a statutory policy issue and not a Constitutional 14th Amendment right. No one is "entitled" to citizenship unless Congress determines they are. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress, not subject to court rulings.

This is why there are rare cases of the SCOTUS dealing with the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th. The court recognizes the separation of powers in the Constitution and does not have the authority to "bestow" citizenship. It can ONLY rule on the basis of current US policy, which again, is set by Congress, often in accordance with the Attorney General and Executive Branch. It's a statutory policy... not a Constitutional RIGHT!

So, no one ever told you that the Constitution it the supreme law of the land? That any statute passed by Congress or any state legislature cannot conflict with the Constitution? You were not aware that if a law conflicts with the Constitution or one of its amendments (i.e. the 14th Amendment) that law is invalid? What you cited to deals with naturalization. With how non-citizens become citizens. The Constitution and its Amendments (i.e. the 14th) prescribe when someone born here is a citizen. And it states that if you are natural born here and subject to our jurisdiction, you are a citizen. The Supreme Court has three times confirmed that understanding of the 14th Amendment. Of course, your third grade level understanding of constitutional law does not permit you to understand any of this.

 

[paddymurphy]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

You completely ignore the Supreme Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"InInglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:

"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be "subject to jurisdiction" and the court found that "subject to jurisdiction" meant allegiance and this was not ever in question when it came to birthright citizenship. If anything, Wong reaffirms the 14th doesn't automatically grant citizenship by birth alone... there is another criteria which MUST be met. This is even MORE apparent when you understand Wong did not confer citizenship of Native Americans born on the same US soil, subject to the same US laws. It took an act of Congress in 1923 to grant citizenship because ONLY CONGRESS can do this.

No Native Peoples were a party to the case...

And neither were any illegal aliens or diplomats as far as I am aware. What's your point, Skippy?

You're attempting to create a circular argument now to duck your errors yet again; another STRAWMAN! The point was you INFERRED Native Americans were a party in US v. Wong, but you were wrong, not correct, IN ERROR! Wong was DENIED entry into the US as a Chinese person...AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN. He obtained a writ of habeas corpus and his case to prove birthright citizenship was finally heard by the Supremes.

No diplomats, no Native Americans and NO STRAWMEN were a party to US v. Wong; just Wong and the United States of America. The Court found that Wong was right and the US Customs folk in the Port of San Francisco WRONGFULLY DENIED Wong entry into the Country proper owing to the fact he had birthright citizenship having been born ~22 years earlier! His parents' heritage DID NOT DECEND to their child. I already provided you with a passage from the decision, but here it is again!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

From August 1895 when he attempted to enter the US until March 1898 when the Supremes rendered their decision on the case, Wong was considered to be an alien and not a citizen. You should really try reading the case rather than listening to the hooting owls and their brethren loons in the Forest by the Lake.

Let's see, that places you in error with just me alone today at five(5) times but maybe six...but then who's counting, right?

Have a nice Day, Bubba!

No fair. You are actually quoting from the decision. They would prefer to rely on what some FOx analyst tells them.

 

[Boss]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

God God, have you not read my posts on this thread. LOL

Look, there simply is NO US supreme court case explicitly holding either way on the issue of whether the 14th confers birthright citizenship to kids born to two people illegally here. We have assumed such is true. There are lower court holding. There are US statutes.

Frankly, I don't see any change coming on the horizon, however. The chances of the Congress actually changing the laws are ... slimmer than none.

Boss it nuts, however.

Yes, there has not been a case that specifically answered the question: "Is a person born in the United States to parents, neither of whom is a US citizen and neither of whom is here legally, a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment." But, the holding in Wong Kim Ark already answers that question because it held that the only two time when a person born here would not be considered a citizen is if the parents are diplomats or part of an invading army.

 

[Camp]

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

You have to look at the time period the Amendment was passed. True, it had a lot to do with slaves, but it applied to immigrants settling the vast expanses of the west. Immigrants needed to be assured their offspring were unquestionably American citizens. They came mostly from Europe where it was not uncommon for the rulers to confiscate property and changing borders were common practice. Children having confirmed permanent citizenship meant a great deal to immigrants of that period. It meant family security for farms and ranches for generations. Something mostly unheard of in Europe of the era.

 

[paddymurphy]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

 

[Boss]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

And since anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents status, are entitled to those passports and are recognized by every branch of the government as being US citizens, your serial posts arguing they are not citizens was because why? Are you finally admitting you have been convinced that your earlier posts were wrong?

No... It has been my argument from the very start, this is a statutory policy issue and not a Constitutional 14th Amendment right. No one is "entitled" to citizenship unless Congress determines they are. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress, not subject to court rulings.

This is why there are rare cases of the SCOTUS dealing with the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th. The court recognizes the separation of powers in the Constitution and does not have the authority to "bestow" citizenship. It can ONLY rule on the basis of current US policy, which again, is set by Congress, often in accordance with the Attorney General and Executive Branch. It's a statutory policy... not a Constitutional RIGHT!

So, no one ever told you that the Constitution it the supreme law of the land? That any statute passed by Congress or any state legislature cannot conflict with the Constitution? You were not aware that if a law conflicts with the Constitution or one of its amendments (i.e. the 14th Amendment) that law is invalid? What you cited to deals with naturalization. With how non-citizens become citizens. The Constitution and its Amendments (i.e. the 14th) prescribe when someone born here is a citizen. And it states that if you are natural born here and subject to our jurisdiction, you are a citizen. The Supreme Court has three times confirmed that understanding of the 14th Amendment. Of course, your third grade level understanding of constitutional law does not permit you to understand any of this.

The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land, you're misinterpreting it.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, specifically gives Congress plenary power when it comes to issues regarding citizenship. Plain and simple. It is an enumerated power in the framework of our government. Even in the 14th, Section 5 gives Congress final say on legislation pertaining to the Amendment. This cannot and will not be ignored for "Political Correctness Gone Wild!"

Sorry!

 

[paddymurphy]

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

You have to look at the time period the Amendment was passed. True, it had a lot to do with slaves, but it applied to immigrants settling the vast expanses of the west. Immigrants needed to be assured their offspring were unquestionably American citizens. They came mostly from Europe where it was not uncommon for the rulers to confiscate property and changing borders were common practice. Children having confirmed permanent citizenship meant a great deal to immigrants of that period. It meant family security for farms and ranches for generations. Something mostly unheard of in Europe of the era.

That is the one thing folks do not understand. The United States and the other nations in the western hemisphere were eager to have immigrants move here. There was little if any limits on immigration, other than a few racist laws, until after the turn of the century.

 

[Boss]

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

 

[paddymurphy]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

And since anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents status, are entitled to those passports and are recognized by every branch of the government as being US citizens, your serial posts arguing they are not citizens was because why? Are you finally admitting you have been convinced that your earlier posts were wrong?

No... It has been my argument from the very start, this is a statutory policy issue and not a Constitutional 14th Amendment right. No one is "entitled" to citizenship unless Congress determines they are. It's one of the enumerated powers of Congress, not subject to court rulings.

This is why there are rare cases of the SCOTUS dealing with the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th. The court recognizes the separation of powers in the Constitution and does not have the authority to "bestow" citizenship. It can ONLY rule on the basis of current US policy, which again, is set by Congress, often in accordance with the Attorney General and Executive Branch. It's a statutory policy... not a Constitutional RIGHT!

So, no one ever told you that the Constitution it the supreme law of the land? That any statute passed by Congress or any state legislature cannot conflict with the Constitution? You were not aware that if a law conflicts with the Constitution or one of its amendments (i.e. the 14th Amendment) that law is invalid? What you cited to deals with naturalization. With how non-citizens become citizens. The Constitution and its Amendments (i.e. the 14th) prescribe when someone born here is a citizen. And it states that if you are natural born here and subject to our jurisdiction, you are a citizen. The Supreme Court has three times confirmed that understanding of the 14th Amendment. Of course, your third grade level understanding of constitutional law does not permit you to understand any of this.

The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land, you're misinterpreting it.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, specifically gives Congress plenary power when it comes to issues regarding citizenship. Plain and simple. It is an enumerated power in the framework of our government. Even in the 14th, Section 5 gives Congress final say on legislation pertaining to the Amendment. This cannot and will not be ignored for "Political Correctness Gone Wild!"

Sorry!

Sorry? That you are an idiot. Me too. The fourth sentence in Art, I, sec. 8 does NOT give congress plenary power over citizenship. It give congress the power to determine the naturalization process. Do you understand that naturalization is the process by which NON_CITIZENS become citizens? Nowhere in there does it say that Congress can determine who is a citizen. The Constitution did that. And section 5 of the 14th does not give Congress final say on legislation pertaining to the Amendment, it gives congress authority to pass legislation to ENFORCE it. They cannot change its meaning by legislation.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

No, it is not. It draws no distinction among aliens other than between those who are here as representatives of their government. Any alien here as other than a representative of their government who gives birth gives birth to a citizen.

 

[Boss]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

It did no such thing. It mentioned this and then it refuted the notion that common law tradition had anything to do with this, that it was a matter of political allegiance of the party, which Wong met the criteria for. They specifically state this in their findings. You're just interpreting things incorrectly, apparently.

 

[paddymurphy]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

It did no such thing. It mentioned this and then it refuted the notion that common law tradition had anything to do with this, that it was a matter of political allegiance of the party, which Wong met the criteria for. They specifically state this in their findings. You're just interpreting things incorrectly, apparently.

And you are just pretending to have read it. I gotta conclude that you are now just messing with me because no one could possibly have posted that comment had they read Wong Kim Ark.

 

[bendog]

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

You will have to ask the 35 or so countries who do that, almost all here in the Western Hemisphere.

Let me know when you plan to go to Mexico to birth.

and here's a clue.

Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship | NumbersUSA

 

[paddymurphy]

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

You will have to ask the 35 or so countries who do that, almost all here in the Western Hemisphere.

Let me know when you plan to go to Mexico to birth.

and here's a clue.

Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship | NumbersUSA

Believe me, if I give birth anywhere, it will be on the news. Not sure why the link. Yes, it shows that Mexico is a nation, like the US, that has birthright citizenship.