Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?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.
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!
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.
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?Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.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.Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.
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.
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?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.
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!
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?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.
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!
The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com[/QUOTE
You already cited to the case law. Wong Kim Ark. Your suggestion that the "domicile" of the parents was relevant is moronic. Why don't you go and read it yourself and then, maybe, we can discuss this intelligently. Clearly, you have not read it. You rely on others to tell you what it says.
It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fearTrump is one of two things,
a. genuinely an idiot
b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.
...or maybe both...
The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
" It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States""The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
Not even an opinion piece... a letter to the editor.
Nothing like referencing an opinion piece.
Especially one that incorrectly quotes the 1965 Immigration Act.
Afraid of what? Trump as the nominee will lead to a landslide for any democrat nominated.It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fearTrump is one of two things,
a. genuinely an idiot
b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.
...or maybe both...
The establishment Republicans are smart to be afraid, the Democrats would also be afraid if they aren't too stupid.
From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
More:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.
(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).
In Inglis 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."
And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.
And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.
Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.
To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.
Afraid of what? Trump as the nominee will lead to a landslide for any democrat nominated.It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fearTrump is one of two things,
a. genuinely an idiot
b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.
...or maybe both...
The establishment Republicans are smart to be afraid, the Democrats would also be afraid if they aren't too stupid.
Ike didn't necessarily break the law because Immigration statutes didn't confer birthright citizenship until sometime around 1965From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
More:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.
(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).
In Inglis 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."
And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.
And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.
Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.
To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.
I am. Trump is probably the only hope we have of getting rid of Citizens United. Go Donald GO!Afraid of what? Trump as the nominee will lead to a landslide for any democrat nominated.It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fearTrump is one of two things,
a. genuinely an idiot
b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.
...or maybe both...
The establishment Republicans are smart to be afraid, the Democrats would also be afraid if they aren't too stupid.
keep wishing.
We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.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?Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.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.Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.
The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."
US
Canada
Mexico
Are among the 30+ nations who do
Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.
Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies
If you read the case in its entirety, you would understand that whether the parent were here legally or not would not make a difference. The Court very specifically held that the only tow exceptions to birthright citizenship would be the children of diplomats or of invading soldiers. In Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court was faced with at claim of citizenship by the child of person here illegally and, in both cases, cited to Wong for the principle of birthright citizenship. The Court in Wong was asked to construe the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and concluded that it meant "within the jurisdiction of..." the United States. You cannot argue that person here without permission are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is settled law.From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
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.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
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.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
More:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.
(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).
In Inglis 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."
And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.
And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.
Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.
To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.
However, the supreme court was not considering that question
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
In short, neither English common law nor Wong contemplated parents ILLEGALLY in the US
