Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

Your interp, Jim, is not the one followed.

Again, more bullshit out of your pie hole.

Of course my opinion is not the one followed as I have no standing in the field and the SCOTUS has not ruled anyway on this, other than Wong. Aby the plain reading of Wong, what I am pointing out is obviously correct, except to dullards like yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

 

[JimBowie1958]

No need for all of that.

Just have the next President sign an executive Action deeming anchor babies as not US Citizens.

Who is going to stop him or her?

oh don't think that just because the Republicans in Congress are a bunch of limp dick fools that the Dems will be if they take power.

No, they have the balls to go to the 'nuclear option' when faced with repeated filibusters byu the Republicans, but the GOP is not composed of such backbone and will cave again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

progressives excel at fuckery when citing the US Constitution. Children of illegals DO NOT get citizenship........period, end of story.

Who's interpretation has more validity? Boob McNut or Mark Levin?

No, 'progressives' have a correct and accurate understanding of the Constitution and its case law, in this case that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, regardless their parent's condition or status; and that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of law, including those undocumented. (Plyler v. Doe)

You and others on the right may not like these facts, you may not understand these facts, you may not agree with these facts – but they are nonetheless the law of the land.

You are a liar.


Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See §HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

He has the same law degree as any other lawyer. No doctorate in con law. He has never practiced con law. You know, actually litigated in a court on issues of con law. He offers his opinions on the radio and in print. Calling him a constitutional lawyer is like calling bob costas an Olympic athlete.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment"

There's another ridiculous aspect of this ignorance and idiocy, where many on the right maintain the moronic notion that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' to those undocumented coming to the United States absent authorization.

Needless to say this notion is completely unfounded and devoid of merit, the product of the right's delusional xenophobia and racism.

lol, you seem to enjoy making unwarranted statements like that.

I refute you similarly; No, we are right and you are a deluded ass hat.

 

[Camp]

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

Levin is running the same scam line as others. Nothing at all original about his rant. Others have been using the same rant. His rant is crap because it doesn't matter what a Senator, even the author, said two years before the amendment was voted on. What counts is the exact wording of the amendment as it was voted on. If what the Senator said was accepted and wanted in the amendment it would have been put in it. It wasn't. It was left out. The caveats the Senator wanted were rejected by the Senate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'anchor baby' myth is nothing but a partisan contrivance, a hateful manifestation of the unwarranted fear common to many on the right:

“[T]he ['anchor baby'], while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
[...]
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
[...]
In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.'

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

Levin is running the same scam line as others. Nothing at all original about his rant. Others have been using the same rant. His rant is crap because it doesn't matter what a Senator, even the author, said two years before the amendment was voted on. What counts is the exact wording of the amendment as it was voted on. If what the Senator said was accepted and wanted in the amendment it would have been put in it. It wasn't. It was left out. The caveats the Senator wanted were rejected by the Senate.

Levin also represents the willful ignorance of many others on the right: the unwarranted, inane refusal to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

Levin is running the same scam line as others. Nothing at all original about his rant. Others have been using the same rant. His rant is crap because it doesn't matter what a Senator, even the author, said two years before the amendment was voted on. What counts is the exact wording of the amendment as it was voted on. If what the Senator said was accepted and wanted in the amendment it would have been put in it. It wasn't. It was left out. The caveats the Senator wanted were rejected by the Senate.

And the plain reading of that amendment as evidenced by US v Wong Kim Ark in section 96 is that the alien parents had to have legal domicile and the permission of the United States.

Why don't you go read it for your ownself instead of repeating the lame ass corporate talking points?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

You are full of shit. Levin has a professional doctorate in law and such degrees means he can focus on any particular subject that he wants to and publish on it with full expertise if it falls under his degree

Levin is running the same scam line as others. Nothing at all original about his rant. Others have been using the same rant. His rant is crap because it doesn't matter what a Senator, even the author, said two years before the amendment was voted on. What counts is the exact wording of the amendment as it was voted on. If what the Senator said was accepted and wanted in the amendment it would have been put in it. It wasn't. It was left out. The caveats the Senator wanted were rejected by the Senate.

Levin also represents the willful ignorance of many others on the right: the unwarranted, inane refusal to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Again, Wong supports our claims.

You have nothing but a magical consensus that didn't even exist 20 years ago.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The 'anchor baby' myth is nothing but a partisan contrivance, a hateful manifestation of the unwarranted fear common to many on the right:

“[T]he ['anchor baby'], while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
[...]
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
[...]
In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.'

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See §HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

 

[candycorn]

I see...disregard the facts and look for a diversion...

There is no point in arguing your facts since existing CASE LAW IGNORES IT. You might as we argue that West Virginia is not a legal state either and see how far that gets you.

We aren't talking about west virginia, though, are we? We're talking about how the gvt acted illlegally (before and) after the war between the states to force laws that they refused to let the people vote on.

Those amendments were not legally enacted. To use "it was a long time ago" as an excuse doesn't cut it.

Remember;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Even the despicable pos lincoln said;

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Not only are you kicking a totally dead horse, you are also trying to derail the thread.

Why don't you go and start your own thread on why the 14th is not a legal amendment?

We're talking about the constitution in this thread...what I said is relevant.

I love watching mental midget wrestling

 

[candycorn]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

 

[Rotagilla]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

In other words you don't know the requirements to convene a cc so you retreat to the standard fallback position of ignorant remarks and bitter hyperpartisan snark. Better than having to accept facts you don't "like"...on the plus side you don't tire yourself out thinking...

 

[candycorn]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

In other words you don't know the requirements to convene a cc so you retreat to the standard fallback position of ignorant remarks and bitter hyperpartisan snark. Better than having to accept facts you don't "like"...on the plus side you don't tire yourself out thinking...

Apparently you guys don't know the requirements.... Since, you know, you are the idiots who keep threatening to impose your will on the rest of us. Yet...you never seem to be able to get it up when it's game time.

Take some Viagra or something short-stack.

 

[Rotagilla]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

In other words you don't know the requirements to convene a cc so you retreat to the standard fallback position of ignorant remarks and bitter hyperpartisan snark. Better than having to accept facts you don't "like"...on the plus side you don't tire yourself out thinking...

Apparently you guys don't know the requirements.... Since, you know, you are the idiots who keep threatening to impose your will on the rest of us. Yet...you never seem to be able to get it up when it's game time.

Take some Viagra or something short-stack.

I know the requirements.Anyone can learn them..they aren't secret....and no one is "threatening to impose their will" on anyone....hyperbole makes you look emotional and over dramatic.

 

[candycorn]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

In other words you don't know the requirements to convene a cc so you retreat to the standard fallback position of ignorant remarks and bitter hyperpartisan snark. Better than having to accept facts you don't "like"...on the plus side you don't tire yourself out thinking...

Apparently you guys don't know the requirements.... Since, you know, you are the idiots who keep threatening to impose your will on the rest of us. Yet...you never seem to be able to get it up when it's game time.

Take some Viagra or something short-stack.

I know the requirements.Anyone can learn them..they aren't secret....and no one is "threatening to impose their will" on anyone....hyperbole makes you look emotional and over dramatic.

Apparently nobody is going to attend the meeting either since, you know, you guys keep threatening us with installation of whatever gestapo laws are popular that week (3 months ago before The Donald told you what to think and ordered you to be afraid of brown skinned persons, you idiots were busy trying to convince us that gay marriage was against God's will and it was time to blow the whole thing up and start over).

I guess as long as we have tractor pulls and WWE, you guys will be distracted. It really is that simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your interp, Jim, is not the one followed.

Again, more bullshit out of your pie hole.

Of course my opinion is not the one followed as I have no standing in the field and the SCOTUS has not ruled anyway on this, other than Wong. Aby the plain reading of Wong, what I am pointing out is obviously correct, except to dullards like yourself.

Your reading of Wong is plain wrong is what is being pointed out. You disagree, your right to do so, so go ahead and act on it. PaddyMurphy is correct with, "No doctorate in con law. He has never practiced con law. You know, actually litigated in a court on issues of con law. He offers his opinions on the radio and in print. Calling him a constitutional lawyer is like calling bob costas an Olympic athlete."

Your arguments reveal your nativist fear of others.