"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

FastLane said:
Why don't you answer my question. You said multiple times SCOTUS has upheld birthright citizenship. Correct?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't matter. SCOTUS upheld the interp and it stands. You are arguing against the Supreme Court. That means you are, by definition, the one who is wrong.

Sorry but you are not a co-equal branch of the government.
 
FastLane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, your interp does not matter AT ALL to ANYONE. Sorry to break it to you but you are simply just blathering bullshit here. It's nice to say and you are free to want it to be that way. But you are not right about the facts.

The US has birthright citizenship. End of discussion.
 
gmark77 said:
Because it doesn't matter. SCOTUS upheld the interp and it stands. You are arguing against the Supreme Court. That means you are, by definition, the one who is wrong.

Sorry but you are not a co-equal branch of the government.
Click to expand...
But it does matter a lot. Do you have any more SCOTUS cases before we drill down on the Wong Kim Ark case? You said their were multiple cases.
 
gmark77 said:
Again, your interp does not matter AT ALL to ANYONE. Sorry to break it to you but you are simply just blathering bullshit here. It's nice to say and you are free to want it to be that way. But you are not right about the facts.

The US has birthright citizenship. End of discussion.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you are afraid to discuss this in a civil manor on a debate site?

What is the reason the SCOTUS gave to extend birth right citizenship to Wong Kim Ark?
 
FastLane said:
But it does matter a lot. Do you have any more SCOTUS cases before we drill down on the Wong Kim Ark case? You said their were multiple cases.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS affirms Birthright Citizenship. You want to change it? You have to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. There is NO APPEAL to the SCOTUS ruling. You will have to wait until either you get enough votes to amend the Constitution or you get the right activist Right Wing Trump Judges on SCOTUS to eliminate stare decisis.

YOU are nothing in this conversation. Again, sorry if you are confused about your role in the decisions of what is or isn't in the COnstitution.
 
gmark77 said:
SCOTUS affirms Birthright Citizenship. You want to change it? You have to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. There is NO APPEAL to the SCOTUS ruling. You will have to wait until either you get enough votes to amend the Constitution or you get the right activist Right Wing Trump Judges on SCOTUS to eliminate stare decisis.

YOU are nothing in this conversation. Again, sorry if you are confused about your role in the decisions of what is or isn't in the COnstitution.
Click to expand...
Yep to permanent resident of the US

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: 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...
Click to expand...

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 domicil 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.
Click to expand...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
constitutioncenter.org

Illegal aliens don't have permanent domiciles in the US.
 
FastLane said:
Illegal aliens don't have permanent domiciles in the US.
Click to expand...

Illegals still have the benefit of Constitutional Protections.

ualr.edu

Undocumented Immigrants have Constitutional Rights too

By: Aisosa Osaretin Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of ... Undocumented Immigrants have Constitutional Rights too
ualr.edu

www.pbs.org

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

The administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy and the recent surge in family separations at the border -- a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order -- has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
 
gmark77 said:
What's to debate? Wanna debate if 1+1= 2?



WHo cares? Seriously. WHO FUCKING CARES. The US has had Birthright Citizenship for over a century now ergo you are dismissed.
Click to expand...
And there are TWO SCOTUS cases Wong Kim Ark and Elk v Wilkins. I'm not afraid to look at both of them in depth. Are you afraid?
 
gmark77 said:
Illegals still have the benefit of Constitutional Protections.

ualr.edu

Undocumented Immigrants have Constitutional Rights too

By: Aisosa Osaretin Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of ... Undocumented Immigrants have Constitutional Rights too
ualr.edu

www.pbs.org

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

The administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy and the recent surge in family separations at the border -- a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order -- has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
They don't have the RIGHT to have a permanent domicile in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top