IBDaMann
Well-known member
US citizenship is an inalienable right to all born on US soil. You will notice that parentage is not a factor.
Birthright Citizenship - Supreme Court Precedent
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I'm proud of you.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Totally incorrect. The child born in the US is not his parents. Parentage is not a factor in the inalienable right of US citizenship to all who are born on US soil.
Tobytone
Verified User
Yeah, I think it’s less about votes and more about gerrymandering on steroids. Democrat strategists play 4D chess, shipping illegals into key districts to pad headcounts for redistricting, snagging extra seats in swing states wherever they can tilt the scales. Sad truth? Redistricting counts bodies, not citizens, so they game the system like the deceitful scumbags they are.
Either votes or gerrymandering explains the party hacks and talking heads, but what about the average brain-dead libtard on the street or here? How do they justify rewarding border-jumpers breaking and entering with instant citizenship, leapfrogging millions waiting in line legally? Is it TDS fogging their brains? Are they just that stupid? Or do they hate America so much they cheer anything that spits in the face of common sense? Honestly, they probably don’t even know why, just reflexively fighting whatever the enemy, aka regular Americans, supports, while the rest of us dodge the fallout of their insanity.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I notice that you can't find any law that the child has broken, so you launch into a long list of wrongdoing perpetrated by someone else as attempted justification for punishing a child who did not commit any of that wrongdoing.
You have failed to make any sort of valid case.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Incorrect. Judges cannot legislate from the bench. Only the legislative branch makes laws. Judges decide cases and do not make any law.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Strawman argument.
The child is not a citizen
Why aren’t children born of foreign diplomats citizens?
Making up what you want Ark to say doesn't mean it says that. What Ark does say is:
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 apeculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the commonlaw), 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.
Then Ark goes on to cite Cranch where Justice Marshall laid out that all foreign persons in the country that are not foreign ministers are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in and no government would willingly give up that jurisdiction.
Ark then goes on to say the following about subject to the jurisdiction as used in laws and cited by courts and how it can be presumed for the legislators and courts to understand it:
This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
No. Elk doesn't prove that at all. Ark would actually prove that to be false since in Ark, the parents being Chinese, had allegiance to China and could not ever become US citizens themselves under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Elk cites several cases where Indians were released because US courts did not have jurisdiction over tribal members. Once again, this is about jurisdiction. Elk lays out how Indian tribes as a separate entity in the US are outside US jurisdiction.
I'm suggesting that he/she isn't an American citizen BECAUSE.
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
OMFG. You are simply making shit up.Ark was obviously here legally because SCOTUS said he was a US Citizen. Elk couldn't live here legally because SCTOUS said he wasn't an American citizen.
Ark was a US citizen because he was born in US territory and even though his parents were subjects of the Chinese emperor they were subject to US jurisdiction while in the US. Elk was not a naturally born US citizen because he was born on tribal land which was not subject to US jurisdiction according to US treaties with tribes.
The argument made by one side in a case and included in the synopsis of what the case is about is not the ruling of the court.
The court rejected the argument that those facts made him a naturally born citizen since he was born on tribal land.
We don't have jurisdiction in El Salvador either.
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
Most Indians born in the US on or off Reservations were not citizens prior to 1924.
Prior to 1924, Native Americans born outside of reservations were generally not considered US citizens. While some Native Americans were granted citizenship through specific treaties, acts of Congress, or naturalization proceedings, the majority were excluded. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 changed this, granting citizenship to all Native Americans born within the US.
Google Search
www.google.com
That was from the decision. The court (Justice Gray) explained why Elk lost.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'm just stating the inalienable right of US citizenship to all born on US soil. It's not an argument.
If the child is born on US soil, the child is a citizen. Checkmate.
They are not subject to US jurisdiction, just as children of hostile military occupiers aren't subject to US jurisdiction. Those are the only two exceptions, and it's because the US doesn't have jurisdiction over them. The US has jurisdiction over all other children born on US soil, and thus those children have the inalienable right of US citizenship.
It's not my argument. I did not create the inalienable right.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Elk was deprived of his inalienable right via a bad court decision. Congress corrected that situation to prevent others from being deprived of their inalienable right of US citizenship by birth. The Elk case is moot and OBE.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
OK, I'm waiting .... lay it on me.
All you have is one thing that no longer applies. Dismissed.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You have just contradicted yourself
Either it is an inalienable right or it is not. You can’t have it both ways
CHECKMATE
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli, is guaranteed by the United States Constitution, specifically through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "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".
This provision means that anyone born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, including children born to undocumented parents, are automatically granted citizenship. The term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude specific groups like foreign diplomats and members of Indian tribes who are not fully subject to US law.
While there have been legal challenges and ongoing debates about the interpretation and implications of birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed its constitutional basis.
This provision means that anyone born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, including children born to undocumented parents, are automatically granted citizenship. The term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude specific groups like foreign diplomats and members of Indian tribes who are not fully subject to US law.
While there have been legal challenges and ongoing debates about the interpretation and implications of birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed its constitutional basis.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I have not.
Correct. Citizenship by birth on US soil is an inalienable right. If I gave you the impression that I was asserting that it is not, then allow me to take the opportunity to correct the record.
Indians were a special class. Your denials are cute but without legal basis.