Activist Federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship ban for all infants, testing lower court powers

[Truth Detector]

I know a Federal Judge for the Northern District of Texas very well and he said he has never issued a national injunction and would never do so.

Because he knows it is wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

And that has ZERO effect on US law so what difference does it make really? Get back to the real issues at hand.

It shows that TD is an ignoramus.

Perhaps you could actually read the Dawes Act and the 1870 Senate Judiciary report on how the 14th amendment affected the citizenship status of Indians since you want to get back to the real issues.

 

[Truth Detector]

Gay marriage is a great example of that. It was made the law of the land by judicial fiat. Back when it was being debated, it ended up on 35 state's ballots in one form or another put there by the Left. The Left said, "We'll let the people decide and we're good with the outcome." In all 35 cases, including in California of all places, it was shot down often overwhelmingly.

The Left then said, "The people are idiots! They don't know what's good for them!" They went to court and got every one of those ballot initiatives overturned by activist judges--In California a gay judge who actively supported gay marriage overturned it--and it somehow became the law of the land.

That sort of thing shouldn't happen in a 'democracy.'

 

[Truth Detector]

Which side of the issue are you arguing? The 14th applied to Native Americans not associated with a tribe in 1870. Tribes were wards of the US government. They received government assistance. They had treaties. Tribes were responsible for policing criminal acts committed on a tribal member by another tribal member. Tribes were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the states where they were located.

Did you bother to read the Dawes Act? Apparently not.
The Dawes Act granted land to Native Americans. Upon accepting the land, they became taxed. Since they were not citizens at that time, accepting the land made them naturalized citizens of the state and of the US. None of those that accepted land or their descendants needed the Snyder act to become citizens.

I am curious as to how many adult native Americans you think there were in 1877 that were born after the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

The 14th amendment allowed some Native Americans to be citizens at birth.
The Dawes Act allowed more Native Americans to be citizens at birth.
The Snyder Act allowed ALL Native Americans to be citizens at birth.

Yo, MORON, there is no birthright citizenship contained in the Constitution. You can pound your whiny, insignificant little fists on the table akll damned day, and it still will not exist.

Now go take your meds and give that incredibly small and low IQ brain a rest.

 

[Truth Detector]

It shows that TD is an ignoramus.

Projection

The process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.

Perhaps you could actually read the Dawes Act and the 1870 Senate Judiciary report on how the 14th amendment affected the citizenship status of Indians since you want to get back to the real issues.

Not the topic brainless dumb fuck.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yo, MORON, there is no birthright citizenship contained in the Constitution. You can pound your whiny, insignificant little fists on the table akll damned day, and it still will not exist.

Now go take your meds and give that incredibly small and low IQ brain a rest.

That's interesting since the courts have ruled that it does exist.
Who should we believe? TD that gets simple facts wrong or judges that have looked at the Constitution and ruled that it does grant birthright citizenship?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Projection

The process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.



Not the topic brainless dumb fuck.

The Dawes Act and the Senate judiciary report of 1870 are very much the topic since they address how Native Americans were affected by the 14th amendment and refute all the silly arguments that foreigners are the same as Native Americans.

 

[FastLane]

Which side of the issue are you arguing? The 14th applied to Native Americans not associated with a tribe in 1870. Tribes were wards of the US government. They received government assistance. They had treaties. Tribes were responsible for policing criminal acts committed on a tribal member by another tribal member. Tribes were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the states where they were located.

Did you bother to read the Dawes Act? Apparently not.
The Dawes Act granted land to Native Americans. Upon accepting the land, they became taxed. Since they were not citizens at that time, accepting the land made them naturalized citizens of the state and of the US. None of those that accepted land or their descendants needed the Snyder act to become citizens.

I am curious as to how many adult native Americans you think there were in 1877 that were born after the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

The 14th amendment allowed some Native Americans to be citizens at birth.
The Dawes Act allowed more Native Americans to be citizens at birth.
The Snyder Act allowed ALL Native Americans to be citizens at birth.

Which side of the argument are you arguing? The 14th applied to all the offspring of slaves no matter when they were born. Mexico is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government just like American Indians as YOU argue. So if the off spring of Native Americans were not American citizens neither are the offspring of two Mexican citizens.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Which side of the argument are you arguing? The 14th applied to all the offspring of slaves no matter when they were born. Mexico is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government just like American Indians as YOU argue. So if the off spring of Native Americans were not American citizens neither are the offspring of two Mexican citizens.

Mexican citizens in Mexico which is not located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Mexican citizens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US on tribal land which IS located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US NOT on tribal land are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Mexico was not given a land grant in the US.
Native American tribes were given a land grant in the US by treaty.
No part of Mexico is located in the US.
Native American reservations are located in the US and in states.
Native Americans that commit crimes in a state on tribal land are not subject to state law.
Native Americans have their own legal system in the US separate from the US legal system.

No part of Mexico is located in a US state. All crimes committed by a Mexican in a US state are subject to US law.

In 1870, Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents were citizens or if their parents were not part of a tribe.
In 1878 Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents had accepted land grants and were paying taxes.
In 1924 all Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens.


In 1870 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.
In 1878 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.


Bottom line is you need to show that Mexican citizens in the US have their own legal system in the US that was authorized and accepted by the US government.

 

[Truth Detector]

That's interesting since the courts have ruled that it does exist.

Courts can be wrong as they are in this case halfwit.

Who should we believe? TD that gets simple facts wrong or judges that have looked at the Constitution and ruled that it does grant birthright citizenship?

Judges ruled that abortion on demand was constitutional. They were wrong.
Judges ruled that slaves were not free men or citizens. They were wrong.
Judges ruled that that segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality. They were wrong.

What a dumb argument.

 

[Truth Detector]

The Dawes Act and the Senate judiciary report of 1870 are very much the topic since they address how Native Americans were affected by the 14th amendment and refute all the silly arguments that foreigners are the same as Native Americans.

We aren't talking about native Americans. We're talking about illegal aliens who violated our immigration laws. If you want to wander off topic, start a new thread.

 

[Truth Detector]

Mexican citizens in Mexico which is not located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Mexican citizens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US on tribal land which IS located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US NOT on tribal land are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Mexico was not given a land grant in the US.
Native American tribes were given a land grant in the US by treaty.
No part of Mexico is located in the US.
Native American reservations are located in the US and in states.
Native Americans that commit crimes in a state on tribal land are not subject to state law.
Native Americans have their own legal system in the US separate from the US legal system.

No part of Mexico is located in a US state. All crimes committed by a Mexican in a US state are subject to US law.

In 1870, Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents were citizens or if their parents were not part of a tribe.
In 1878 Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents had accepted land grants and were paying taxes.
In 1924 all Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens.


In 1870 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.
In 1878 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.


Bottom line is you need to show that Mexican citizens in the US have their own legal system in the US that was authorized and accepted by the US government.

Why you cannot argue with brainless leftist dumb fucks who don't know what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means.

 

[FastLane]

Mexican citizens in Mexico which is not located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Mexican citizens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US on tribal land which IS located in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Native Americans in the US NOT on tribal land are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Mexico was not given a land grant in the US.
Native American tribes were given a land grant in the US by treaty.
No part of Mexico is located in the US.
Native American reservations are located in the US and in states.
Native Americans that commit crimes in a state on tribal land are not subject to state law.
Native Americans have their own legal system in the US separate from the US legal system.

No part of Mexico is located in a US state. All crimes committed by a Mexican in a US state are subject to US law.

In 1870, Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents were citizens or if their parents were not part of a tribe.
In 1878 Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens if their parents had accepted land grants and were paying taxes.
In 1924 all Native American children born in the US were automatically citizens.


In 1870 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.
In 1878 if the Native Americans were subject to US jurisdiction then their children were citizens at birth.


Bottom line is you need to show that Mexican citizens in the US have their own legal system in the US that was authorized and accepted by the US government.

Could by law a Native American sell land that the US government owns and holds in trust for Native Americans to use as Reservations? Yes/No? Can the US Government enforce laws like investigating on reservation lands? Can US marshals go onto reservations and make arrests for violation of Federal laws Yes/No? Are you suggesting a Mexican citizen was subject to our laws but an American Indian wasn't prior to 1924. Then why did we go after renegades that went on killing and raiding sprees off the Reservation. They weren't breaking any laws according to you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Could by law a Native American sell land that the US government owns and holds in trust for Native Americans to use as Reservations? Yes/No? Can the US Government enforce laws like investigating on reservation lands? Can US marshals go onto reservations and make arrests for violation of Federal laws Yes/No? Are you suggesting a Mexican citizen was subject to our laws but an American Indian wasn't prior to 1924. Then why did we go after renegades that went on killing and raiding sprees off the Reservation. They weren't breaking any laws according to you.

So many ignorant questions that show you haven't done any work to try to find the answers.
1. Read the Dawes Act and the history of what was the result.
2. Treaties with the tribes allowed the tribes to be the sole law enforcement when it came to crimes committed within the tribe.
3. What federal laws were enforced on reservations in the 1800s? Crimes by tribal members against whites could be investigated. Crimes by tribal members against other tribal members was the sole jurisdiction of the tribe. See the 1870 Senate Judiciary report.
4. A Mexican citizen that steals from another Mexican citizen in the US is subject to US laws. Even today, a tribal member that steals from another tribal member on tribal land is often only subject to tribal law. There is nowhere in the US where Mexican laws apply.
5. Even today Tribal lands have their own justice systems.
6. Violations of treaties were about the entire tribe. Raiding was a violation of the treaty.

 

[AProudLefty]

It seems you don't understand the word "all."

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.

I explained that to him. He screeched.

 

[FastLane]

So many ignorant questions that show you haven't done any work to try to find the answers.
1. Read the Dawes Act and the history of what was the result.
2. Treaties with the tribes allowed the tribes to be the sole law enforcement when it came to crimes committed within the tribe.
3. What federal laws were enforced on reservations in the 1800s? Crimes by tribal members against whites could be investigated. Crimes by tribal members against other tribal members was the sole jurisdiction of the tribe. See the 1870 Senate Judiciary report.
4. A Mexican citizen that steals from another Mexican citizen in the US is subject to US laws. Even today, a tribal member that steals from another tribal member on tribal land is often only subject to tribal law. There is nowhere in the US where Mexican laws apply.
5. Even today Tribal lands have their own justice systems.
6. Violations of treaties were about the entire tribe. Raiding was a violation of the treaty.

Where does the 14th say they have to be subject to ALL our laws. The construction governs FEDERAL laws states govern state law. Regardless Indians live on land that the US owns and are subject to many Federal Laws. So why didn't the fourteen cover them . WHY did Congress have to pass an entire act to give them citizenship.

 

[FastLane]

I explained that to him. He screeched.

So why did Congress have to pass the Snyder act to give them citizenship. They live on land OWNED by the Federal government they can't sell it because it is against the law. If they kill an American citizen they can be prosecuted by our laws. They clearly are subject to our jurisdiction. Why were they American citizens.

 

[FastLane]

So why did Congress have to pass the Snyder act to give them citizenship. They live on land OWNED by the Federal government they can't sell it because it is against the law. If they kill an American citizen they can be prosecuted by our laws. They clearly are subject to our jurisdiction. Why weren't they American citizens.

..