Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

Tobytone

Tobytone

Verified User
The absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally being challenged. The left loves to argue that it's clear the following Amendment somehow says that birth rights citizenship is clearly stated in our Constitution.

Section 1.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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words in bold are the ones that the left argue somehow translate to those who enter America ILLEGALLY and drop an infant on our soil should automatically be citizens. Section 1 was to leave no ambiguity about the rights for blacks to become citizens. The democrat activist SC Libtards had sided with Sanford in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) in which the democrat appointed Chief Justice Roger B. Taney spewed typical drone drivel:
  1. That African Americans, free or enslaved, were not and could not be citizens of the United States under the Constitution, which meant they had no rights that white men were bound to respect.
  2. That the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, was unconstitutional.
Republicans fighting racist policies didn't just start a few years ago. This also proves that the Supreme Court always fails America when it deviates from the true meaning of our brilliant Constitution. It's amazing how many things change yet stay the same.

I also love that last sentence, do the EPA rules and restrictions constitute due process? I don't think so, I'd like someone explain how it does. If the zealots with un-elected powers can and do make ridiculous rules that have severe impacts on ones private property rights, what real recourse does that property owners have? That's a bit off subject at the moment other than it points out how convoluted Libtard thinking is.
 
I forgot to add:

Luckily, Trump will nearly eliminate this problem by properly securing the border, but he realizes there will likely be another Libtard in charge again WAY down the road. If so, he/she/it will bust a big hole in the wall, like a complete moron. So, this fight needs to be litigated now, hopefully dispelling the myth for good.
 
There exists a clear rationale to justify the abolishment of birthright citizenship.

The argument is straightforward, and it rests on history and precedent.

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.”

The first problem I see here is redundancy. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means, as common parlance accepts, that one is subject to the law because of physical presence in the territory, that clause is redundant—"born in the United States” covers that base.

An interpretation of a legal text that creates a redundancy is disfavored, in my experience.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means owing sole allegiance to the United States.

This was confirmed by one of the primary drafters of the clause, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who stated “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to “complete” jurisdiction—“[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Originally, the Supreme Court agreed.

Although dicta (for lazy/stupid people, that means non-binding comments by judges in opinions that although not essential to a case, may be cited as persuasive authority or lead to new legal rules in future cases), both the majority and the dissent in the Slaughter-House cases ( 83 U.S. 36,) agreed that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause excluded the children of citizens and subjects of foreign states who just happened to be born in the United States.

SCOTUS confirmed this in Elk v. Wilkins when it denied birthright citizenship to an Indian (note for @Truck Fump / h1b: this was not a visa entrant) born on a reservation who claimed citizenship as an adult. The Court held that the claim of birthright required him not to be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

In a reversal of stare decisis, the Supreme Court changed direction in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, a Chinese man (note for @Truck Fump / h1b: he was not a visa entrant, either) born to permanent residents (who were barred by federal statute from obtaining full citizenship) claimed birthright citizenship, and the Court held Wong Kim Ark qualified for the 14th Amendments' birthright citizenship.

IMO, the aura this decision placed around Wong Kim Ark is much broader than even its holding, which addressed the child of legal permanent residents.

Birthright citizenship should, at the least, be limited to children of parents here legally.

The situation we have today is absurd and untenable.

Cut the anchor!

For victims of suicidal empathy, I'll add this: deportation of infants may be necessary under the law. Tough titty.

For that to be required, a baby who isn’t a citizen has parents who aren't either.

They can depart - or be deported - together.

Think of it as a version of the KFC Family Bucket meme.






iu
 
Diogenes said:
There exists a clear rationale to justify the abolishment of birthright citizenship.

The argument is straightforward, and it rests on history and precedent.

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.”

The first problem I see here is redundancy. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means, as common parlance accepts, that one is subject to the law because of physical presence in the territory, that clause is redundant—"born in the United States” covers that base.

An interpretation of a legal text that creates a redundancy is disfavored, in my experience.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means owing sole allegiance to the United States.

This was confirmed by one of the primary drafters of the clause, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who stated “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to “complete” jurisdiction—“[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Originally, the Supreme Court agreed.

Although dicta (for lazy/stupid people, that means non-binding comments by judges in opinions that although not essential to a case, may be cited as persuasive authority or lead to new legal rules in future cases), both the majority and the dissent in the Slaughter-House cases ( 83 U.S. 36,) agreed that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause excluded the children of citizens and subjects of foreign states who just happened to be born in the United States.

SCOTUS confirmed this in Elk v. Wilkins when it denied birthright citizenship to an Indian (note for @Truck Fump / h1b: this was not a visa entrant) born on a reservation who claimed citizenship as an adult. The Court held that the claim of birthright required him not to be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

In a reversal of stare decisis, the Supreme Court changed direction in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, a Chinese man (note for @Truck Fump / h1b: he was not a visa entrant, either) born to permanent residents (who were barred by federal statute from obtaining full citizenship) claimed birthright citizenship, and the Court held Wong Kim Ark qualified for the 14th Amendments' birthright citizenship.

IMO, the aura this decision placed around Wong Kim Ark is much broader than even its holding, which addressed the child of legal permanent residents.

Birthright citizenship should, at the least, be limited to children of parents here legally.

The situation we have today is absurd and untenable.

Cut the anchor!

For victims of suicidal empathy, I'll add this: deportation of infants may be necessary under the law. Tough titty.

For that to be required, a baby who isn’t a citizen has parents who aren't either.

They can depart - or be deported - together.

Think of it as a version of the KFC Family Bucket meme.






iu
Click to expand...
Well done! Another point I don't believe was noted in your reply is that a Mexican crossing the border already has allegiance to their country, therefore cannot have sole allegiance to ours.

I would also add that there are no other countries with similar birthright citizenship laws, with the exception of a long list of shitholes nobody would ever want to escape to. None of the countries on that list are having problems with people attempting to cross their borders for citizenship. Canada is the closest, but let's be real, who wants to move to a solid block of ice full of woke libtards? Should we allow them to become the 51st state, we'll have to work on changing that, of course.
 
im not sure I agree with eliiminating birthright citizenship.

the real move is to actually enforce the border, and eliminate even work visas.


creating a stateless underlass just makes more slaves for corporations to replace citizens with.
 
Tobytone said:
The absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally being challenged. The left loves to argue that it's clear the following Amendment somehow says that birth rights citizenship is clearly stated in our Constitution.

Section 1.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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words in bold are the ones that the left argue somehow translate to those who enter America ILLEGALLY and drop an infant on our soil should automatically be citizens. Section 1 was to leave no ambiguity about the rights for blacks to become citizens. The democrat activist SC Libtards had sided with Sanford in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) in which the democrat appointed Chief Justice Roger B. Taney spewed typical drone drivel:
  1. That African Americans, free or enslaved, were not and could not be citizens of the United States under the Constitution, which meant they had no rights that white men were bound to respect.
  2. That the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, was unconstitutional.
Republicans fighting racist policies didn't just start a few years ago. This also proves that the Supreme Court always fails America when it deviates from the true meaning of our brilliant Constitution. It's amazing how many things change yet stay the same.

I also love that last sentence, do the EPA rules and restrictions constitute due process? I don't think so, I'd like someone explain how it does. If the zealots with un-elected powers can and do make ridiculous rules that have severe impacts on ones private property rights, what real recourse does that property owners have? That's a bit off subject at the moment other than it points out how convoluted Libtard thinking is.
Click to expand...
im not sure I agree with eliiminating birthright citizenship.

the real move is to actually enforce the border, and eliminate even work visas.


creating a stateless underlass just makes more slaves for corporations to replace citizens with.
 
Tobytone said:
Well done! Another point I don't believe was noted in your reply is that a Mexican crossing the border already has allegiance to their country, therefore cannot have sole allegiance to ours.

I would also add that there are no other countries with similar birthright citizenship laws, with the exception of a long list of shitholes nobody would ever want to escape to. None of the countries on that list are having problems with people attempting to cross their borders for citizenship. Canada is the closest, but let's be real, who wants to move to a solid block of ice full of woke libtards? Should we allow them to become the 51st state, we'll have to work on changing that, of course.
Click to expand...


Even though Thailand lets @serendipity live there, it's because his UK pension helps support the local ladyboys. :thup:

Note for 12b aficionados:

The term "ladyboy" is often used in Thailand to refer to "transgender women" or individuals who might not identify strictly within binary gender norms, but it does not provide any information about their age.

@Grok
 
im not sure I agree with eliiminating birthright citizenship.

the real move is to actually enforce the border, and eliminate even work visas.
Click to expand...
Agreed and pointed out with the exemption of eliminating work visas. I have no problem with work visas all longs a real need is demonstrated and the rules are enforced with severe consequences for breaking any of the rules.

creating a stateless underlass just makes more slaves for corporations to replace citizens with.
Click to expand...
I get the concern, but I covered this in my previous comment, and I'm not so sure corporations aren't able to 'create' an underclass by simply exploiting a desperate need for employment in certain areas, for example. I don't think that will be a real concern when we are growing at the rate we are capable of.

I also get tired of hearing about evil corporations. The focus should be on government first, there is no case to be made that more fraud and destruction is caused by corporations than by 'good intentions' gone bad due to government spending and programs. This strategy is very old but sadly still fairly effective. People have been conditioned to point at big business and corporations for the ills of society in our great country. We all can decide to stop supporting corporations and big business, but have little choice, if any, to avoid or fight government lunacy.
 
Diogenes said:
Even though Thailand lets @serendipity live there, it's because his UK pension helps support the local ladyboys. :thup:

Note for 12b aficionados:

The term "ladyboy" is often used in Thailand to refer to "transgender women" or individuals who might not identify strictly within binary gender norms, but it does not provide any information about their age.

@Grok
Click to expand...

Diogenes was known as Diogenes the Cynic, he also lived in a barrel. He observed that a young boy, who was the son of a prostitute, was throwing stones at people in a market. He chided the youngster saying that he ought to take more care as one of them might be his father.
 
Tobytone said:
The absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally being challenged. The left loves to argue that it's clear the following Amendment somehow says that birth rights citizenship is clearly stated in our Constitution.

Section 1.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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words in bold are the ones that the left argue somehow translate to those who enter America ILLEGALLY and drop an infant on our soil should automatically be citizens. Section 1 was to leave no ambiguity about the rights for blacks to become citizens. The democrat activist SC Libtards had sided with Sanford in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) in which the democrat appointed Chief Justice Roger B. Taney spewed typical drone drivel:
  1. That African Americans, free or enslaved, were not and could not be citizens of the United States under the Constitution, which meant they had no rights that white men were bound to respect.
  2. That the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, was unconstitutional.
Republicans fighting racist policies didn't just start a few years ago. This also proves that the Supreme Court always fails America when it deviates from the true meaning of our brilliant Constitution. It's amazing how many things change yet stay the same.

I also love that last sentence, do the EPA rules and restrictions constitute due process? I don't think so, I'd like someone explain how it does. If the zealots with un-elected powers can and do make ridiculous rules that have severe impacts on ones private property rights, what real recourse does that property owners have? That's a bit off subject at the moment other than it points out how convoluted Libtard thinking is.
Click to expand...
Yep, not under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.

It has been misinterpreted. It does not grant birth citizenship. Mark Levine covered it in detail, tonight, from Dred Scott to the last case in 1898.
 
Bigdog said:
Yep, not under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.

It has been misinterpreted. It does not grant birth citizenship. Mark Levine covered it in detail, tonight, from Dred Scott to the last case in 1898.
Click to expand...
He's the King, he's spent a whole show on it before and makes an open and shut case. If the SC does their job, they will end it for good.
 
Tobytone said:
He's the King, he's spent a whole show on it before and makes an open and shut case. If the SC does their job, they will end it for good.
Click to expand...
Spot on :thup:

1. The author said it did not grant birth citizenship
2. It would have never passed if it did
3. The 1898 case was activist judges concerned about racism towards Chinese.
 
Bigdog said:
Spot on :thup:

1. The author said it did not grant birth citizenship
2. It would have never passed if it did
3. The 1898 case was activist judges concerned about racism towards Chinese.
Click to expand...
Absolutely,
I've heard morons argue that suggesting there is such a thing a activists on the court is just a tired mantra from the right when it suits them. The obvious monday morning AI QB answer is, look at the SC rulings of that era, there were multiple cases within a couple years of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) the left's favorite case to cite.

Every one of the below cases could only be considered examples of SC activism. Because, each of those decisions with undeniable and unapologetic examples of racism woven into SC decisions. Some things never change.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
Williams v. Mississippi (1898)
Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)

It really is a mystery how anyone, left or right, can think that birthright citizenship is a good idea and granting citizenship from sneaking over the border and dropping an infant on US soil makes perfect sense. And, it's crazy to suggest that the 'law' encourages risking rape, abuse, health, exploitation, etc. to get a chance to break our laws and jump the line. That NEVER happens, right?

Any chance they get to be anti-American and common sense, their all over it.
 
Tobytone said:
Absolutely,
I've heard morons argue that suggesting there is such a thing a activists on the court is just a tired mantra from the right when it suits them. The obvious monday morning AI QB answer is, look at the SC rulings of that era, there were multiple cases within a couple years of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) the left's favorite case to cite.

Every one of the below cases could only be considered examples of SC activism. Because, each of those decisions with undeniable and unapologetic examples of racism woven into SC decisions. Some things never change.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
Williams v. Mississippi (1898)
Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)

It really is a mystery how anyone, left or right, can think that birthright citizenship is a good idea and granting citizenship from sneaking over the border and dropping an infant on US soil makes perfect sense. And, it's crazy to suggest that the 'law' encourages risking rape, abuse, health, exploitation, etc. to get a chance to break our laws and jump the line. That NEVER happens, right?

Any chance they get to be anti-American and common sense, their all over it.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Yes, foreigners are excluded from the 14th birth rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top