Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
It will not. They do not change on a whim like that. Even R v. W, was slowly chipped away for decades.
Kim Wong Ark has not even been challenged for over over 120 years!
We are not at a point of arguing if it’s a good idea or not, we are still discussing the fact that is is written into our Constitution and requires an amendment to change it.
The abortion decision was changed.
Remember..."there is no enumerated Constitutional right to abortion."
The original intent is valid in this case and common sense says that a pregnant illegal who crosses our borders illegally and drops a baby was never intended to be given citizenship.
The Fourteenth was a decision about slaves.
The SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd amendment and they say you lose.
Indeed.
These far left Democratic Socialist loons have tried to redefine the Second Amendment for decades.
Kim Wong Arks parents were legal residents in the US. Birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of people here illegally.
Tobytone
Verified User
No you're just being the typical drone, that's against anything positive for your country, in fact, for anyone that takes the time to look into the facts and actually likes the US they will have little confusion about the intent and how the SC should rule on the EO..
The legal battle will end with the SC verifying that Trump's EO is constitutional. If they wrongly rule it is not, due to outside political pressures rather than ruling based on the true intent, then it's possible an amendment is attempted, but that's pretty unlikely to happen in this divided congress.
Scut Farkus
Best
this is pretty clear now."Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."
Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.www.whitehouse.gov
I was reading it wrong before.
I apologize to all whom it may concernith.
Settled law of the land for 120 years. I can’t think of a singlecase that overturned such president.
The same arguments were argued in front of the Supreme Court 120 years ago, America has become more democratic since then, not less.
Elk v Wilkins
The democratic process of this Constitutional Republic allows the Supreme Court to re-examine previous decisions and this one will be re-examined.
Just as R vs W. was re-examined…and changed.
Nope the supreme court has NEVER said the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have birthright citizenship.
Then why was the Snyder Act needed to grant native Americans citizenship.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk , an American Indian, was born in the United States, he was not a citizen.
Correct, but they do not change that quickly after 120 years, they might find a way to chip at it, but R v. W was chipped away at for decades before being overturned.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
To bring the law into line with the Constitution.
There were exceptions for Native Americans born in Reservations that specifically did not allow for U.S. Jurisdictions.
The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).
"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." - Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.
"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." - Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.