The Native Americans were not under the jurisdiction of the US at that time.
Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
Oh really? How about the major crimes act of 1885?
If a Native American killed an American even while on a reservation would US Marshals arrest them?
There was no taxation in the law of 1885. Taxation is the what exempts Indians in the Constitution when it refers to "Indians not taxed." It doesn't say Indians not subject to criminal law.
Ruling by activist judges is your legal argument?
The majority decision lays out the legal and legislative record that supports the claim that all persons except a few select classes are subject to the jurisdiction.
The ruling was 6-2 in favor of citizenship being granted for all persons born in the US.
Did you actually read the dissent? First it argues that common law doesn't apply by making a ridiculous application of common law. Then it argues that no one can have dual allegiances which would require that all persons with dual passports no longer can be US citizens. (Good luck with that one.) Finally It states that treaties can override the 14th and since the US had a treaty that prevented Chinese citizens from becoming US citizens a child born of Chinese parents couldn't be a citizen.
This is an interesting argument on your part since it would mean the US could remove citizenship from a child by simply removing the parents from the US by perhaps sending them to jail on a foreign country.
The 14th says nothing about whether the tribes have full sovereignty over the the Indian territories. This is an attempt to add something to the text that is not in it.
You really are a toddler, aren't you. You are the one that spends all your time using AI as evidenced by your screed on evolution that is filled with falsehoods and quotes from AI. The words in the 14th amendment have not changed since 1898. There is no reference in the amendment that exempts persons born of those entering the country illegally. You don't get to add words to the Constitution that aren't there.
Wow. You really don't understand the 14th amendment at all. We can only assume at this point that you have less than half a brain because the parent of a child born in the US doesn't become a US citizen simply because they had a child on US soil. Your example is beyond ridiculous since it is not factual.
No. It doesn't make sense because you seem to be providing nothing but the ravings of a madman who knows nothing about the subject of how a person becomes a US citizen.
Wong Ark's parents returned to China in 1890. Wong went to China with them in 1890 but returned and was granted entrance as a citizen of the US. He then went to China again to visit them in 1894-5 and was refused entry for not being a citizen.
What do you call someone that lives in the US for 20 years and then goes back to the country they are citizens of if not temporary residents? Or is there a length of time that makes someone a permanent resident?
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
And yet, the 1885 act did put them under U.S. jurisdiction, tho limited. So what's your excuse, now?
I'm certain we will find out if they continue to say differently.
Why do I need an excuse? You haven't made a valid argument yet.
Did you bother to read the entire 14th amendment? You might want to read the second section where it excludes Indians not taxed.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Let's start with this ...Ruling by activist judges is your legal argument?
The majority decision lays out the legal and legislative record that supports the claim that all persons except a few select classes are subject to the jurisdiction.
The ruling was 6-2 in favor of citizenship being granted for all persons born in the US.
Did you actually read the dissent? First it argues that common law doesn't apply by making a ridiculous application of common law. Then it argues that no one can have dual allegiances which would require that all persons with dual passports no longer can be US citizens. (Good luck with that one.) Finally It states that treaties can override the 14th and since the US had a treaty that prevented Chinese citizens from becoming US citizens a child born of Chinese parents couldn't be a citizen.
This is an interesting argument on your part since it would mean the US could remove citizenship from a child by simply removing the parents from the US by perhaps sending them to jail on a foreign country.
The 14th says nothing about whether the tribes have full sovereignty over the the Indian territories. This is an attempt to add something to the text that is not in it.
"The Act of May 6, 1882 [22 Stat. 58], suspended the immigration of Chinese labors, specified the classes of Chinese persons allowed to enter the U.S., and barred Federal and state courts from admitting Chinese persons to U.S. citizenship. "
Edward Bing Kan: The First Chinese-American Naturalized after Repeal of Chinese Exclusion | USCIS
On December 17, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law an Act to Repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts.
www.uscis.gov
When was Kim Wong Ark born?Let's start with this ...
"The Act of May 6, 1882 [22 Stat. 58], suspended the immigration of Chinese labors, specified the classes of Chinese persons allowed to enter the U.S., and barred Federal and state courts from admitting Chinese persons to U.S. citizenship. "
Edward Bing Kan: The First Chinese-American Naturalized after Repeal of Chinese Exclusion | USCIS
On December 17, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law an Act to Repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts.www.uscis.gov
How well do you know your Constitution?
Tobytone
Verified User
Hey dipshit. There are no references that forbid elephants from being citizens either, but I don't see anyone suggesting that.....yet. lol It's what it does say that's in dispute by you idiots, no one except libtard idiots (you) are bringing up every possible thing it doesn't say, brilliant.
As for the evolution examples, find one thing that's not accurate. Your such a complete moron for not understanding the point with the 'smartwatch' comparison. I suspect you're referencing other 'inaccuracies' like that one. It's not my fault you're an idiot. LOL I can't fix that.
Here's the deal with you idiots who refuse to see the real-world consequences. I never said the 14th Amendment turns the whole family into instant citizens, don't put words in my mouth. But I did give you an analogy because, clearly, you need simple explanations. The moment a baby pops out on U.S. soil, BAM INSTANTLY, Mommy gets to stick around (and will become a citizen along with the whole family). And when that kid grows up, they'll drag the rest of the family in under the guise of 'family reunification,' and Mommy never had to pack her bags.
That's how it plays out in practice, you naive simpleton. The 14th Amendment kicks this whole charade into gear, and without the absurd take on the original intent including criminals from foreign lands to have the protections of the constitution, these families would be stuck at the back of an endless queue, where they rightfully belong. But no, we've got to pander to the simpletons like you. Hopefully, not anymore.
As I've explained to you, which should be clear to anyone with half a brain, you're just too dense to get it. Anything that's good for America, you're against because you're nothing but a typical anti-American, libtard automaton. You can't wrap your head around the absurdity of someone just waltzing into your home, dropping a baby into your bathtub, and then somehow, magically, both mother and child get to live there, FOREVER. Sure, technically, you could throw the mother out, but let's face it, you (and the U.S) would never do that because then you'd be stuck with the diaper duty. You claim you're all for 'Birth Rights Citizenship,' but I bet if this happened in your precious little sanctuary, you'd have a sudden change of heart.
Regardless of my opinion, and in spite of all your whining and crying like a little bitch, the EO will work its way to the SC for the final word on it. As Trump would say. 'We'll see what happens.' Maybe you should consider worrying about 100 other great things Trump is doing to dismantle the libtard lunacy. LOL
If there is no jurisdiction, something cannot be illegal.
When the 14th Amendment was written, the US Government did not have jurisdiction over reservations, or Native Americans who had not joined American society. Murders could be handled by the tribal government.
Starting in 1885, the federal government began taking jurisdiction, which required giving citizenship under the 14th Amendment. If your parents are under the jurisdiction to be tried for murder, then your birth is to parents under the jurisdiction.
The current situation is that tribal governments have police forces that are independent of the federal government. Also the FBI investigates serious crimes. Minor crimes are tried in tribal courts, and serious crimes are tried in federal courts. For the most part states have no jurisdiction when it comes to reservations.
It seems you are so delusional you think elephants are persons. The 14th amendment says "persons" born in the US become citizens.
You are the one that claimed that you came up with the watch comparison all on your own. Not only are you stupid for your comparison, you are a liar for stealing the idea.
Actually, based on the way the English language works you DID say the whole family becomes citizens. Unless you are a proponent of LGBTQ+ and were using "they" to refer to one person "they" refers to the group you just listed in your sentence which was the entire family.
It's always nice to see you following the teachings of Christ and calling people names and lying. Christ must be so proud of you or maybe he already called out people like you by telling us we shall know them by their fruits.
Yep. You clearly are a toddler.
A shitpile of treaties and deals said that.Ruling by activist judges is your legal argument?
The majority decision lays out the legal and legislative record that supports the claim that all persons except a few select classes are subject to the jurisdiction.
The ruling was 6-2 in favor of citizenship being granted for all persons born in the US.
Did you actually read the dissent? First it argues that common law doesn't apply by making a ridiculous application of common law. Then it argues that no one can have dual allegiances which would require that all persons with dual passports no longer can be US citizens. (Good luck with that one.) Finally It states that treaties can override the 14th and since the US had a treaty that prevented Chinese citizens from becoming US citizens a child born of Chinese parents couldn't be a citizen.
This is an interesting argument on your part since it would mean the US could remove citizenship from a child by simply removing the parents from the US by perhaps sending them to jail on a foreign country.
The 14th says nothing about whether the tribes have full sovereignty over the the Indian territories. This is an attempt to add something to the text that is not in it.
Tobytone
Verified User
Dicky, you're such a little whiny bitch. lol This watch thing? I have no idea where I stole the comparison from? Apparently, it ca very effective analogy, I can tell it had a BIG impact on you. lol It's comical, you really are a dumbass.
As for me being a Christian, there's something that so many morons like you get wrong about Christianity, we're all sinners and I'm no exception. Every simpleton libtard I've ever 'debated' thinks that anyone that proclaims there Christianity is suddenly held to the Jesus Christ ideal, it either means you're a complete dumbass or you're being purposely disingenuous. I know which one you are.
I know I'm not suppose to show pictures of other members but I thought everyone could benefit from understanding what we're dealing with. LOL
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but birthright citizenship is the correct interpretation and will not change.
At the heart of your error is an inability to read English for comprehension. All children born in the US are subject to US jurisdiction, even if the parents are somehow not, unless the child somehow has diplomatic immunity.
It is clearly stated to anyone who reads English for comprehension.
This only carries meaning for children born in an overseas consulate or embassy or other foreign location that nontheless is considered US territory.