"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

[IBDaMann]

"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP​

Birthright citizenship is here to stay. SCOTUS has only one decision option, i.e. birthright citizenship remains intact.

An Amicus Brief , brief from the Claremont Instute" was recently filed with the SCOTUS.. The brief was largely written by the eminent legal Eagle - Dr John Eastman., and it urges the Supreme Court to do any with "Birthright citizenship as it currently stands.

The brief will go into the trash without any impact.

Eastmen has put together a devastating legal argument against "Birthright Citizenship that is 100% watertight.

Nope. It has a gaping hole, which is why it is sinking fast.

The ass-hole, activist liberal Judges blocked Trump's Executive Order ending "Birthright Citizenship" have been exposed as having no real understanding of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment is clear. There is no secret "understanding" that is somehow "understood" by anyone. All who are born in the US are citizens, with the sole exception of children of diplomats and children of hostile, military occupiers. This has already been decided.

They have all just been shat on from a very great (legal )height, and soon they will be totally "TRUMPED" ( i.e. when the President's order to abolish the "Birthright Citizenship FRAUD becomes a long overdue reality).

This won't ever happen. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

So I've just got one thing to say to all the leftist, liberal, socialist, Woke neo-Marxist, tiny-penis DUMMYCRATS on the forum, and that's...SUCK IT UP, LOSERS - SUCK IT UP !!

You are setting yourself up for a great deal of mockery as you hand all the leftists, liberals, socialists, Woke neo-Marxists and tiny-penis DUMMYCRATS the last laugh at your expense.

Dachshund - the Magnificent MAGA Hound. Dachshund Lives Matter !!

I wish I had better news for you, but all I can recommend for you is to not bet any money on the matter. Instead, spend the money that you would otherwise lose on family and people about whom you care most.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is just one way "birthright citizenship" will fall out of The Constitution and that is by the Court making the Amendment mean something it does not say.

Nope. What everyone is forgetting is that SCOTUS does not have the power to alter the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make the 14th Amendment "mean" anything other than what the States wrote.

The only way that the 14th Amendment will ever go away is if the States decide to abolish it. I don't see that happening.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wrong? So you think the US Constitution is wrong? Why don't you leave the country if our governing document offends you?

Moron, birthright for non-citizens is not in the constitution. Dumbass.

You might wish to explore the country of AMERICA.

You might want to extract your brainless head from your ass.

 

[Truth Detector]

I Know. That's why I find the MAGA movement so troubling. It is 100% aligned to take out critical parts of the US Constitution.

Lie, lame and moronic. Leftists say the dumbest shit.

 

[Truth Detector]

With the possible exception of whatever laws he violated that resulted in 34 felony convictions.

Moronic response. You actually believe that that fraudulent conviction was about facts? Dumber than a pile of rocks.

 

[Truth Detector]

Good post !

But it all makes me wonder why son must high-powered, legal argument is needed to point out just how utterly ridiculous and absurd the current principle of Birth Right Citizenship obviously is.

Did you know that there is a very lucrative industry that has been operating in America for years, to date, where heavily - pregnant, foreign women from, say, Russia Russia can pay big bucks to have their child born in a birthing clinic located in America. There are two of these 5-Star facilities located in California. So the pregnant Russian or Chinese (or whatever) woman pays to: be flown into LA, then driven to a birthing clinic, that really more like a an up= market hote, has her baby delivered by one of the resident obstetrician, and when she is recovered and ready to return home, is handed a brand - new US Passport for her new son or daughter as part of the package deal.

This is just ONE way the existing, lunatic "Birth-Right Citizenship" provision is abused. in the US.



Dachshund

The answer to your question is simple; because dishonest hacks in the Democratic Party wish to destroy the Constitution and this country by allowing millions of uneducated, sometimes criminal elements, to take over our elections and turn the Democratic Party into a permanent failed autocracy.

 

[Into the Night]

Read the history of it.

Or not. Matters not to me

Void reference fallacy. Void argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. It has to be.

The Constitution cannot be changed on a whim, Gunky.

If the 14th Amendment needs to be rejiggered for the MAGAts then I guess we can rejigger the Second for the Left.

Your call.

MAGA isn't a person, Gunky. You just seem to be trying to discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Birthright citizenship is here to stay. SCOTUS has only one decision option, i.e. birthright citizenship remains intact.

What 'birthright citizenship'??? There is no such phrase in the Constitution. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

The brief will go into the trash without any impact.

Rather a bold prediction.

Nope. It has a gaping hole, which is why it is sinking fast.

The paper filed has no holes.

The 14th Amendment is clear. There is no secret "understanding" that is somehow "understood" by anyone. All who are born in the US are citizens, with the sole exception of children of diplomats and children of hostile, military occupiers. This has already been decided.

Not the 14th amendment.

This won't ever happen. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

No such phrase in the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. What everyone is forgetting is that SCOTUS does not have the power to alter the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make the 14th Amendment "mean" anything other than what the States wrote.

The only way that the 14th Amendment will ever go away is if the States decide to abolish it. I don't see that happening.

You are not quoting the 14th amendment. You are trying to discard it.

 

[gmark77]

The Constitution cannot be changed on a whim, Gunky.

MAGA isn't a person, Gunky. You just seem to be trying to discard the Constitution.

Each of your posts is less meaningful and less interesting than the last. Is there a reason why you are on here?

 

[FastLane]

Birthright citizenship is here to stay. SCOTUS has only one decision option, i.e. birthright citizenship remains intact.


The brief will go into the trash without any impact.


Nope. It has a gaping hole, which is why it is sinking fast.


The 14th Amendment is clear. There is no secret "understanding" that is somehow "understood" by anyone. All who are born in the US are citizens, with the sole exception of children of diplomats and children of hostile, military occupiers. This has already been decided.


This won't ever happen. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.


You are setting yourself up for a great deal of mockery as you hand all the leftists, liberals, socialists, Woke neo-Marxists and tiny-penis DUMMYCRATS the last laugh at your expense.


I wish I had better news for you, but all I can recommend for you is to not bet any money on the matter. Instead, spend the money that you would otherwise lose on family and people about whom you care most.

Oh Gee we should just let you decide instead of the SCOTUS . Why did the SCOTUS rule against citizenship for Elk in Elk v Wilkins

 

[FastLane]

Each of your posts is less meaningful and less interesting than the last. Is there a reason why you are on here?

Why did the SCOTUS rule against Elk in Elk v Wilkins?

 

[Into the Night]

Each of your posts is less meaningful and less interesting than the last. Is there a reason why you are on here?

Already described. Bulverism falllacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

What 'birthright citizenship'??? There is no such phrase in the Constitution.

Correct. It's a label.

SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

Correct. Thank you.

Rather a bold prediction.

Nope. As obvious as it is, no bonus points are earned.

The paper filed has no holes.

I believe it came out of a thring-ring binder.

Not the 14th amendment.

Yes, the 14th Amendment is the 14th Amendment.

No such phrase in the Constitution.

Correct. You should ask what is meant by the term "birthright citizenship" if you are confused.

For your edification, the term "birthright citizenship" means "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," and stands under the legal precedent decision "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization," with the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" holding the same aforementioned legal precedent that the only exceptions are 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."

There is no wiggle room around this. Birthright citizenship isn't going away.

 

[IBDaMann]

Oh Gee we should just let you decide instead of the SCOTUS .

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide. Only the States get to decide whether the 14th Amendment stays or goes, and as long as the States don't decide anything, the 14th Amendment will remain intact.

The last laugh is on you. You should familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you comment on it.

Why did the SCOTUS rule against citizenship for Elk in Elk v Wilkins

I'm glad you asked. Whether native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the US has changed from "not subject" to "are, in fact, subject." The case Elk vs. Wilkins occurred when native Americans were considered "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

[FastLane]

Correct. It's a label.


Correct. Thank you.


Nope. As obvious as it is, no bonus points are earned.


I believe it came out of a thring-ring binder.


Yes, the 14th Amendment is the 14th Amendment.


Correct. You should ask what is meant by the term "birthright citizenship" if you are confused.

For your edification, the term "birthright citizenship" means "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," and stands under the legal precedent decision "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization," with the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" holding the same aforementioned legal precedent that the only exceptions are 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."

There is no wiggle room around this. Birthright citizenship isn't going away.

Illegal aliens are no more "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" than Native Americans were prior to 1924. And prior to 1924 Native Americans did not have birthright citizenship. So two El Salvadorans can't have an American citizen any more than two Native Americans could prior to 1924.

 

[FastLane]

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide. Only the States get to decide whether the 14th Amendment stays or goes, and as long as the States don't decide anything, the 14th Amendment will remain intact.


The last laugh is on you. You should familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you comment on it.


I'm glad you asked. Whether native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the US has changed from "not subject" to "are, in fact, subject." The case Elk vs. Wilkins occurred when native Americans were considered "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Oh really? Indian reservations have ALWAYS been subject to American Federal laws. In fact the Federal Government owns the very lands of the reservations. So try again. Why did the SCOTUS deny birthright citizenship to Elk?

Yes, Indian reservations are owned by the federal government, but the ownership is held in trust for the benefit of the tribes. This means the federal government holds title to the land, but the tribes have the right to use and benefit from the land.

Google

 

[IBDaMann]

Illegal aliens are no more "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" than Native Americans were prior to 1924.

There are two errors in the above, one that is stated and one that is not. Your stated error is that illegal aliens somehow have diplomatic immunity. I'd like to correct your misunderstanding. If an illegal is suspected of a crime, he must explain himself in court ... because the US has the jurisdiction to which the alien is subject.

Your unstated error is that a child born in the US is somehow an illegal alien like his parents. I'd like to correct your misunderstanding. He is a citizen of the United States.

And prior to 1924 Native Americans did not have birthright citizenship.

Correct. Just for your edification, today's date is after 1924.

So two El Salvadorans can't have an American citizen any more than two Native Americans could prior to 1924.

Incorrect. Two Salvadorans are quite able to produce a child, and if that child is born in the US, the child is a US citizen, i.e. nothing about the parents matters, which is why there is no mention of parentage in the 14th Amendment.

 

[FastLane]

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide. Only the States get to decide whether the 14th Amendment stays or goes, and as long as the States don't decide anything, the 14th Amendment will remain intact.


The last laugh is on you. You should familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you comment on it.


I'm glad you asked. Whether native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the US has changed from "not subject" to "are, in fact, subject." The case Elk vs. Wilkins occurred when native Americans were considered "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

BTW : The SCOTUS gets to decide if your interpretation of the 14th is correct or not. In the case of Elk they have already decided what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" . It means "owes allegiance to." Two Native Americans owed allegiance to their tribe prior to 1924 and today two El Salvadorans owe allegiance to El Salvador therefore their children do not have birthright citizenship.