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

[Into the Night]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, and there was no election in 2020, guns are a God given right, and Elvis was spotted last week in Vegas

Reducto absurdum fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

While I may agree with you about the 2nd,

You don't.

the babies of illegals don't make the decision to be born on American soil.

Their mothers do. The baby is deported along with the mother.

For people born in the U.S., a birth certificate issued by the state is generally sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.

...or proof of otherwise.

 

[Into the Night]

So? Their parents shouldn't profit from a crime either. Let the child return when they reach 18 years of age. If that's a problem, suggest they take it up with their criminal parents.

The child is not a citizen of the U.S. They are subject to deportation along with the mother.

 

[gmark77]

The child is not a citizen of the U.S. They are subject to deportation along with the mother.

It is possible for a mother to be a non-citizen while the child is a citizen. That's guaranteed by the Constitution which is the thing Trump is hoping to destroy.

Apparently when his most recent child, Barron, was born, Barron was a citizen but Melania was still a non-citizen.

 

[Into the Night]

I have read Elk v Wilkins. You should try reading it yourself. It says that Indians born in the US are in the same class as children born in a foreign country to foreign parents

It does not. Indians are citizens of the United States and of their tribe, and of any confederation their tribe belongs to. They are not citizens of any State.

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States nor of any State. Neither are their offspring.

and children of foreign ambassadors born in the US.

...are not citizens of the U.S. or of any State.

It also says that all black and white persons born in the US are citizens of the US.

IF and only if the parents are also citizens of the U.S.

The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which therehad been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in thisCourt, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v.Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

No court has any authority to change any constitution.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Indians are U.S. citizens. Illegal aliens are not.

This view is confirmed by the second section of the FourteenthAmendment, which provides that
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

Then the ruling points out that the 14th amendment specifically excludes Indians from being counted for apportionment of representatives. That sentence would exclude them from being citizens since all citizens are included in the count as well as all persons that are not Indians not taxed.

Because indians are not citizens of any State.

But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation in which all other persons are now included is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for aproportionate.

They are not excluded representation.

Trying to claim that foreign persons in the US are Indians is complete nonsense since all foreign person working in the US are subject to taxation in the US.

He isn't. YOU ARE!

 

[AProudLefty]

The child is not a citizen of the U.S. They are subject to deportation along with the mother.

Go read the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Would you care to tell us where in law or a court ruling "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means they can be drafted or an vote?

See Articles I & IV, the 11th amendment, the 14th amendment, and all State constitutions.

Women are not subject to the draft so by your argument, women can't be US citizens.

The draft is not a requirement to vote, Poorboy. T.A. never said it was.

Subject to the jurisdiction means they are subject to US laws

WRONG.

A subject of jurisdiction means an allegiance to a nation, tribe, or confederacy. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their originating nation. They will be deported back to there is found in the United States. While here, they ARE subject to U.S. law and to the State laws they happen to be in.

and can be indicted and convicted.

Yes they can. But they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their originating nation.

Foreign ambassadors are not subject to US laws

Yes they are!

so their children are not US citizens if born in the US.

Same as an illegal alien.

 

[Into the Night]

It is possible for a mother to be a non-citizen while the child is a citizen.

Not possible.

That's guaranteed by the Constitution which is the thing Trump is hoping to destroy.

Nothing in the Constitution grants citizenship to an illegal alien or to any offspring of an illegal alien.

 

[Into the Night]

Go read the Constitution.

I just quoted it, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

So you agree that those born on American soil are US citizens as per the Constitution.

ONLY if the parents are also citizens.

 

[AProudLefty]

ONLY if the parents are also citizens.

The Constitution does not say that, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Why? Kids have no relationship to anything when they are kids. Therefore, we can send any kids wherever Trump wants. Alcatraz awaits.

Kids are related to their parents, Sybil. I guess no one ever taught you that!

 

[Into the Night]

Already answered. They considered them to be in a nation separated from America.

Never did. All indian tribes are in America. That's why they're called American indians.

 

[Into the Night]

They were not considered citizens because their nations were not considered a part of the USA.

...and the Snyder Act made them citizens of the USA.

 

[Into the Night]

The Constitution does not say that, Sybil.

I am not you, Sybil.

 

[FastLane]

The Constitution does not say that, Sybil.

Why did Congress pass the Snyder act, Karen.

 

[FastLane]

Go read the Constitution.

Read Elk v Wilkins

 

[FastLane]

It is possible for a mother to be a non-citizen while the child is a citizen. That's guaranteed by the Constitution which is the thing Trump is hoping to destroy.

Apparently when his most recent child, Barron, was born, Barron was a citizen but Melania was still a non-citizen.

Why did Congress pass the Snyder Act?

 

[AProudLefty]

Why did Congress pass the Snyder act, Karen.

Because they were idiots and bigoted.

 

[AProudLefty]

...and the Snyder Act made them citizens of the USA.

It had to happen because they were idiots.