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

[Into the Night]

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

Quite right...although using the word 'trust' with the federal government is rather generous!
This land trust is established by a treaty with each tribe or confederation.

 

[Into the Night]

Back to the subject, I doubt the Supremes will ignore the Constitution and change the laws for Trump's stupid dreams

No law has to change, Sybil.

Unlike Trump. They know what the Constitution says.

They've shown otherwise in the past. Sometimes they rule in accordance to the Constitution, many times they don't.

They will not let Daffy Donald win against the Constitution.

Trump has not violated any part of the Constitution, Sybil.

The process for changing amendments is clear and deliberately difficult.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE, SYBIL!

 

[Into the Night]

First and foremost, citizenship is not for SCOTUS to give. The Constitution holds that birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th Amendment, is a right that precedes the Constitution, and this is emphasized in the legal precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

As to your question, yes, SCOTUS erred in Elk v. Wilkins by legislating from the bench, i.e. by declaring that the States intended to exclude native Americans when that was not SCOTUS' place to do so. The correct decision would have been to note that Elk did, in fact, appear to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US (for the reasons you cited) and to require the States to amend the Constitution for clarity if they did, in fact, want something else.


You sure do like to declare things to be true, apparently out of sheer desperation. Do you have any support at all for your anti-birthright-citizenship argument?

He just gave it.

 

[FastLane]

Federal authorities obviously felt differently. Regardless, rightly or wrongly, native Americans were not considered citizens, and the reason cited was the "sovereignty" of their respective nations. Of course, all this changed later.


Their children are now all citizens.

True and it took an Act of Congress to make them American citizens. Illegal aliens children born in the US have had no such act.

You are now chanting. "Allegience" has nothing to do with citizenship, nor does anything about the parents if they are not diplomats and not hostile military occupiers.

That isn't what the SCOTUS said in the Elk V Wilkins decision

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:


"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."


McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer 118, 134. And in a later case, he said:

Unless the parents are diplomats or hostile military occupiers, I will be disregarding anything you have to say about the parents of any child born in the US.

So you are disregarding what the SCOTUS decided in Elk v Wilkins and their stated reason for deciding against Elk.

Face it you have been trounced in this debate.

 

[Into the Night]

Really. You apparently need quite a bit of educating on these matters.


Let me know when you return to the topic of children born in the US.


Peat moss absorbs water and nutrients directly through its porous, sponge-like cells.


The native Americans themselves are what we are discussing, not the reservations on which they lived. The Federal government did not own the native Americans. Are you aware that there is a difference between native Americans and their reservations?

The native Americans were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US prior to 1924, irrespective of who owned the reservation.

Argument of the Stone fallacies. Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[tigerred59]

Listen, I'm not trying to be a hater. I love diversity and our LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I hate Trump but I love this country enough to want and expect all our citizens to speak and learn english and for those coming here simply to birth children to anchor them into the country at tax payers expense, needs to end. Sorry not sorry.

 

[FastLane]

Argument of the Stone fallacies. Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

The nuthua fallacy

 

[IBDaMann]

The phrase does not exist in the Constitution.

I can use whatever words I wish to craft my posts. If I use a term and then explain that term (as I did) then you will like it.

Not a definition.

You need to learn what a definition is. I just defined my term. It is the defintion that you will like.

The phrase "birthright citizenship" does not appear in the Constitution.

... nor does it appear in The Lord of the Rings.

Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This is a moronic thing to say. Of course illegal aliens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You screwed the pooch on that one.

Neither are their offspring.

This is a moronic thing to say. Of course children born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, assuming the parents are not foreign diplomats and not hostile military invaders occupying the country. How do you not know this? In fact, those children are US citizens per the 14th Amendment.

The United States is not England, IBD. You justlocked yourself into another paradox.

The United States uses English common law as precedent. You really like to screw that particular pooch.

Why haven't you made a public prediction as to when you believe birthright citizenship will be abolished?

 

[IBDaMann]

Irrelevant. The 14th amendment is not going anywhere.

My point exactly. I wish you would pay closer attention.

You are not even quoting the Constitution,

I quoted the Constitution. Don't you recognize the first part of the 14th Amendment?

and you are ignoring Articles I, II, and the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.

I'm focusing on the items of relevance.

 

[IBDaMann]

The 14th amendment was not written by the States.

The 14th Amendment was ratified by the States by July 9, 1868.

It was written byJohn A. Bingham,

Is there anything more irrelevant than who guided the pen over the paper? The States ratified it, which is what was needed.

Illegal aliens are not subjects of jurisdiction of the United States.

Once again, you are stupidly referring to the parents, not to the child born in the US. Dismissed.

They have no right to remain in the United States.

You just can't seem to stay focused. Every single time we discuss this topic, you totally conflate the child born in the US with his parents, as though you don't have a clue as to the difference.

Can you go a single post remaining focused on the child born on the US and not talking about other people who are not the subject of the topic at hand? Exactly, you can't. Your position is ridiculous.

Let me know when you can stay focused.

They are immediately subject to deportation.

Well sure, the parents are, who you think is the child born in the US for some reason.

Only Congress can initiate any law concerning immigration procedure.

Only the States can eliminate birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS has NO say in the matter.

Correct. The States own the Constution.

 

[IBDaMann]

Illegal aliens children born in the US have had no such act.

They have the 14th Amendment.

That isn't what the SCOTUS said in the Elk V Wilkins decision

It's what the 14th Amendment said, and says, and it is assumed in any decision.

So you are disregarding what the SCOTUS decided in Elk v Wilkins and their stated reason for deciding against Elk.

Nope. I explained the Elk decision. You are disregarding Ark.

 

[IBDaMann]

Listen, I'm not trying to be a hater.

Yes, you love to HATE.

I love diversity

Which means you HATE diversity of thought, and you HATE diversity of opinions. You only love diversity of superficial appearance. No thank you.

I hate Trump

... because you are a HATER who loves to HATE.

but I love this country

Nope. You write post after post explaining how much you HATE the US.

enough to want and expect all our citizens to speak and learn english

I haven't seen a single post from you demanding that Congress establish English as the official language of the US. You don't, because you feel that this would be RACIST, so you demand that no official language be established, because you really don't expect anyone to necessarily be able to speak English, which is what you should have stated up front, not that you somehow expect all our citizens to speak and learn English.

and for those coming here simply to birth children to anchor them into the country at tax payers expense, needs to end.

I haven't seen any explanation from you as to why any child born in the US should be deprived of his inalienable right to US citizenship. You haven't explained what crime said child has committed that he should be punished. You haven't explained why any individual should be punished for the crimes of someone else, e.g. illegal immigration of the parents. The persecution of US citizens for the crimes of other people needs to end.

 

[FastLane]

They have the 14th Amendment.

Not according to the SCOTUS in the Elk V Wilkins decision.

It's what the 14th Amendment said, and says, and it is assumed in any decision.

YOU are the one making false assumptions

Nope. I explained the Elk decision. You are disregarding Ark.

You lied about the Elk decision you said it had nothing to do with allegiance even though the SCOTUS said it did have to do with allegiance. The following is an excerpt from thee Elk V Wilkins decision.

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:


"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."


McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer 118, 134. And in a later case, he said:

So the child of two illegal aliens is born in the allegiance of a foreign political community. Like Elk they are not citizens of the US to which they owe no allegiance. We discussed Ark and I showed you the reason Ark was granted citizenship was because his parents had a permanent Domicile in the US. They were legal residents as opposed to illegal residents. Illegal Aliens situations are not the same as Ark's so they don't have birthright citizenship.

 

[Nordberg]

Not according to the SCOTUS in the Elk V Wilkins decision.

YOU are the one making false assumptions


You lied about the Elk decision you said it had nothing to do with allegiance even though the SCOTUS said it did have to do with allegiance. The following is an excerpt from thee Elk V Wilkins decision.



So the child of two illegal aliens is born in the allegiance of a foreign political community. Like Elk they are not citizens of the US to which they owe no allegiance. We discussed Ark and I showed you the reason Ark was granted citizenship was because his parents had a permanent Domicile in the US. They were legal residents as opposed to illegal residents. Illegal Aliens situations are not the same as Ark's so they don't have birthright citizenship.

The law does not differentiate between legal and illegal. If they are domiciled in the US, they have rights.

 

[Into the Night]

The nuthua fallacy

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I can use whatever words I wish to craft my posts. If I use a term and then explain that term (as I did) then you will like it.

You cannot just insert whatever phrase you want into the Constitution, IBD.

You need to learn what a definition is. I just defined my term. It is the defintion that you will like.

Strawman fallacy.

... nor does it appear in The Lord of the Rings.

Strawman fallacy.

This is a moronic thing to say. Of course illegal aliens in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You screwed the pooch on that one.

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the U.S., IBD. They are NOT subjects of US jurisdiction.

This is a moronic thing to say. Of course children born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, assuming the parents are not foreign diplomats and not hostile military invaders occupying the country. How do you not know this? In fact, those children are US citizens per the 14th Amendment.

You are still locked in this paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

The United States uses English common law as precedent. You really like to screw that particular pooch.

The United States is not England, IBD.

Why haven't you made a public prediction as to when you believe birthright citizenship will be abolished?

Strawman fallacy. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

My point exactly.

It is NOT your point. You are trying to make a different point by changing the 14th amendment.

I wish you would pay closer attention.

Strawman fallacy.

I quoted the Constitution. Don't you recognize the first part of the 14th Amendment?

Then you promptly ignored it.

I'm focusing on the items of relevance.

Irrelevance is not relevance, IBD. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The 14th Amendment was ratified by the States by July 9, 1868.

I already said this.

Is there anything more irrelevant than who guided the pen over the paper?

YOU made the mistake, IBD. It is YOUR problem.

The States ratified it, which is what was needed.

So?

Once again, you are stupidly referring to the parents, not to the child born in the US. Dismissed.

I am referring to BOTH. Contextomy fallacy. Terminal fallacy.

You just can't seem to stay focused.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is locked in various paradoxes! You can't blame ME for YOUR problem!

Every single time we discuss this topic, you totally conflate the child born in the US with his parents, as though you don't have a clue as to the difference.

There isn't any. You are still locked in this paradox.

Can you go a single post remaining focused on the child born on the US and not talking about other people who are not the subject of the topic at hand? Exactly, you can't. Your position is ridiculous.

Terminal fallacy. You are still locked in this paradox.

Let me know when you can stay focused.

Strawman fallacy.

Well sure, the parents are, who you think is the child born in the US for some reason.

You are still locked in this paradox.

Only the States can eliminate birthright citizenship.

Strawman fallacy. The phrase 'birthright citizenship' does not exist in the Constitution.

The States own the Constitution.

Congress isn't the States. The President isn't the States. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

They have the 14th Amendment.

Strawman fallacy. The 14th amendment does not discuss anything about illegal aliens or their offspring.

It's what the 14th Amendment said, and says, and it is assumed in any decision.

Strawman fallacy. The 14th amendment does not discuss anything about illegal aliens or their offspring.
You are still locked in this paradox.

Nope. I explained the Elk decision. You are disregarding Ark.

Irrelevance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The law does not differentiate between legal and illegal. If they are domiciled in the US, they have rights.

The law DOES differentiate between legal and illegal, moron.