Supreme Court justices appear skeptical over Trump's changes to US birthright citizenship rules

[pxmcc]

if you don't like birthright citizenship, then get busy amending the Constitution. otherwise your case is DOA..

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by rooster

...please show us the relevant legal decision from an actual Court of Law that clarifies that...

Therein lies the rub:
The 14th amendment piece has never been directly adjudicated as such.

Besides, everyone knows exactly what it was written for at the time. You know how we know? Because the people who crafted it were prolific writers about their opinions and debate, along with a more worthy, news-crafting, journalistic integrity.

You might recall bits of that from the first amendment.

[Precious_b]

So, the robes come to a decision yet?

[rooster]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

....
this does not apply to all foreigners who are here temporarily as they are subject to another governement.

Originally Posted by rooster

Thank you for your ruling here! But please show us the relevant legal decision from an actual Court of Law that clarifies that....
.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there isn't one that addresses the illegals....

illegals' children cannot be citizens because their parents sent money to their home countries. that tells you who they have allegiance to....

Exactly. There is no ruling that addresses this. Your "opinions"...especially this bizarre stretch about sending money...are not relevant. The amendment "addresses" people who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...it says ABSOLUTELY ZERO about this made-up concept of "allegiance."

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Exactly right ....

Not even close. See above.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Therein lies the rub:
The 14th amendment piece has never been directly adjudicated as such.

Besides, everyone knows exactly what it was written for at the time. You know how we know? Because the people who crafted it were prolific writers about their opinions and debate, along with a more worthy, news-crafting, journalistic integrity....

Even this guy gets it. No ruling.

As to this "prolific writers" stuff...feel free to show summa that to us! But as I warned above, there will no doubt be other "writers" that contradict anything you can cherry pick. KInd of a waste of time though. Cuz only Court rulings matter. Not MAGA hatred.

.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Therein lies the rub:
The 14th amendment piece has never been directly adjudicated as such.

14th was partially adjudicated under USA vs. Kim Ark Wong.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by rooster

Exactly. There is no ruling that addresses this. Your "opinions"...especially this bizarre stretch about sending money...are not relevant. The amendment "addresses" people who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...it says ABSOLUTELY ZERO about this made-up concept of "allegiance."

that bit about sending money out of the country via western union type businesses is not bizarre. it is a billion dollar business. that money doesn't stay in america.

you misunderstand, jurisdiction is about allegiance. it not a made up concept.

foreign invading army is allegiant to their country.
foreign ambassadors is allegiant to their country.
foreign visitors on a visa is allegiant to their country.
foreign illegal aliens who send money overseas to their home countries is allegiant to their country.

who are you allegiant to?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that bit about sending money out of the country via western union type businesses is not bizarre. it is a billion dollar business. that money doesn't stay in america.

you misunderstand, jurisdiction is about allegiance. it not a made up concept.

foreign invading army is allegiant to their country.
foreign ambassadors is allegiant to their country.
foreign visitors on a visa is allegiant to their country.
foreign illegal aliens who send money overseas to their home countries is allegiant to their country.

who are you allegiant to?

The allegiance of the parents does not transfer to a child born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment; the child is granted citizenship regardless of the parents' citizenship status. This principle was established in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark

This was already adjudicated more than a hundred years ago. The Trump administration is not raising a new question they just want the court to take another bite out of this particular apple.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that bit about sending money out of the country via western union type businesses is not bizarre. it is a billion dollar business. that money doesn't stay in america.

you misunderstand, jurisdiction is about allegiance. it not a made up concept.

foreign invading army is allegiant to their country.
foreign ambassadors is allegiant to their country.
foreign visitors on a visa is allegiant to their country.
foreign illegal aliens who send money overseas to their home countries is allegiant to their country.

who are you allegiant to?

And this had what to do with donnys visit to the big court?
The case was not about sending $$$.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

14th was partially adjudicated under USA vs. Kim Ark Wong.

You said that already.

Originally Posted by rooster

...There is no ruling that addresses this. Your "opinions"...especially this bizarre stretch about sending money...are not relevant....

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that bit about sending money out of the country via western union type businesses is not bizarre. it is a billion dollar business. that money doesn't stay in america....

It is BIZARRE in that it has nothing to do with the legal issue at all. There is no relevant question being pursued here about where people send their goddam money! It is not part of the case.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

....
you misunderstand, jurisdiction is about allegiance. it not a made up concept....

Where in the living fuck did you get that "definition" from?

Here's a real one:

jurisdiction
noun
ju·​ris·​dic·​tion ˌju̇r-əs-ˈdik-shən

1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction

2 a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate

b: the power or right to exercise authority : control

3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

THAT one is courtesy of Merriam Webster. You can find many, many more with little effort. NONE of them say a goddam thing about "allegiance." Neither does the 14th Amendment.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

....
who are you allegiant to?

A desperate cheap shot like that says all that needs to be said about the validity of your arguments.

.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there isn't one that addresses the illegals. the closest one is regarding foreigners is a question whether an indigenous native american can be an american citizen. the answer to that was no despite the fact the plaintiff left his tribe.

illegals' children cannot be citizens because their parents sent money to their home countries. that tells you who they have allegiance to.

same thing with chinese birth tourism, have babies here and go back to china with the baby. that tells you who they have allegiance to.

this notion of automatic birthright of foreign children is misleading.



oh dont worry. i went 5 pages deep.

Oh good. A partial case law analysis followed by an unsupported conclusion.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884) decided that Native Americans born within the sovereignty of their tribe were not citizens under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause — not due to any "allegiance" inferred from remittances, but because they were deemed outside US jurisdiction at birth.

Fourteen years later, the Supreme Court answered his exact question. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a six-to-two majority determined that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment — parents who had, significantly, retained allegiance to China all along.

The Court concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies exclusively to children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants in hostile occupation — not to children of immigrants, documented or otherwise.

Wire transfers don't appear anywhere in constitutional law as a citizenship test. That would be a novel standard.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

14th was partially adjudicated under USA vs. Kim Ark Wong.

I don't have much recollection, going back 1898.

Any recollections on the 7–2 ruling in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973 versus today?

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that bit about sending money out of the country via western union type businesses is not bizarre. it is a billion dollar business. that money doesn't stay in america.

you misunderstand, jurisdiction is about allegiance. it not a made up concept.

foreign invading army is allegiant to their country.
foreign ambassadors is allegiant to their country.
foreign visitors on a visa is allegiant to their country.
foreign illegal aliens who send money overseas to their home countries is allegiant to their country.

who are you allegiant to?

As usual you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

Allwgiance in the sense they were using it doesn’t have anything to do with what you think it means. It’s about jurisdictional control over the individual. Read more than Town Hall, you might learn something. Or not.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

Oh good. A partial case law analysis followed by an unsupported conclusion.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884) decided that Native Americans born within the sovereignty of their tribe were not citizens under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause — not due to any "allegiance" inferred from remittances, but because they were deemed outside US jurisdiction at birth.

Fourteen years later, the Supreme Court answered his exact question. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a six-to-two majority determined that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment — parents who had, significantly, retained allegiance to China all along.

The Court concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies exclusively to children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants in hostile occupation — not to children of immigrants, documented or otherwise.

Wire transfers don't appear anywhere in constitutional law as a citizenship test. That would be a novel standard.

Don’t confuse these people with facts and well established analysis. You know they only rely on TownHall and other right wing ignorance.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I don't have much recollection, going back 1898.

Any recollections on the 7–2 ruling in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973 versus today?

Is there some circumspect point here, such as...this mutherfucking partisan Court has no respect for precedent, so they quite possibly will trash birthright citizenship as it currently stands?

(Christ, I really hesitate to give you any credit for something like that...)

Regardless, I'd luuuuv to pursue this either way, but make a clear point or start another thread.

.

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by rooster

Exactly. There is no ruling that addresses this. Your "opinions"...especially this bizarre stretch about sending money...are not relevant. The amendment "addresses" people who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...it says ABSOLUTELY ZERO about this made-up concept of "allegiance."



Not even close. See above.



Even this guy gets it. No ruling.

As to this "prolific writers" stuff...feel free to show summa that to us! But as I warned above, there will no doubt be other "writers" that contradict anything you can cherry pick. KInd of a waste of time though. Cuz only Court rulings matter. Not MAGA hatred.

.

Why don't you try looking up the Congressional Record from the debates on that Amendment? You won't because the authors specifically stated this did NOT apply to foreigners. It was for freed slaves. Feel free to waste time and try to dispute the record. Those words matter. Not your bigotry and hatred.