Birthright Citizenship Challenge

[ll74]

No. All you have to do is read the Constitution with understanding. You can't seem to do that because you can't.

You're simply wrong and the courts have and will continue to prove you so. My interpretation is the accepted one....yours is not....nor will it ever be.

 

[HisArpy]

You can’t read something without understanding.

What you really want him to do is read the Constitution with your biases.

As do you.

Which is why this issue needs to be resolved.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

As do you.

Which is why this issue needs to be resolved.

And those are?
This coming from the attorney who says that court had no jurisdiction over lawyers who showed up to court.

 

[Rightguide]

Actually it IS an apt analogy.

There is no constitutional "right' to Citizenship, except birthright citizenship which is conferred at birth. Everyone, however, is subject to laws of the United States (with the exception of the rare diplomatic status).

Nobody except you is conflating legal jurisdiction with citizenship status.

You should learn how to read the 14th Amendment and it's jurisprudence.

 

[HisArpy]

And those are?
This coming from the attorney who says that court had no jurisdiction over lawyers who showed up to court.

Lol, nothing but lies out of you.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a simple thing - if you want birthright citizenship to not exist, then create an amendment that corrects it or one that repeals the 14th

Or interpret the 14th as not conveying citizenship to children of those present inside the US unlawfully.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[HisArpy]

Actually it IS an apt analogy.

There is no constitutional "right' to Citizenship, except birthright citizenship which is conferred at birth. Everyone, however, is subject to laws of the United States (with the exception of the rare diplomatic status).

Nobody except you is conflating legal jurisdiction with citizenship status.

Really? Then what was Hel Brooks posting about? Knitting?

 

[Rightguide]

You're simply wrong and the courts have and will continue to prove you so. My interpretation is the accepted one....yours is not....nor will it ever be.

We shall see. I have posted the federal jurisprudence, the history of the 14th Amendment, and the statements of the authors of the Amendment. You want to ignore all of this but the SCOTUS will be looking at all of it. There is no legal or historical logic to birthright citizenship. If there was the American Indians would have had citizenship based on their birth before 1924 when Congress passed a law to make them citizens.

 

[HisArpy]

I think you mean “if someone is charged with a crime.”

I mean in all things. Civil contracts for example are still valid because Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. This is a "right" which attaches to all in the US and isn't criminal.

There is a plethora of "rights" which attach to everyone on US soil but the entire panoply of rights doesn't. For example; the Right to Vote doesn't attach to those who aren't citizens. Automatic birthright citizenship for children of those here unlawfully may be another one which also doesn't attach.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You should learn how to read the 14th Amendment and it's jurisprudence.

I have, and my understanding of the 14th amendment transcends your misunderstanding considerably.
We all laughed at your interpretation of the pivotal US vs. Wong Kim Ark case.
You drew an unserious conclusion that was the exact opposite of what the Court decided.

 

[ll74]

We shall see. I have posted the federal jurisprudence, the history of the 14th Amendment, and the statements of the authors of the Amendment. You want to ignore all of this but the SCOTUS will be looking at all of it.

And I posted previous cases which have already been decided on the matter.

There is no legal or historical logic to birthright citizenship. If there was the American Indians would have had citizenship based on their birth before 1924 when Congress passed a law to make them citizens.

Birthright citizenship is part of the Constitution. Sorry you don't like that.

 

[DeluxAuto]

This is issue further exposed the ignorance and racism of some of our more prolific MAGA dipshits.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is issue further exposed the ignorance and racism of some of our more prolific MAGA dipshits.

They hold to their belief is that the Constitution means what THEY believe it means. Quite Trumpian.

Alternate constitutional facts.

*nods*

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I mean in all things. Civil contracts for example are still valid because Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. This is a "right" which attaches to all in the US and isn't criminal.

There is a plethora of "rights" which attach to everyone on US soil but the entire panoply of rights doesn't. For example; the Right to Vote doesn't attach to those who aren't citizens. Automatic birthright citizenship for children of those here unlawfully may be another one which also doesn't attach.

That has nothing to do with what you wrote.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lol, nothing but lies out of you.

It’s the truth.

 

[Rightguide]

I have, and my understanding of the 14th amendment transcends your misunderstanding considerably.
We all laughed at your interpretation of the pivotal US vs. Wong Kim Ark case.
You drew an unserious conclusion that was the exact opposite of what the Court decided.

You are incorrect. The operational point I made in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his parents were legally in the US, a point lost on your miniature IQ.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You are incorrect. The operational point I made in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his parents were legally in the US, a point lost on your miniature IQ.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are incorrect. The operational point I made in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his parents were legally in the US, a point lost on your miniature IQ

Wong-san's parents were in the United States, they were not citizens.
They had a child. Wong was a citizen by virtue of being born in the USA

• The Case:
  • Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873, was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, despite being born on US soil.
• The Issue:
  • The government argued that because his parents were Chinese subjects, he was not a US citizen and therefore ineligible for re-entry.
• The Supreme Court Ruling:
  • The Supreme Court, in a 1898 decision, ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States") guarantees citizenship to all persons born within the United States, regardless of their parents' nationality or race.
• Birthright Citizenship:
  • The Wong Kim Ark case solidified the principle of birthright citizenship, which is the idea that anyone born within a country's borders automatically becomes a citizen
  LINK[/B]

 

[DeluxAuto]

The Wong Kim Ark case solidified the principle of birthright citizenship, which is the idea that anyone born within a country's borders automatically becomes a citizen

/Thread

 

[Hel_Books]

Actually, this isn't an apt analogy.

If someone commits a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and court where they're brought to trial. This is called personal jurisdiction.

However, merely being present in a country doesn't convey citizenship along with that jurisdiction. Being present in the US automatically conveys SOME Constitutional Rights (right to bail, right to an attorney, right not to be forced to testify against yourself, right against unlawful search and seizure, etc) but not ALL Constitutional Rights (citizenship for example).

So your analogy doesn't actually apply to this situation.

I'm not a lawyer, so all I know is what I've read about the issue, that, except for those narrow exceptions anyone in the territory of the USA (or any other nation, for that matter) is "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country.

As for CITIZENSHIP, rules vary by country. In some countries an individual born while "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country is thereby a citizen while in other countries they aren't automatically citizens.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm not a lawyer, so all I know is what I've read about the issue, that, except for those narrow exceptions anyone in the territory of the USA (or any other nation, for that matter) is "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country.

As for CITIZENSHIP, rules vary by country. In some countries an individual born while "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country is thereby a citizen while in other countries they aren't automatically citizens.

Here's the thing; the people feeding you lies aren't lawyers either. They're activists with an agenda to make you "believe." In order to do that they must lie to you in the form of outright falsehoods, misdirection, and omission of facts.

"The law" isn't as simple as it seems to be on the surface. We have 200+ years of legal precedent to go along with all the statutes we've created and interpreting all of that is an art form. Something the media isn't interested in doing because it lacks the sensationalism they require in order to generate revenue.

 

[Hel_Books]

Here's the thing; the people feeding you lies aren't lawyers either. They're activists with an agenda to make you "believe." In order to do that they must lie to you in the form of outright falsehoods, misdirection, and omission of facts.

"The law" isn't as simple as it seems to be on the surface. We have 200+ years of legal precedent to go along with all the statutes we've created and interpreting all of that is an art form. Something the media isn't interested in doing because it lacks the sensationalism they require in order to generate revenue.

So tell us all what "falsehoods" you've seen uttered or printed?

Is it not true that, aside from very narrow exceptions, anyone standing in the territory of a nation is "subject to the jurisdiction of" that nation? The exceptions are people such as diplomats or occupying military personnel (For example, Russian soldiers now in the Crimea aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of" the government of Ukraine). But if you are standing in, say, Montana, and decide to run across the border to Canada, even without passing through a proper border post, you will still be "under the jurisdiction of" the government of Canada.

Is it not true that the 14th Amendment to the USA's Constitution reads, in part, "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"?

 

[Rightguide]

Wong-san's parents were in the United States, they were not citizens.
They had a child. Wong was a citizen by virtue of being born in the USA

• The Case:
  • Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873, was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, despite being born on US soil.
• The Issue:
  • The government argued that because his parents were Chinese subjects, he was not a US citizen and therefore ineligible for re-entry.
• The Supreme Court Ruling:
  • The Supreme Court, in a 1898 decision, ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States") guarantees citizenship to all persons born within the United States, regardless of their parents' nationality or race.
• Birthright Citizenship:
  • The Wong Kim Ark case solidified the principle of birthright citizenship, which is the idea that anyone born within a country's borders automatically becomes a citizen
  • LINK
  [/B]

As I pointed out, his parents were not illegal aliens, so they were subject to the jurisdiction of US law. That's where you're getting it wrong. It had nothing to do with race or their country of origin.

 

[Hel_Books]

As I pointed out, his parents were not illegal aliens, so they were subject to the jurisdiction of US law. That's where you're getting it wrong. It had nothing to do with race or their country of origin.

Though someone crossing the border into a country without the proper paperwork may be expelled by that country's government for doing so, they are still "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country. The reason a diplomat cannot be thrown in jail is that, for example, an ambassador is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the country they have been sent to. An illegal border-crosser does not have diplomatic privileges, otherwise the police could not touch them!

 

[DeluxAuto]

Watching Derpy lose legal arguments is some funny ass shit.