Key takeaways from the historic Supreme Court debate on birthright citizenship

[gatomontes99]

Quote

States warn there could be 'unprecedented chaos'

What's the alternative to nationwide injunctions?

Justices drilled down on rationale for ruling on injunctions, not birthright citizenship

Justices suggest a ruling on injunctions rather than birthright citizenship

Government wants cases to 'percolate' up from lower courts

 

Key takeaways from the historic Supreme Court debate on birthright citizenship

 

The SCOTUS is just ruling on whether or not a federal judge that is assigned a region of the country has the right to issue a national injunction. It seems to me, that the most appropriate source of a nation wide injunction would come from the SCOTUS. Judge shopping by choosing regions with friendly judges all the way up to the federal level to get a nation wide injunction is an end around play. Rather than relying on the merits of the case, they relied on the loyalty of the the left. If the SCOTUS is reasonable, they will limit nationwide injunctions to SCOTUS.

As for the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, there is no birthright citizenship for visitors. Here is the relevant text of the 14th:

Quote

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first sentence is what the EO that POTUS signed, is all about. In it's original intent, people that were born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, would become citizens. The word "and' is vitally important. It delineates that just being born with in the boundaries of the United States is not a qualification. One must be born AND "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Untied States. 

"Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is where those that suppo

rt birthrights for everyone have tried to change the meaning of the Amendment. "Subject to the jurisdiction" has been redefined to mean anyone that must follow our laws. Their belief is that jurisdiction has to do with legal matters. That isn't true. Jurisdiction means: "2a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate." The federal government and the state have no authority to govern or legislate people that do not live here. While they are here, they have to obey our laws. That is why they call it the "law of the land" and not the "law of the people". To finish defining the phrase, Subject (in this context) means: (2): one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state. A foreign national, that has no right to live in the United States, would not fit into this definition. 

We can look to two examples in history (at the time) that add context: Indians and Mexicans in Texas. Indians that lived in tribes and did not consider themselves part of the United States, did not enjoy birthright citizenship. The same was true for Mexicans. They were given a choice when Texas joined the United States. They could leave or they could stay and become citizens. They were not, automatically, given citizenship for being born. 

The second half of the citizenship clauses establishes that the United States determines who is a citizen and who is not. "Birthright" is specifically listed as a privilege and not a right.  This was intended to prevent slave states from attempting to remove citizenship via legislation. 

In short, the 14th does not give all persons born within our borders citizenship. It does give all persons born to citizens and legal residents ( as defined by the immigration statutes).

[Deluge]

27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The SCOTUS is just ruling on whether or not a federal judge that is assigned a region of the country has the right to issue a national injunction. It seems to me, that the most appropriate source of a nation wide injunction would come from the SCOTUS. Judge shopping by choosing regions with friendly judges all the way up to the federal level to get a nation wide injunction is an end around play. Rather than relying on the merits of the case, they relied on the loyalty of the the left. If the SCOTUS is reasonable, they will limit nationwide injunctions to SCOTUS.

As for the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, there is no birthright citizenship for visitors. Here is the relevant text of the 14th:

The first sentence is what the EO that POTUS signed, is all about. In it's original intent, people that were born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, would become citizens. The word "and' is vitally important. It delineates that just being born with in the boundaries of the United States is not a qualification. One must be born AND "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Untied States. 

"Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is where those that suppo

rt birthrights for everyone have tried to change the meaning of the Amendment. "Subject to the jurisdiction" has been redefined to mean anyone that must follow our laws. Their belief is that jurisdiction has to do with legal matters. That isn't true. Jurisdiction means: "2a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate." The federal government and the state have no authority to govern or legislate people that do not live here. While they are here, they have to obey our laws. That is why they call it the "law of the land" and not the "law of the people". To finish defining the phrase, Subject (in this context) means: (2): one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state. A foreign national, that has no right to live in the United States, would not fit into this definition. 

We can look to two examples in history (at the time) that add context: Indians and Mexicans in Texas. Indians that lived in tribes and did not consider themselves part of the United States, did not enjoy birthright citizenship. The same was true for Mexicans. They were given a choice when Texas joined the United States. They could leave or they could stay and become citizens. They were not, automatically, given citizenship for being born. 

The second half of the citizenship clauses establishes that the United States determines who is a citizen and who is not. "Birthright" is specifically listed as a privilege and not a right.  This was intended to prevent slave states from attempting to remove citizenship via legislation. 

In short, the 14th does not give all persons born within our borders citizenship. It does give all persons born to citizens and legal residents ( as defined by the immigration statutes).

Which makes perfect sense. 

In woke world, ALL 7+ billion of earth's inhabitants have a right to be here, right now. That is why their opinion needs to be thrown out. 

[herbie]

In the asleep world, one needs to debate if the words written in the Constitution right there in front of your own eyes are really there. Because some fascist loudmouth said otherwise.

In the woke world that would take anyone 3/10s of a second.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The SCOTUS is just ruling on whether or not a federal judge that is assigned a region of the country has the right to issue a national injunction. It seems to me, that the most appropriate source of a nation wide injunction would come from the SCOTUS. Judge shopping by choosing regions with friendly judges all the way up to the federal level to get a nation wide injunction is an end around play. Rather than relying on the merits of the case, they relied on the loyalty of the the left. If the SCOTUS is reasonable, they will limit nationwide injunctions to SCOTUS.

As for the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, there is no birthright citizenship for visitors. Here is the relevant text of the 14th:

The first sentence is what the EO that POTUS signed, is all about. In it's original intent, people that were born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, would become citizens. The word "and' is vitally important. It delineates that just being born with in the boundaries of the United States is not a qualification. One must be born AND "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Untied States. 

"Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is where those that suppo

rt birthrights for everyone have tried to change the meaning of the Amendment. "Subject to the jurisdiction" has been redefined to mean anyone that must follow our laws. Their belief is that jurisdiction has to do with legal matters. That isn't true. Jurisdiction means: "2a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate." The federal government and the state have no authority to govern or legislate people that do not live here. While they are here, they have to obey our laws. That is why they call it the "law of the land" and not the "law of the people". To finish defining the phrase, Subject (in this context) means: (2): one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state. A foreign national, that has no right to live in the United States, would not fit into this definition. 

We can look to two examples in history (at the time) that add context: Indians and Mexicans in Texas. Indians that lived in tribes and did not consider themselves part of the United States, did not enjoy birthright citizenship. The same was true for Mexicans. They were given a choice when Texas joined the United States. They could leave or they could stay and become citizens. They were not, automatically, given citizenship for being born. 

The second half of the citizenship clauses establishes that the United States determines who is a citizen and who is not. "Birthright" is specifically listed as a privilege and not a right.  This was intended to prevent slave states from attempting to remove citizenship via legislation. 

In short, the 14th does not give all persons born within our borders citizenship. It does give all persons born to citizens and legal residents ( as defined by the immigration statutes).

^FOS AGAIN.

Every court has ruled that infants born to visitors are citizens because that's what the 14th CLEARLY SAYS.

The ONLY ones who are not, are those born to parents which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government.

And that is ONLY foreign diplomats and invading armies in service to a foreign government.

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^FOS AGAIN.

There is a reason rule #1 is rule #1. But you've added such a unique twist. I quoted the USA Today, the Constitution and Merriam Webster. But you tried to disparage what I said by attacking FoxNews. That is hilarious.  How bad must your argument be that you have to attack a source I didn't even use! Wow. Just wow.

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Every court has ruled that infants born to visitors are citizens because that's what the 14th CLEARLY SAYS

Actually, the SCOTUS ruled on Wong Kim Ark. He was the son of two legal immigrants in the United States that was confirmed to have birthright citizenship based on the 14th amendment, after being denied entry to the US. However, the big difference between Wong Kim Ark and the children of illegal aliens is that his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Appeal to authority fallacies can sometimes be convincing. But, when you don't understand what you are talking about, they just make you look bad. Maybe next time you should try reading a reliable and unbiased source. You know...like FoxNews

[User]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

In the asleep world, one needs to debate if the words written in the Constitution right there in front of your own eyes are really there. Because some fascist loudmouth said otherwise.

In the woke world that would take anyone 3/10s of a second.

The exact words do not say that everyone born in America is an American citizen. Period. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

In the asleep world, one needs to debate if the words written in the Constitution right there in front of your own eyes are really there. Because some fascist loudmouth said otherwise.

 

Says the guy that claims that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias   

[Legato]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

In the asleep world, one needs to debate if the words written in the Constitution right there in front of your own eyes are really there. Because some fascist loudmouth said otherwise.

 

Why are you quoting Eric Swalwell?

[herbie]

Never said that. Merely think it was a stupid clause to include for a post revolution country.

Or that it was a spelling mistake from the days farmer's worked in the hot fields wearing wool shirts and they meant bare arms......

[User]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

Never said that. Merely think it was a stupid clause to include for a post revolution country.

Or that it was a spelling mistake from the days farmer's worked in the hot fields wearing wool shirts and they meant bare arms......

Narrator: He screamed into the void...

[Aristides]

When you visit any country you are subject to its jurisdiction 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

When you visit any country you are subject to its jurisdiction 

that's not generally the meaning of the term that they're using. And if it was there be no need to include it because it would be automatic.

[User]

51 minutes ago, Aristides said:

When you visit any country you are subject to its jurisdiction 

Is that what is meant by jurisdiction?

You are conflating being subject to local laws while you are there with being subject to its jurisdiction. You are ultimately still a citizen of another country. 

If it is a matter of being subject to jurisdiction making you a citizen... why don't we say merely stepping one foot into America and BOOM, now you are a citizen too! Don't even have to be born here.