re: Here’s Why the Era of Lawless Leftist Judges is Likely Ending Soon

quote:

---

Let's pick one and not change it to suit our ideology as we please.

---

Then by your interpretation, the right to bear arms should include owning a nuclear bomb?

58 is saying use your common sense, not some convoluted interpretation of it to reach the desired results for the few versus the citizens of the United States.

quote:

---

do you really need someone to post the actual NUMBER of times it happened under each president?

---

How many?

Dems are realizing Hispanics aren’t as reliable a voting block as blacks and secretly many are good with birthright citizenship ending.

quote:

---

Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago, ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.

---

One Wong does not make a Right.™

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who say that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has settled the issue conveniently ignore the fact that Wong’s parents were domiciled residents and thus were in the United States legally. The court clearly ruled that those individuals born outside the jurisdiction of the United States can only acquire citizenship through the naturalization process.

In forming its opinion, the SCOTUS based it’s ruling on the rights and obligations of citizenship according to the precedents found in English Common Law. The court ruled that citizenship is determined by a reciprocal relationship of “allegiance and protection” between individuals and the sovereign entity — in England, the king, in the United States, the sovereign government:

quote:

---

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," " faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom.

Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.

---

The key word in the quoted passage above is “aliens in amity”, i.e. aliens lawfully allowed entry into the nation by the sovereign. Children “born in the allegiance” are thus entitled to “protection” from birth, included those born to subjects of the king as well as those born to “aliens in amity”.

In the ruling, Wong was determined to be a U.S. citizen because Wong was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since his parents were lawful immigrants granted permission to enter the country before Wong’s birth on U.S. soil. In stark contrast, the United States has not granted illegal immigrants the permission to enter the nation’s jurisdiction.

Put another way, illegal immigrants are not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since the relationship is not reciprocal. As a result, children born to illegal immigrants while on U.S. soil should not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was written specifically to address the manumission of chattel slaves in the United States. It is gross perversion of simple common sense and historical precedent to suggest that universal birthright citizenship was the intent of the 14th Amendment.

quote:

---

the right to bear arms should include owning a nuclear bomb?

---

Scalia in the Heller decision defined "to bear" to mean to carry. I would think a nuclear bomb is too heavy to carry. Therefore you have no right to own a nuclear bomb. Also good luck trying to buy Plutonium, just might get yourself arrested.

quote:

---

Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago,.

---

agreed

quote:

---

ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.

---

how does a bill override the constitution?

The biggest problem with “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is it’s open to a wide range of interpretations.

The interpretation that babies of non citizen parents was no big deal in the 19th century because there were hardly any social consequences due to the low population in the U.S.

But now, with a much higher population and a bigger welfare state that interpretation is having negative consequences. Plus these anchor baby factories are abusing the system.

Congress really needs to step in and define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and define it as a baby born from a citizen mother.

Do not leave this shite in the hands of SCOTUS.

quote:

---

what should happen when they break our laws?

---

quote:

---

But now, with a much higher population and a bigger welfare state that interpretation is having negative consequences. Plus these anchor baby factories are abusing the system.

---

The main priority is to bring an end to unfettered immigration. Ending birthright citizenship is simply a means to that end.

As a matter of national sovereignty, we can’t wage wars of permanent Empire across the globe and have open borders. And as a matter of fiscal sovereignty, we can’t offer a cradle-to-grave welfare system and have open borders.

They’ll just ignore the Supreme Court and do what they want. Then the Supremes will decline the appeal.