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

quote:

---

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.

---

They "were in the United States legally" because this was prior to the concept of "illegal immigration", federally, which started, probably in 1882 (General Admission Act., which banned a very narrow cohort of "idiots, lunatics, and convicts") but didn't really pick up until the Quota Act of 1921. THAT is when the concept of "illegal immigration" began, decades after WKA.

quote:

---

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:

---

Yes, the Court did a historical analysis of the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of", including English Common Law. Here is the court summarizing the Court's findings:

quote:

---

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

---

quote:

---

The key word in the quoted passage above is “aliens in amity”,

---

Not according to the Court in the opinion. That phrase is only referenced once.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is 100% NOT how the court used the term "subject to the jurisdiction of". There is no reference in the opinion of the court to "lawful" with term relating to immigration. It does not modify any use of presence, status, domicile, etc.

However, here is one use of "lawful", which explains, again, what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means, in plain terms:

quote:

---

In Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., the same principles were reaffirmed, and were applied to a Chinses person, born in China, who had acquired a commercial domicile in the United States, and who, having voluntarily left the country on a temporary visit to China, and with the intention of returning to and continuing his residence in this country, claimed the right under a statute or treaty to re-enter it; and the distinction between the right of an alien to the protection of the constitution and laws of the United States for his person and property while within the jurisdiction thereof, and his claim of a right to re-enter the United States after a visit to his native land, was expressed by the court as follows: 'He is none the less an alien, because of his having a commercial domicile in this country. While he lawfully remains here, he is entitled to the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty, and property, secured by the constitution to all persons, of whatever race, within the jurisdiction of the United States. His personal rights when he is in this country, and such of his property as is here during his absence, are as fully protected by the supreme law of the land as if he were a native or naturalized citizen of the United States.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, let's quote the case:

quote:

---

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

---

Where is this "reciprocity" language? The court makes it very clear that EVERY citizen of another country is subject to the jurisdiction of the US while here.

The people you copied in making that bad argument try to nuance and this case away on irrelevant points, trying to manufacture a definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" that directly contradicts the actual words of the court. Actually read the words of the opinion and it explains this all in great detail.

quote:

---

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

---

There are THREE classes of people not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

1. Ambassadors, foreign ministers, etc.
2. "enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory"
3. Indians. "children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes" (which doesn't exist anymore)

Children of these people are not citizens. Children of everyone else are citizens.

That is it. The case cannot be more clear on this issue.

Then, these people try to distinguish WKA by bringing up "illegal" status, which didn't exist at the time of the ruling. This status was a creation of Congress some decades later. Congress cannot override the Constitution or a Supreme Court opinion on Constitutional rights by passing subsequent legislation. This attempt to distinguish has no legal or rhetorical merit whatsoever.

Just actually read the case. It answers all of these questions.

quote:

---

Trump is over-reaching and ignoring the law.

---

Can you please link me to a single post of yours criticizing Biden for ignoring the law when he opened the borders?


Of course you won’t because you can’t. You don’t care about following the law. You care about your team. You’re disgusting.

quote:

---

The quantity of EOs and an evaluation of how norm-defying they are (which will be subjective, obviously) are both necessary to evaluate.

---

Perfect. Let’s compare number of EOs as well. Let’s get a ratio and see what it looks like.

We just have to find a perfectly neutral arbitrator that's universally accepted to do the subjective evaluation of each EO

quote:

---

Pretty wild John Yoo is still on TV and someone people listen to on issues.

---

As opposed to the people on TV that you listen to on issues.

Only things I watch on TV are live sports and Bluey

quote:

---

I think this is clearly why SCOTUS took this case and set it for argument. The current wave of judicial activism from the district court level is untenable.

---

That... or Roberts and ACB are ready to let everyone know that they are on team Deep State, ready to fully obstruct the Trump administration out in the open, and quit trying to put on this BS act that they are neutral.

quote:

---

Okay, now I got it. I ask a few days ago who SFP was and now it is very evident who the idiot is and why he is considered the dumbest poster on here.

---

ya know when he posts most the replies are just insults. It's fine to disagree with his opinion of law, but very few actually discuss the posts he puts out. They just insult, which is telling.

quote:

---

The number of suits filed and the policy they are attempting to shape tell us a lot... It tells us the left is bastardizing the judicial system to obstruct President Trump's agenda and the executive branch's Constitutional power.

---

You're framing this pretty dishonestly

Just look at the context of this thread. Trump enacted an EO that's clearly illegal and against current USSC precedent. Why do you expect that EO to survive judicial scrutiny when it's plainly illegal and unconstitutional on its face? Every court in America should rule it so and enjoin enforcement. What argument do you have to support the opposing view?

quote:

---

PLUS making all the new baby citizen's close relatives permanent residents also, with a surefire lane to citizenship also.

---

Explain, in detail, the legal process for how this works. Is it automatic? Do they have to apply? Are there grounds of inadmissibility? If so are they waivable? If they are waivable, what waivers are needed and what are the criteria for waivers.

I despise the "anchor baby" rhetoric because it is purely false.

The 14th was written the way it was because at the time the concept of borders in an ever growing US was flexible, and there were no strict written naturalization laws like we have today. The 14th is clear if you are born in the US and not a diplomat or invader in an occupied territory you are a citizen. If people don't like it, then there needs to be a Constitutional amendment to change it.