re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case

I don’t like the push to reinterpret the citizenship by parentage portion of this.

A new SC interpretation of that could open up Pandora’s box and potentially be used to further narrow the definition of citizenship.

Be careful what you wish for.

quote:

---

Yes, ad homs are a cope when you can't respond with an actual argument, I agree.

---

The thing is, we are not lawyers. But the concept of letting millions of people cross the border by looking the other way and then granting citizenship to one of the family because they were born here seems wrong. I won't engage in hyperbole and say it is insane, etc. The democrats are using it as run around to legal immigration which I wholeheartedly agree with. Another "thing" that popped up recently was the Biden administration granting asylum status to Haitians or whomever so that they in effect were legalized. Margaret Brennan on CBS used that tack against the republican she was interviewing. So if you have an administration that does not enforce immigration laws and allows women to anchor into the US and then bring the family, it's just wrong. It happens over time.
I won't get into whether or not these non citizen family members find a way to vote.
There's got to be a reason why the Supreme Court is taking this case. It may be to say the issue is settled and the EO can't be enforced. But it could be to understand why the Amendment was written and why it is now bing abused.

quote:

---

Your argument fallacy defense

---

You're mis-using words again.

I didn't imply or state any fallacy. I stated you had no argument and had to resort to ad homs instead, as a cope.

There was no argument to label a fallacy.

quote:

---

It's based on textualism using historic and contemporary meaning of the words at the time they were written.

---

State of California was incapable of reading I guess.

And in case anyone is wondering, the entire point of jus soli is to overwhelm the native population with settlers.

quote:

---

I mean we are discussing the 14th Amendment, after all.

---

Then let SCOTUS look at whatever they are going to look at and rule in whatever manner they will. They are looking at it after all. And that's the subject of this topic. I'm guessing if you were a federal judge, you'd rule against the EO for the purposes you've stated. They may or may not agree with you. So let the big guys figure it out.

They should rule that the EO will stay in effect until the next EO or until the amendment is changed through the proper process. Maybe congress would then move on it. Or the democrats will add five justices to the SC to get the desired result.

The understanding at the time had nothing to do with dropping babies at the airport. The Democrats hyjacked this for no purpose what so ever.

quote:

---

From the guy moaning about how inferring intent is legally sinful.

---

Their racism has nothing to do with the legal argument involved.

You asked a question, I gave an answer as to why they came to the wrong legal conclusion.

quote:

---

I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.

---

quote:

---

It is not a meaningless phrase, nothing in the constitution can be said to be such. So it must mean something. Just because an illegal can be prosecuted under our laws does not remove ultimate jurisdiction over that person by their home country. So while the US and their home country may have concurrent jurisdiction, their home country has ultimate jurisdiction, and that is what they are subject to.

---

Thank You Justice Thomas!

quote:

---

The Vienna convention is what established our modern concept of diplomatic immunity, so it has no bearing on what the founders meant by subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

---

You're all over the place here

"The Founders" have nothing to do with the 14A

And your argument about diplomatic immunity is simply false. How did a case in 1898 write this, if the concept developed with the Vienna Convention (almost 100 years later)

quote:

---

That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.

---

quote:

---

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

---

quote:

---

As to the immunity of a foreign minister, he said: 'Whatever may be the principle on which this immunity is established, whether we consider him as in the place of the sovereign he represents, or by a political fiction suppose him to be extraterritorial, and therefore, in point of law, not within the jurisdiction of the sovereign at whose court he resides, still the immunity itself is granted by the governing power of the nation to which the minister is deputed. This fiction of exterritoriality could not be erected and supported against the will of the sovereign of the territory. He is supposed to assent to it.' 'The assent of the sovereign to the very important and extensive exemptions from territorial jurisdiction, which are admitted to attach to foreign ministers, is implied from h e considerations that, without such exemption, every sovereign would hazard his own dignity by employing a public minister abroad. His minister would owe temporary and local allegiance to a foreign prince, and would be less competent to the objects of his mission. A sovereign committing the interests of his nation with a foreign power to the care of a person whom he has selected for that purpose cannot intend to subject his minister in any degree to that power; and therefore a consent to receive him implies a consent that he shall possess those privileges which his principal intended he should retain,—privileges which are essential to the dignity of his sovereign, and to the duties he is bound to perform.

The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption 'from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found' were stated as follows: 'When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.

---

WKA literally goes into great detail differentiating diplomatic immunity from general jurisdiction of non-diplomatic aliens.

quote:

---

Just because an illegal can be prosecuted under our laws does not remove ultimate jurisdiction over that person by their home country. So while the US and their home country may have concurrent jurisdiction, their home country has ultimate jurisdiction, and that is what they are subject to.

---

Can you cite any legal or scholarly work contemporaneous with the 14A that discusses this "ultimate" jurisdiction?