ScottS said:Oldbear83 said:
Sam doesn't want Trump to do his job.
Now Sam says Congress can't do it either.
Sam has a serious judge fetish problem.
Are you sure?
Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court has always decided constitutional issues.
If an amendment is the only viable way to change the law in regards to birthright citizenship…..the Supreme Court will make such a ruling.
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here.
gtownbear said:
Looks like Senator Cotton is putting forth a Bill to stop birthright citizenship in the Senate. Not sure, but I read that this could pass with a simple majority vote. So does that mean after the 60 vote to cut off debate or not. Above my knowledge on Senate rules.
https://theamericantribune.com/gop-senate-takes-action-to-finally-end-birthright-citizenship/
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.
Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).
Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.
Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.
As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."
..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.
Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).
Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.
Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."
Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.
And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).
Arriving visitors are not here, as a matter of law. Illegal immigrants are here, albeit unlawfully. I suspect you're conflating the two, but they are different and distinct concepts.
Courts have not ruled on that.
The argument isn't really about naturalized citizens. It's about birthright citizens, to whom the same reasoning applies a fortiori:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
This does not specifically address those born here to persons here illegally..
Again, your argument rests entirely upon precedence established by a substantial body of regulatory interpretation in effect for several decades, NOT in statute or court ruling. If we can get to where we are via regulatory discretion, we should be able to get out of where we are via regulatory discretion.
I doubt this court will overturn the current body of regulatory law, but it is not out of the question, because as a plain matter of meaning, it makes no sense that we should reward illegal immigration with citizenship, and there is most certainly a disconnect between the way we handle people who arrive on our soil at ports of entry and people who do not. WHY IS ONE CONSIDERED TO NOT BE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION, AND THE OTHER NOT? Both are on our soil. Neither have been legally admitted.
The American people are very clear in opposition to the status quo. Public opinion is not supposed to matter in court. But it does hang heavy in the air from time to time.
The point is, to the extent there is any issue with persons born here to illegals, Congress has no authority to resolve it. Much less is it a matter of regulatory discretion. Constitutional issues are decided by the courts.
LOL geez dude. You are flailing.
The courts have not ruled on the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Therefore, the issue has been subject SOLELY to regulatory discretion.
Of course they have ruled on it.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): "Use of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court has always decided constitutional issues.
If an amendment is the only viable way to change the law in regards to birthright citizenship…..the Supreme Court will make such a ruling.
Im not saying it has to be my way, just saying what I think makes sense. .
whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.
Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).
Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.
Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.
As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."
..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.
Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).
Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.
Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."
Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.
And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).
Arriving visitors are not here, as a matter of law. Illegal immigrants are here, albeit unlawfully. I suspect you're conflating the two, but they are different and distinct concepts.
Courts have not ruled on that.
The argument isn't really about naturalized citizens. It's about birthright citizens, to whom the same reasoning applies a fortiori:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
This does not specifically address those born here to persons here illegally..
Again, your argument rests entirely upon precedence established by a substantial body of regulatory interpretation in effect for several decades, NOT in statute or court ruling. If we can get to where we are via regulatory discretion, we should be able to get out of where we are via regulatory discretion.
I doubt this court will overturn the current body of regulatory law, but it is not out of the question, because as a plain matter of meaning, it makes no sense that we should reward illegal immigration with citizenship, and there is most certainly a disconnect between the way we handle people who arrive on our soil at ports of entry and people who do not. WHY IS ONE CONSIDERED TO NOT BE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION, AND THE OTHER NOT? Both are on our soil. Neither have been legally admitted.
The American people are very clear in opposition to the status quo. Public opinion is not supposed to matter in court. But it does hang heavy in the air from time to time.
The point is, to the extent there is any issue with persons born here to illegals, Congress has no authority to resolve it. Much less is it a matter of regulatory discretion. Constitutional issues are decided by the courts.
LOL geez dude. You are flailing.
The courts have not ruled on the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Therefore, the issue has been subject SOLELY to regulatory discretion.
Of course they have ruled on it.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): "Use of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
LOL there you go again. Phyler v. Doe was not about acquisition of citizenship.
Assassin said:BREAKING:
— Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) July 19, 2025
Today El Salvador sent back all Venezuelan nationals that the USA sent to El Salvador.
Venezuela had been REFUSING to accept them back. pic.twitter.com/IDvqbCI6Ax
Funny how the perfectly healthy Tren de Aragua detainees suddenly fall ill the moment they set foot in Venezuela.
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) July 19, 2025
Same script, every time. pic.twitter.com/P6U1EeLLyF
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.
Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).
Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.
Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.
As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."
..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.
Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).
Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.
Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."
Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.
And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).
Arriving visitors are not here, as a matter of law. Illegal immigrants are here, albeit unlawfully. I suspect you're conflating the two, but they are different and distinct concepts.
Courts have not ruled on that.
The argument isn't really about naturalized citizens. It's about birthright citizens, to whom the same reasoning applies a fortiori:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
This does not specifically address those born here to persons here illegally..
Again, your argument rests entirely upon precedence established by a substantial body of regulatory interpretation in effect for several decades, NOT in statute or court ruling. If we can get to where we are via regulatory discretion, we should be able to get out of where we are via regulatory discretion.
I doubt this court will overturn the current body of regulatory law, but it is not out of the question, because as a plain matter of meaning, it makes no sense that we should reward illegal immigration with citizenship, and there is most certainly a disconnect between the way we handle people who arrive on our soil at ports of entry and people who do not. WHY IS ONE CONSIDERED TO NOT BE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION, AND THE OTHER NOT? Both are on our soil. Neither have been legally admitted.
The American people are very clear in opposition to the status quo. Public opinion is not supposed to matter in court. But it does hang heavy in the air from time to time.
The point is, to the extent there is any issue with persons born here to illegals, Congress has no authority to resolve it. Much less is it a matter of regulatory discretion. Constitutional issues are decided by the courts.
LOL geez dude. You are flailing.
The courts have not ruled on the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Therefore, the issue has been subject SOLELY to regulatory discretion.
Of course they have ruled on it.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): "Use of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
LOL there you go again. Phyler v. Doe was not about acquisition of citizenship.
Neither was your post to which I responded. It was about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" (and its obvious implications for citizenship).
The Bill of Rights has only ever been applied in a piecemeal fashion to non-citizens. Not applying the Second Amendment to illegals is neither surprising nor particularly relevant to this issue.
whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.
Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).
Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.
Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.
As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."
..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.
Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).
Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.
Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."
Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.
And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).
Arriving visitors are not here, as a matter of law. Illegal immigrants are here, albeit unlawfully. I suspect you're conflating the two, but they are different and distinct concepts.
Courts have not ruled on that.
The argument isn't really about naturalized citizens. It's about birthright citizens, to whom the same reasoning applies a fortiori:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
This does not specifically address those born here to persons here illegally..
Again, your argument rests entirely upon precedence established by a substantial body of regulatory interpretation in effect for several decades, NOT in statute or court ruling. If we can get to where we are via regulatory discretion, we should be able to get out of where we are via regulatory discretion.
I doubt this court will overturn the current body of regulatory law, but it is not out of the question, because as a plain matter of meaning, it makes no sense that we should reward illegal immigration with citizenship, and there is most certainly a disconnect between the way we handle people who arrive on our soil at ports of entry and people who do not. WHY IS ONE CONSIDERED TO NOT BE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION, AND THE OTHER NOT? Both are on our soil. Neither have been legally admitted.
The American people are very clear in opposition to the status quo. Public opinion is not supposed to matter in court. But it does hang heavy in the air from time to time.
The point is, to the extent there is any issue with persons born here to illegals, Congress has no authority to resolve it. Much less is it a matter of regulatory discretion. Constitutional issues are decided by the courts.
LOL geez dude. You are flailing.
The courts have not ruled on the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Therefore, the issue has been subject SOLELY to regulatory discretion.
Of course they have ruled on it.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): "Use of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
LOL there you go again. Phyler v. Doe was not about acquisition of citizenship.
Neither was your post to which I responded. It was about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" (and its obvious implications for citizenship).
The Bill of Rights has only ever been applied in a piecemeal fashion to non-citizens. Not applying the Second Amendment to illegals is neither surprising nor particularly relevant to this issue.
LOL such convenient obtusity. If there is an "illegal alien" exception to the enumerated right set forth in the 2nd Amendment, how could one reject out of hand the notion there might also be an "illegal alien" exception to the enumerated right set forth in the 14th Amendment? News flash: the 14th settled the citizenship question for freed slaves, not the illegal aliens.
You are not very good at this.
Officers clashed with and arrested anti-ICE protesters on a bridge located on the state line between Ohio and Kentucky. pic.twitter.com/UFaPhYOuwZ
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) July 19, 2025
gtownbear said:
Looks like the consequences of attacking ICE agents are coming to the fore.Officers clashed with and arrested anti-ICE protesters on a bridge located on the state line between Ohio and Kentucky. pic.twitter.com/UFaPhYOuwZ
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) July 19, 2025
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
You are not very good at this.
One of us certainly is not. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
This was the FINAL straw.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) July 21, 2025
An illegal alien just shot a Border Patrol agent in the face.
Now that agent is fighting for his life.
The worst part?
This violent offender had been released onto the streets FIVE TIMES before the attack.
And the numbers are beyond TERRIFYING:… pic.twitter.com/f0UIWnf1sB
Mayorkos needs to live the rest of his life behind barsAssassin said:This was the FINAL straw.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) July 21, 2025
An illegal alien just shot a Border Patrol agent in the face.
Now that agent is fighting for his life.
The worst part?
This violent offender had been released onto the streets FIVE TIMES before the attack.
And the numbers are beyond TERRIFYING:… pic.twitter.com/f0UIWnf1sB
historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court has always decided constitutional issues.
If an amendment is the only viable way to change the law in regards to birthright citizenship…..the Supreme Court will make such a ruling.
Im not saying it has to be my way, just saying what I think makes sense. .
You rarely, if ever, make any sense.
Still maintain you are either a special needs individual, under the age of 17, or have lived in a protective bubble your entire life.
Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court has always decided constitutional issues.
If an amendment is the only viable way to change the law in regards to birthright citizenship…..the Supreme Court will make such a ruling.
Im not saying it has to be my way, just saying what I think makes sense. .
You rarely, if ever, make any sense.
Still maintain you are either a special needs individual, under the age of 17, or have lived in a protective bubble your entire life.
Why am I even asking.
Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Assassin said:This was the FINAL straw.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) July 21, 2025
An illegal alien just shot a Border Patrol agent in the face.
Now that agent is fighting for his life.
The worst part?
This violent offender had been released onto the streets FIVE TIMES before the attack.
And the numbers are beyond TERRIFYING:… pic.twitter.com/f0UIWnf1sB
Oldbear83 said:Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Exactly how many Irish are documented to have come here illegally? I don't recall any Act of Congress specifically banning Irish, and I don't recall 'waves of Irish' coming here in the 20th Century in defiance of our borders. Sure, the Kennedy's were a nasty bunch with their bootleg liquor and all, but still .
whiterock said:Oldbear83 said:Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Exactly how many Irish are documented to have come here illegally? I don't recall any Act of Congress specifically banning Irish, and I don't recall 'waves of Irish' coming here in the 20th Century in defiance of our borders. Sure, the Kennedy's were a nasty bunch with their bootleg liquor and all, but still .
that's what Democrats do. The deny the plainly obvious is happening. And when necessary, they invent stuff out of whole cloth to fit their narrative.
The Irish all came thru Ellis Island WHERE THEY WERE LEGALLY CLEARED TO ENTER THE COUNTRY under statute in effect at that time.
We were an empty country and were giving land away free out west to anyone who wanted to settle it.
We are not that country today.
The people out in the country today tend to move to the cities, where they find well entrenched communities of illegal aliens who don't even speak the language competing with them for jobs, housing, public services, etc..... And polite society, which does not have to bear any of the costs of those illegal aliens, insist that anyone who has a problem with the illegal aliens is a racist, sexist, bigoted, this-or-that-aphobe, etc.....
Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Oldbear83 said:Porteroso said:historian said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:Porteroso said:
It has just been this way too long. If we are going to end birthright citizenship for illegals, we need the states to do it via Constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court is going to have a real problem undoing so many years of precedent based simply upon the fact that Trump wants it so.
Most countries do not provide birth right citizenship for illegals.
But America does. If we want to change it, it should be the states passing an Amendment, not Trump saying "let's get this to the Supreme Court."
America has done so illegitimately. There is no legal or constitutional reason why illegal aliens should be allowed to remain in this country because they happen to have a baby while here. They certainly should not be granted the privilege of automatic citizenship. Anyone who understands the history of the constitution and especially if the 14th amendment should understand this. It's a no brainer.
That's simply ignorant of history. Take the waves of Irish that came over illegally, for example, Americans knew their kids were getting citizenship, and were largely ok with it. It seems the only difference is that Trump doesn't like it today. And the scope of it.
Exactly how many Irish are documented to have come here illegally? I don't recall any Act of Congress specifically banning Irish, and I don't recall 'waves of Irish' coming here in the 20th Century in defiance of our borders. Sure, the Kennedy's were a nasty bunch with their bootleg liquor and all, but still .
that's what Democrats do. The deny the plainly obvious is happening. And when necessary, they invent stuff out of whole cloth to fit their narrative.
The Irish all came thru Ellis Island WHERE THEY WERE LEGALLY CLEARED TO ENTER THE COUNTRY under statute in effect at that time.
We were an empty country and were giving land away free out west to anyone who wanted to settle it.
We are not that country today.
The people out in the country today tend to move to the cities, where they find well entrenched communities of illegal aliens who don't even speak the language competing with them for jobs, housing, public services, etc..... And polite society, which does not have to bear any of the costs of those illegal aliens, insist that anyone who has a problem with the illegal aliens is a racist, sexist, bigoted, this-or-that-aphobe, etc.....
Ellis Island started screening immigrants in 1892. The potato famine was from 1845 to 1854. Many Irish entered then & fought in Civil War
