Except SCOTUS already explicitly stated that the 14th amendment specifically provides for birthright citizenship in 1898.
-
-
-
They got that wrong, and they can correct it. Good thing we don't have to abide by precedents like Dred Scott, eh?
-
and by "get that wrong" you mean, reading verbatim the 14th amendment
-
So what do you think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means? If you are not a legal resident you don't consider yourself subject to the laws of the land. Or can I choose which laws I want to be subject to?
-
4) even the writer of the 14th amendment stated that it applies to anyone born here other than the children of foreign diplomats http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 …
-
Not just foreign diplomats, but also "foreigners" and "aliens". His statement was a list.
-
"Subject to the jurisdiction" in his context is a qualifier to exclude foreign diplomats and their children who are by virtue of their declared allegiance to a foreign entity, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you are an originalist, you are wrong. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1868, so the writers of the 14th Amendment could not have intended to exclude them from birthright citizenship. It literally says "all persons."
-
And if you read US v. Wong Kim Ark, the children of diplomats is one of the very limited exceptions to birthright citizenship inherited from English common law. But that decision also determined that the children of immigrants born in the US do acquire birthright citizenship.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In 1866 the Senate Judiciary ruled that they are not citizens. http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/ …
-
Actually, Turnbull who authored the Civil Rights Act of 1866 argued it DID apply to children born in the US of foreign parents. If you want to play history, you'd better have ALL the facts.
-
*Trumbull.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"And subject to the jurisdiction there of" is the key phrase here being argued. Illegal entry automatically violates this. Meaning "owing loyalty to another nation" as in the one they are Naturally from.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
What? Words not directly addressing the issue in a court ruling, now is applied to parts of the constitution you don't like? Dicta refers to words in a court ruling NOT directly related. The constitution is not a ruling and the second half of the sentence directly applies.
-
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898).
-
I think you know the issue with this case applying to illegal immigrants concerning "having domicile in the USA" already. The fact is, the SCOTUS will have to rule on this and/or legislation passed to directly address it. Which is finally going to happen.
-
SCOTUS isn't going to hear it if the ruling from the lower court is proper.
-
SCOTUS will hear it regardless because the lower court will be challenged regardless of how they rule. Only possible exception is legislation before it gets to SCOTUS. Which would be the bes thing anyway.
- 20 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.