Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

And it has been explained several times that none of the 3 have any idea what they are talking about. Why do you think there is all this talk of trying to pass an amendment repealing BRC?

 

Talking out of your butt again I see.

 

Pointing out reality.

 

You're forgetting about the part of the 14th amendment right after the "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," part.

 

I didn't forget anything. I have shown the Supreme Court rulings stating that physical presence is all that is required to be under US jurisdiction.

Wong Kim ark and plyler v doe.

 

Well oh my god. Its about as ridiculous as your claim, but there are many more. Half a century ago or yesterday, especially when your claim was

And yet over the many years there have been many politicians endorsed by them, to include many politicians that were once part of them.

List of Politicians who were once members of the KKK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

That certainly looks like a lot of D's. Even your David Duke that you invoked.

I suggest you choose your words much better next time.

 

You don't even know what precedent is. The Supreme Court made no ruling as at the time illegals were unknown to common law.

Few have tried, none have succeeded.

 

There is no talk about passing an amendment. The Congress puts up a bill defining citizenship each new Congress, it has been going on since 1993 when Harry Reid first introduced it. Even Congress doesn't believe an amendment is needed.

 

No you haven't, the quote you gave cited Minor in the first section and then you ran it into Section II which discusses England and English common law for England. You don't even know how to properly read a court opinion let alone think you know how to cite anything from it correctly.

Now, I have cited many things from there, none of which you have been able to refute. You claiming to have done something by refuting them with your jumbled up quote is . Plyler v Doe is a case directed at the state, NO legal scholar nor any SCOTUS opinion uses it to justify "jurisdiction" for citizenship by birth. A few moronic activists try to claim footnote 10 as the proof, citing Bouve, but when presented with the simple fact that Bouve is advocating that illegals, simply by being here should hold, at the least a temporary allegiance, thus their children should be born citizens in 1912, completely nullifies the argument that WKA grants Citizenship by birth to everyone.

 

What about these bills and proposals (just a small sample of the many, many put through for decades and decades that were tried and failed) -

...these here that were passed when the GOP had all three branches?

H.R. 190:

To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual’s birth in the United States.

Updated: Wed, Jan 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 2001 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Rep. Robert Stump [R-AZ3, 1977-2002] in the 107th congress

To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual's birth in the United States.

• Read more about To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual’s birth in the United States.

H.R. 1567:

Citizenship Reform Act of 2003

Updated: Wed, Apr 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 2003 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA9, 2007-2010] in the 108th congress

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.

• Read more about Citizenship Reform Act of 2003

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1567

H.J.Res. 44:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen.

Updated: Mon, Mar 31[SUP]st[/SUP] 2003 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Rep. Mark Foley [R-FL16, 1995-2006] in the 108th congress

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen, or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, at the time of the birth.

• Read more about Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres44
H.J.Res. 42:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Updated: Thu, Mar 20[SUP]th[/SUP] 2003 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Rep. Ronald “Ron” Paul [R-TX14, 1997-2013] in the 108th congress

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

S. 2117:

ENFORCE Act

Updated: Thu, Dec 15[SUP]th[/SUP] 2005 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Sen. James “Jim” Inhofe [R-OK] in the 109th congress


The bill would mandate federal cooperation with state and local law enforcement and enlist retired law officers in watching the border. The bill would put an end to the birthright citizenship process that automatically grants citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.

• Read more about ENFORCE Act

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s2117


H.R. 698:

Citizenship Reform Act of 2005

Updated: Wed, Feb 9[SUP]th[/SUP] 2005 @ 5:00 am EST
Sponsored by: Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA9, 2007-2010] in the 109th congress


The bill would end the process of granting automatic citizenship to the children born to illegal aliens in the United States.
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.

https://www.numbersusa.com/term/reduce-anchor-baby-citizenship

There's plenty more. Even when the GOP had the House, the Senate and Executive branches.

Whadd 'appened?

 

Yeah, he's a big ass lib.

lol.

John Choon Yoo :the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (OLC), during the George W. Bush administration.
He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that legitimized the War on Terror by the United States. He also authored the so-called Torture Memos, which concerned the use of what the Central Intelligence Agency called enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

 

The claim was he was an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar, which all I did was show he wasn't.

 

The 14th amendment would have stopped at the first part if that is all that was desired by our Founding Fathers. Apparently the SCOTUS chooses to ignore that second part about jurisdiction.

 

Today is far more newsworthy.

You seem desperate to duck the documented, current and pertinent support for Trump by neo-Nazis and White supremacists.

I understand your wishing to avoid honestly confronting it, but it is relevant to his seeking the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and his agenda in doing so.

 

Other countries allow dual citizenship.. You wouldn't LOSE your American citizenship if you acted on your eligibility for Irish citizenship.. Do you understand the distinction?

 

Yeah, right.

That's all you claimed. "He is nothing more than an attorney with a b.a. history degree." That's what you said as you snicked and made fun of the poster.


The dude authored the ****ing torture memos during the Bush Administration, he clerked for Clarence Thomas ferchistsakes, and taught at the very conservative Federalist Society.

"Professor Yoo has clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96. From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.


Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He held the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Trento in Italy, and he has also been a visiting professor at Keio Law School in Japan, Seoul National University in Korea, Chapman Law School, the University of Chicago, and the Free University of Amsterdam. Professor Yoo also has received the Paul M. Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy.


Professor Yoo has written several books: The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 (University of Chicago Press, 2005); War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror (Grove/Atlantic, 2006); Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power From George Washington to George W. Bush (Kaplan, 2010); and Taming Globalization: International Law, the U.S. Constitution, and the New World Order (Oxford, 2012). He has also co-edited Confronting Terror: 9/11 and the Future of American National Security (Encounter, 2011)."


https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=235

You wanna try again?

 

Of course I have.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they specifically addressed it's meaning.

 

Apparently, they followed the law.

Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401:

"Anyone born inside the United States."

"There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

 

Er, our "Founding Fathers" didn't author the 14th Amendment.


Republicans in the later 1860's did.

No, they didn't. Some current rubes are just ignorant.

 

I already told you I didn't think they would pass the bill, so showing bills that didn't pass confirms what I said/

- - - Updated - - -

So you admit that "subject to the jurisdiction" is defined by law.

Thank you.

 

And there we have it, because of his agenda. Take your partisan idiocy and race baiting elsewhere.

 

Yep I snickered due to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moronic claim, DUDE.

And that makes him an utra-conservative constitutional scholar?

And that makes him an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar?

And that makes him an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar?

And that makes him an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar?

And that makes him an ultra-conservative constitutional scholar?

Yoo is nothing more than a bs degree in history holding law attorney, not a constitutional scholar, nor ultra-conservative at that.

Berkley is a very Liberal school.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to have that looked at, you're only fooling yourself.

 

Are you too young to remember living through the Bush years and listening to John Yoo?

I'm guessing you are.

 

The truth is upsetting for giddy Trumpies, and they rather pretend he is not winning the endorsements that he is. I understand that.

Nevertheless, if they have misconstued his position on immigration, he shoud set them straight.

.

 

So, you admit that a child of a diplomat is a prime example of someone who would not be "subject to jurisdiction." Indeed, that is an exception to the law.

Thank you.



.