|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Experts say.
On the Original Legal Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” – Reason
A Five-Word Enigma: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ – WSJ
Why Trump’s Quest to Gut Birthright Citizenship Is Doomed – NY Mag
Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man – Experts on Native American law say the Elk v. Wilkins ruling has no bearing on whether the children of immigrants without permanent legal status can be denied birthright citizenship. – NBC News
Experts. What would we do without them?
Elk v. Wilkins quite clearly explained what ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’, the five words at the center of President Trump’s birthright citizenship order mean. The question was whether an American Indian born on a reservation was a citizen. The Supreme Court decided he wasn’t because he wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That phrase in the 14th Amendment made it abundantly clear that its purpose was to naturalize freed black slaves, not random foreigners.
“Though the plaintiff alleges that he “had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States,” he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States.”
“But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”
You cannot involuntarily become an American against the will of the United States. Nor do you magically becoming an American by being born here. Becoming an American is a process that requires mutual consent.
Finally, when it comes to “subject to the jurisdiction of” in the 14th Amendment, “the evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
No birthright citizenship for foreign nations whose child is born here.
Wong Kim Ark v. United States, which is what open borders activists are relying on, so that in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act had to be passed to give all American Indians citizenship because the justice in both cases reverted himself in 1898 to claim that only the children of Indians, but not anyone else’s children, did not automatically become citizens, because he viewed the Chinese Exclusion Act as racist. This reasoning made no logical sense and directly contradicted the Elk decision.
Trying to separate jurisdiction and allegiance created the absurd situation in which there was automatic naturalization without allegiance. None of this accorded with American law or the 14th Amendment.
The idea that foreign nationals, especially ones here illegally, unlike the Wong Kim case, can force naturalization is wrong. And Elk v. Wilkins showed why.
Fun fact: the 14th amendment was never legally ratified to begin with.
Amen! and that needs to be adjudicated. Why we have lived a lie this long is beyond me. It needs to be tried and removed from the Constitution.
Then, logically, it has no Standing. However, it is being treated like it has the full standing of established Law.
Regardless, the Court has a record of creating its own logic, witness, Obamacare.
Can you be more specific as to how the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was deficient?
Sure. Here is a good explanation with primary source footnotes:
https://law.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/archive/law-review-articles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf
I think since it was was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments, that makes it “ratified”.
But how can you be sure the Supreme Court will do the right thing today – especially after a certifiable mental defective, ugly little Ketanji, had been placed on the court. We need TERM LIMITS on Supreme Court justices.
We The People need a direct way to check the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, and the Judiciary, until such time as we have passed and implemented laws that guarantee the integrity of our elections
And until we have those iron-clad election regulation, including a dynamic structure to deal with whatever the sneaky bastards think of next, the acting government is unconstitutional and invalid.
The important thing, is that we need a MUCH BETTER lawyer to present the case to SCOTUS. I think that’s what made Trump storm out of the gallery. I’m thinking, while in The Beast, he asked Bondi, “What idiot put HIM in there to argue this case?” To which Pam replied, “Uh, I did, Mr. President.” And we all know what happened after that.
Pray for Revival. Pray for Justice. Pray for Victory.
Qualifications for such justice to sit on that bench might be more useful, like basic civics, a reading comprehension level at least 12th grade, US history equivalent to a citizenship test level, and proof of ability to keep personal feelings and politics OUT of decisions. We also need to abolish use of “precedent”, given how many really bad decisions have been put forth and had to be rescinded by that court, especially where human nature and “rights” have been concerned. If they can read and understand, and must do their own research, we just might get wiser laws from their adjudication.
While that’s a great point … I’m pretty sure the Left does NOT care.
To the Left,
anyone who enters a Western country with an intent to hate, undermine, demoralize, destabilize, and destroy
has a greater right to the land than those who built the nation and created its bounty and virtues
… that’s why all of the invaders are blessed with Special Privileges, Super-Citizenship, Uber Mensch status, and virtual immunity from prosecution.
On the rare occasion when an invader is held accountable … it’s ‘Soft-on-Crime’ while the process punishes the State, the system, and eventually the innocent.
The Trump administration has declared war against the invaders – and that’s why the Left has its panties in a wad.
If SCOTUS even gives us an exit ramp for this “Invader First” bit of lawfare against the indigenous population of the USA …
… I will be very surprised if the RINOs can poop out a milquetoast response before Trump leaves office.
At some point, we need better personnel than we have – willing to use the Left’s weapons of Mass Bureaucracy, Malicious Compliance, Lawfare, Selective Hiring, and other devious weapons
… with the same ruthless will in which we’re so ready to use firearms, missiles, or drones …
… to take back the nation.
Or we will allow the courts to grant our enemies victory.
And that includes Iran.
Bombs cannot force Leftwing communists activists who care absolutely nothing about the law – much less The Rule of Law – or any other legal tenet in the Western Canon –
… to accept our interpretation of English words on a page.
If we sink to their level, we BECOME them, too, and thus lose before we start! I have heard it said “God doesn’t choose sides n a war because all are praying to Him”, but ARE they? If any, for an instant, believes the Axis troops were praying to the same “God” as the Jews in those camps were, or our troops were, I posit the person who holds such beliefs knows little about our Creator, or the deities being worshiped in reality! After nearly 6 decades of studying the deities and the humans who worship them, I can say with reasonable certainty, no 2 are “the same”, in either group. So before assuming we are all praying to the same Person, you might look a bit more closely at the actual behaviors of the followers. Yhvh God,our Creator, gave each of us free will to choose whom we would worship, and whether to behave in a manner bent toward good, or evil. Our choices tell who we choose to follow. I have no wish to become 1 of those who commits evil in the name of “God”, even if it allows those to appear, briefly, to “win”, because I know Whom I believe, and that He already WON that war others keep waging! We, at least some of us, just recognized that victory again, a few days ago.
The stupidity on display with certain justices was entertaining and shocking at the same time. It will be a day to celebrate if the SC rules in Trump’s favor, appropriate given it’s the 250th birthday of the country whose future is at risk.
Yes, it was really a shock to witness. First response: how can we, a modern purportedly advanced society allow such misfeance, that is another shock, no? Add a mind like that to the highest court in the land? Whoa! Why? How are we better for that?
Then secondly, oh yes, no longer are we an advanced society socially. Certain aspects of science, oh yes; certain aspects of military power, oh yes; but socially we no longer are so advanced, we left that status when we cast aside meritocracy for the suicidal emphasis on mediocracy and “all are welcome and equal”, the social poison of dei.
We left it before that, when we allowed Yhvh God to be kicked out of our schools and public institutions (courts and legislatures in particular) because some got offended. What they have dragged in, instead, I find highly offensive!
It depends if stopping illegal immigration makes ACB weep & wail as she said George Floyd compelled her to call her daughter downstairs so they could have good cry.
By the time of her hearing, it was known Floyd had not only overdosed, but had pistol-whipped a pregnant woman.
As a jurist, she’s supposed to weigh facts over her estrogen count.
Given her history, I fear her estrogen will do the talking.
(I hope I’m wrong.)
I’m willing to bet that many legal citizens in this country realize most of their rights but do they know that every right of a citizen carries a corresponding responsibility as well. Let the court decide this matter but honestly let’s hope all Americans will carry out this duty of good citizenship as well. God bless us as we approach this nation’s 250th anniversary.
I argue that illegal aliens are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because by entering illegally they are actively and intentionally AVOIDING US jurisdiction. They work without authorization. They steal the identities of US citizens to be able to maneuver without declaring themselves truthfully to US authorities. They steal social welfare assistance that they are not entitled to. They drive without licenses or insurance as all US citizens have to, and they avoid responsibility/payment for accidents they cause. When they commit crimes, they often are not prosecuted (yeah, I know it is b/c of Soros DAs, but still.) When they are ordered deported, that fail to depart as US immigration judges have ordered. They are literally OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US political and legal authority. The fact that they sometimes are arrested and prosecuted does not invalidate my point.
Maybe someone should point that out to SCOTUS.
When the Goths and Visigoths invaded the Roman Empire, it marked the end of Pax Romana, the same thing is happening here in the US, begun in massive waves by Joseph Biden’s unconstitutional opening of the borders to illegals, most of whom have no intention of assimilating, we must assume. We must agree with two premises: 1: Deport the non-citizen who is here illegally. 2. Do not permit their children who are born here to become citizens’ automatically. If the SJC permits this, then it is time for a revolution, because this falls into the Democratic ideology of leading this country down the Road to Serfdom. It is a backhanded way to accumulate a majority of voters to overwhelm the right and ditch Constitutional governance.
Saul Alinsky to the nines.
Yes, as Mark Levin always says, this is revolution by immigration. The democrats are all for this because they need to change the electorate.
The “Chinese – American Birthing Industry” has created thousands of Chinese “U. S. Citizens” raised and educated in China, who are/will be in the Chinese Military, all set to LEGALLY INVADE the USA! Congratulations to the far thinking Chinese! What a BRILLIANT plan! They got us to commit National Seppuku and not even realize it!!
Daniel, you’re a good man. And I’m certain you understand that democrats don’t give a damn. I would even venture to say that democrats only gave a damn about a supreme court ruling when that ruling favors their agenda.