It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

" According to whom?

Cause apparently the 14th amendment begs to differ."


Defining the EXACT Meaning of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is UNDEFINED . The SCOTUS Could Settle this Difference of Interpretation in a Matter of Minutes if Petitioned to do So by the American People . STAY TUNED ...........
edit on 3-11-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
So as you brought up that this is not enough, so what then does that make the presidents oldest children, Don, Eric, and Ivanka? After all Ivana was not a US citizen at the time of their birth, so does that mean that Trumps oldest children would be stripped of their citizenship?

Follow along, legal permanent residents are already settled in the Ark case.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Jurisdiction has already been defined.


This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." 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.

edit on 3-11-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

" the jurisdiction thereof. "

That is a Vague Definition concerning Foreign Nationals being Pro-creators within the Confines of U.S. Territory .



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I'm not sure if you guys have read this amazing article from Coulter, but I suggest you do.

She's far more knowledgeable about this topic than any of you.

www.anncoulter.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Look in my previous post, "the jurisdiction thereof" has been defined by the Supreme Court. It is not vague. The bold part.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
I'm not sure if you guys have read this amazing article from Coulter, but I suggest you do.

She's far more knowledgeable about this topic than any of you.

www.anncoulter.com...

I have actually cited and sourced more information than is in her article. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) defines what jurisdiction means in the 14th amendment. I have sourced it's meaning a few posts up.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Follow the law: The law, including the 14 amendment has always followed Jus Soli and not Jus Sanguinis.

And if there is any doubt in what was meant then perhaps this will help, the very words of the men who wrote and debated this very amendment in the congress from that time:
Mr. doolittle. I will ask the Senator from Maine this question: if Congress, under the Constitution now has the power to declare that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States," what is the necessity of amending the Constitution at all on this subject?
Mr. fessenden. I do not choose that the Senator shall get off from the issue he presented. I meet him right there on the first issue. If he wants my opinion upon other questions, he can ask it afterward. He was saying that the committee of fifteen brought this proposition forward for a specific object.
Mr. doolittle. I said the committee of fifteen brought it forward because they had doubts as to the constitutional power of Congress to pass the civil rights bill.
Mr. fessenden. Exactly: and I say, in reply, that if they had doubts, no such doubts were stated in the committee of fifteen, and the matter was not put on that ground at all. There was no question raised about the civil rights bill.
Mr. doolittle. Then I put the question to the Senator: if there are no doubts, why amend the Constitution on that subject?
Mr. fessenden. That question the Senator may answer to suit himself. It has no reference to the civil rights bill.
Mr. doolittle. That does not meet the case at all. If my friend maintains that at this moment the Constitution of the United States, without amendment, gives all the power you ask, why do you put this new amendment into it on that subject?
Mr. howard. If the Senator from Wisconsin wishes an answer, I will give him one such as I am able to give.
Mr. doolittle. I was asking the Senator from Maine.
Mr. howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the right of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
SOURCE: Congressional Register, 1866.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Sorry, your claim is meaningless. I quoted the SC and their rulings on the 14th amendment in 1884. Your posts about freed slaves have literally nothing to do with illegal immigrants.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Every court case I have quoted was from the US Supreme court, and their rulings on the 14th amendment. And the post that I have put down, has every thing to do with illegal immigrants.

So here is the thing, do tell how the Elk V Wilkens have any real bearing on illegal immigrants. If anything it would have far more of a bearing on those born in one of the territories, like Guam, or the US Virgin Islands or even Puerto Rico, than those on US soil.

in Elk V. Wilkens, it was a Native American person who was looking at being a US citizen, coming from Native lands and not an illegal immigrant.

If anything, the Ark case would have far more bearing and added to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo also would have a direct play on this as well.

Not to mention the various court cases, when it came to denying the children of illegal immigrants education or social services, where the courts have sided with the idea, that such children could very well by virtue of their birth in the US to be citizens and to deny them such would violate their rights.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Every court case I have quoted was from the US Supreme court, and their rulings on the 14th amendment.


That's funny because Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 102 (1832) seems to be before the 14th was even passed.

Elk V. Wilkens deals directly with the 14th amendment and what jurisdiction means and why someone who was born on US soil was NOT a US citizen. I know you want to ignore what the SC said, but they said it.

Courts have said you can't deny children services citizen or not citizen.



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

While it is true that Levy and McCartee, (1832) did happen before the 14th was passed, its precedent to this case, would show that a person born on the soil of that country, would be a citizen of that country, with all rights. That is what the justices did state in that case.

And yes Elk V. Wilkens did deal with the 14th amendment, but made irrelevant after the passage of the law that made all Native Americans legal citizens in the USA, thus taking it out of the legal case and sense.

So if the courts have said you can not deny services to children, be it that they are citizens or non citizens, then it would also go along the same lines that those same children, even those who are born on US soil to illegal immigrants, would be thus considered, US citizens, entitled to the same rights and protections, as those who were born to parents who are citizens or legally here in the USA.



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

None of what you are saying is true. How in the world you think a SC ruling is invalid is beyond me. It's not. The definition of jurisdiction has not changed.

Additional laws have been created dealing with native Americans. There are no additional laws dealing with illegals to invalidate the SC ruling.

Like I said before, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't said and you can ignore it.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yet you have not shown how the Elkins case has any relation to the case presented here, which are people who are born of this country, to parents who are here both illegally and legally.

And in the case of Elkins, it became null, from a standpoint of use, due to the fact that the congress passed a law that stated that Native Americans were citizens, entitled to full benefits of being a citizen.

The question is this: What case can you cite, or find that would justify the Jus Sanguinis point of citizenship, and are you prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision for years to come, of having to pay for the lawsuits that will come from such?



new topics




 
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join