Posted on 01/07/2011 10:19:59 AM PST by moonshinner_09
At least you are bringing a little more candor to the table now. There has not been a case decided by the Supreme Court pertaining to illegal aliens. Even you admit Wong Kim dealt with legal aliens only.
We’re talking about illegals, which the states will handle while the Supreme Court takes its time.
The lower courts can do as they will, but the states still issue the birth certificates. The Supreme Court may end up having to take on either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment case, maybe even both.
I am very happy to see the states finally step up and press this issue. As I said before, once the Supreme Court does its investigating, the truth about illegals and the origination of Fourteenth Amendment will become clear. No more deceptions of Wong Kim and the original intent will be heard from sea to shining sea.
Oh, really? The Court said,"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."
The states issue birth certificates, but who is a citizen of the U.S. is a purely federal question. There is no Tenth Amendment issue here. The lower federal courts will rule, and that will be it.
I am very happy to see the states finally step up and press this issue. As I said before, once the Supreme Court does its investigating, the truth about illegals and the origination of Fourteenth Amendment will become clear. No more deceptions of Wong Kim and the original intent will be heard from sea to shining sea.
If it ever does get to SCOTUS, which I strongly doubt because there will be no split in the lower courts, I expect a 9-0 ruling that Wong Kim Ark appplies to children of illegals.
If you believed that, you would not be so fearful of the Supreme Court taking the case. You would relish the thought as much as I do. There are strict constructionists on the bench right now and I’m sure they will go right to the original source and let all know what they find.
To be honest, I don’t know how the full court would rule, but I do know that the truth would come out and all those who ignore the intent of the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment will have to hear the truth.
Really. The entire definition, in context.
There may be four votes on scotus to uphold Wong Kim Ark, IE that feudal English Law applies and therefore as childen of illegal trespassers the children do not have citizenship...
The four nutcases and the one liberal, Kennedy, will certainly reject it and embrace some new rigamarole that will give citizenship.
There may be four votes on scotus to uphold Wong Kim Ark, IE that feudal English Law applies and therefore as childen of illegal trespassers the children do not have citizenship...
The four nutcases and the one liberal, Kennedy, will embrace some new rigamarole that will give it to them.
The entire decision is here.
Where did I say I was fearful of the Supreme Court hearing the case? I just doubt they will, simply because there is no split among the lower courts.
To be honest, I don’t know how the full court would rule, but I do know that the truth would come out and all those who ignore the intent of the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment will have to hear the truth.
The authors of the 14th Amendment could not possibly have had any intent about illegal aliens because there was no illegal immigration at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified. The borders were legally open to all.
You're totally misreading Wong Kim Ark. The majority, following English law, said that children born on U.S. soil to alien parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and thus citizens.
When seven plus states come out challenging the interpretation of the lower courts, the Supreme Court will have little choice but to make its views known. In fact, the court that ruled against Arizona should have been the Supreme Court, not a lower court. When the states begin to stand up for their rights, the Supreme Court will have to start doing its job.
When there is confusion in the law and the original meaning of an amendment has been abandoned for popular opinion, conservatives who believe in the application of the law as intended want the Supreme Court to do its job. You are obviously not a lover of the original intent. You have no desire for them to look at the original intent of the law at all. If everything is as you say, what is there to lose? But if it isn’t as you say, maybe your way of understanding will be lost forever. That appears to be the fear you have.
As for who they had in mind for the Amendment, it is well documented that there is only one group they had in mind when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment, that is the slaves who had no other country of origin to interfere with US jurisdiction and cause the double allegiance that would negate being subject to the jurisdiction of the US, [”meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”] All illegals are subject to some other jurisdiction and therefore are not completely, and wholly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to them.
The matricular IDs I previously mentioned to you are a form of jurisdictional interference. Also Mexico protesting the death penalty on behalf of Mexican nationals (all Mexican illegals) is a form of interference in jurisdiction. Once again, these things preclude them from claiming to be subject to the jurisdiction. They are only subject insomuch as their government allows them to be subject, so they are not actually subject. See inside the [ ] above.
Since you seem to fear the Supreme Court upholding the original intent of the amendment, I can only assume that you have some fear of the truth. Perhaps you have a reason for this fear or perhaps it just some baseless fear on your part. Whatever the case, I’m looking forward to the states pressing the Court on this matter.
Read the links at my post # 50. You’ll get a better grasp of the actual truth.
"In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter."
So I don't quite understand what you mean by better grasp.
Here are some other links you might find interesting:
Was Wong Kim Wrongly Decided:
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Thanks for the links. We’re on the same page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.