ZeldaJ

@MiddleFringe @LaddSoftball @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 The Wong Kim Ark ruling clearly gave birthright citizenship to only the children of foreign parents who are permanently domiciled in the US. That excludes the children of illegal aliens and foreigners only temporarily present in the US (temporary visa, tourism). The WKA holding:

@SDS142J @LaddSoftball @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 The Devereaux decision was an administrative, executive branch action by the 1890 Justice Department. It was never a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court weighed in on the issue eight years later in favor of birthright citizenship.

Evidence against the current interpretation of birthright citizenship (being challenged by the Trump admin before SCOTUS): If anyone who is born on US soil is automatically a citizen, then why did Congress need to enact a statute granting citizenship to Native Americans?

@LaddSoftball @MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Howard's Act is not unconstitutional. 14th Amendment Section 5 grants Congress this authority. For example, look up the Snyder Act which granted Native Americans birthright citizenship in 1924. Prior to then, NAs didn't have 14th Amendment birthright citizenship.

That ACT was Senator Howard again just mere months before this. Congress over rode Presidents veto. Your belief in Howard using that (his) ACT as law is a taking and giving of a right, unconstitutional. Using the unconstitutional ACT as declaratory law “precedent” is a double whamy. The inequities of indentured servants and slavery was its own unique hideous time, characterized by lacking of any rights or ability to flee. They were prisoners brought here originally not on their own accord to work/slave their lives and the lives of their posterity. The slave etc were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consitution per se Hence Civil War and reconstructive amendments addressing this specific unresolved issue. The same lack of jurisdiction of inalienable rights goes towards illegal entry. Now there are “Acts” that address all types of immigration but can’t find in those acts stating and amendment that inalienable rights or the 14th applies So how does one that has no citizenship (Jurisdiction of Rights) convey that to another? It’s not a thing. We can make an Amendment going forward just as we did in the Reconstruction Amendments for slaves indentured servants along with their current and future posterity. The only statement to birth right is the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution “posterity” and it’s not an act or amendment but a statement. The IX protects that statement again 100%. Even if the Reconstruction Amendments stated verbatim “every single last person born here be it for any reason” ….be it a year 50yrs or 300yrs later one can challenge the Supreme Courts interpretation on rulings. It’s not a right or a left issue It is fully & soley an individual U.S. Citizen’s Right. Again it is codified in the IX -only a U.S. citizen right and government itself has no authority cart blanch. The Constitution spells out authority of Gov after opening rights. Section VIII “ To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” to the extent a naturalized citizen does not have full citizen rights Article II section 1 “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” limitations” this goes 100% towards posterity of a “citizen” at time of adoption.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Could the US make treaties with Sweden or Japan? Yes. Therefore, they are the same. Read Elk v. Wilkins. It makes this perfectly clear. The Court noted that Elk could not vote because he was not a 14th Amendment citizen and no specific act of Congress or treaty Naturalized him.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Ok, but you’re acting like tribes registered under US law were the equivalent of Sweden or Japan. The whole point was to keep children of tribe members (not even all Native Americans) from being automatic citizens. It’s just not the same thing.

"When you went for your America visa, did you tell the visa officer that you were pregnant" 🤰 ? "Babies born in the UK don't automatically qualify for British passport, but babies born in USA do automatically qualify for American Passport" "The pregnant woman did not make it to USA. When she failed to turn up at the America Embassy, the visa was cancelled" I don't know when this happened but this is wid. [📹 Border Force Caught in Action]

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy No. It's all in the Congressional archives. I've even explained the prior sentences in detail. You're just having an emotional reaction because the archived historical facts prove you wrong.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy It is needed for it to have the meaning you’re reading into it. But he didn’t mean to exclude all children of immigrants. Otherwise he would have objected when other senators said they would be citizens. Come on. Read 14A.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy The word "and" is not needed. The conjunction used is the word "but," specifically indicating a contrast from the preceding listed series. English 101.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy There is no “and” in there, no matter how much you want there to be

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Yes, Tribes were and are foreign sovereigns. The US has treaties with them. That's why the Snyder Act exists. There is no such Congressional Act making the citizens of any other foreign sovereign 14th Amendment birthright citizens.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Tribes weren’t “foreign” sovereigns, and that was the point. And you’re going to be disappointed in the result if you think it depends on how native Americans were treated by 14A

@LaddSoftball @MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Regarding Howard's sentences before the red circle:

Senators Howard opinion only. Read “his belief” only the sentences before your red circle. In his opinion he also believe the it is already the law, totally foolish & misguided; he never states were it was already law; again his own individual opinion The only place fully stated is in Preamble.

@LaddSoftball @MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 No. Not "his opinion only." Howard is the AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and he told Congress exactly what it means when he introduced it for ratification to Congress in 1866. Source: Library of Congress archives. I've already posted it.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy You lack reading comprehension skills. The word "but" is a conjuction, just as "and" is. English 101.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy It’s one category. There’s no “and,” and if there were, it would be ungrammatical. This is from a speech. Read it out loud. It will help you hear the meaning. And, again, this isn’t what 14A says.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Elk v Wilkins has to do with a person who though born in the US is the citizen of a foreign sovereign. SCOTUS ruled that such persons cannot be citizens of the United States without being naturalized, or made so by an act of Congress. That's why the Snyder Act (1924) exists.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy It says foreigners/aliens who belong to children of ambassadors. Ambassadors aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, so that makes sense. Immigrants are. And of course their kids are. Elk v Wilkins has to do with tribe members, not children of immigrants. Another swing and a miss.

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Finish the quote. The word BUT is a conjuction. In this context it means 1, 2, 3 do not apply BUT 4 does. English 101.

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 What a list would look like: "foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors..." What Howard actually said: "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors..."

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Incorrect. You cannot read plain English. It does NOT say "only the children of ambassadors are excluded from 14th Amendment citizenship" or anything like that. Proof: the Elk v. Wilkins decision.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy you have posted a quote that refers only to children of ambassadors; later in the debate, he mentions children of tribe members. This is really a very simple quote. But in any event, it isn’t the text of 14A. And that’s what the originalists will focus on. Sorry, chief.

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 I did. It's all in the archived quote. "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of" refers to the Civil Rights Act of 1866: "all persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER are citizens of the United States."

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Now finish the sentence…..🤦‍♂️🤡

@AttorneyCPA @Gianl1974 Indeed, WKA did in fact rule that parents must be permanently domiciled in the US. Illegal aliens aren't, nor are foreigners who are in the US on temporary or tourism visas. Their children are NOT 14th Amendment citizens. The legal holding, plain as day:

You need to read Wong Kim Ark again and better understand it. The SC NEVER ruled that “parents ‘have to be’ {must} permanently domiciled c in the US in order for their newly born child to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship.” In Wong Kim Ark, both sides simply stipulated to the fact that the parents were permanently domiciled in the US. SCOTUS never opined that absent this the new born would not be a US citizen.

IDIOT

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 English isn't your forte. I posted the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause's author on EXACTLY WHO it means per fhe archived Congressional record: "This of course will not include persons born in the US who are foreigners or aliens..."

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 English isn’t your forte, is it? It’s one class of people he is referring to. Not a redundant list of the same people. 🤦‍♂️😂🤡

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy 2) Regarding the Congressional archive of what Senator Howard (the author) said the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause means...

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy 1) I can read. You, apparently, cannot. I've posted the Congressional archive of exactly what Senator Howard (the author) said the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause means when he introduced it to Congress in 1866. And...

@Joshuad4045 @Brad31828 @MikeMorris3711 @kwakulotteryy Here's how Senator Howard (the author) introduced the 14th Amendment to Congress in 1866. The children of foreigners and aliens are excluded from 14th Amendment citizenship. Source: Library of Congress archives.

@Brad31828 @MikeMorris3711 @kwakulotteryy It’s funny because the exact opposite is true. Jacob Howard himself would disagree

@OpticalBuddy @rage_by72458 Incorrect. Wong Kim Ark ruled that one's foreign parents must be permanently domiciled in the US to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship. That excludes the children of illegal aliens and foreigners temporarily in the US. The legally binding precedent:

@rage_by72458 The 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. SCOTUS (Wong Kim Ark) ruled "jurisdiction" means obeying U.S. law, not political allegiance. An Executive Order cannot alter this 128-year-old constitutional precedent.

Congress explicitly codified the birthright principle into federal statutory law (the Immigration and Nationality Act), SO a president completely lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally alter citizenship rules through an executive order.