[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Birthright citizenship in the United States Current U.S. law Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States Constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[10] Statute, by birth within U.S. United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: "
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians. John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha. The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the US Constitution; however no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed the majority opinion offered on Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment, but has been rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians due to the Act of Congress.
Indian Citizenship Act The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9. #1. To: Justified, vicomte13 (#0) This should be a slam dunk case for the Supreme court. It would be if only Vic wasn't going around raising rats like Ginsburg from the dead.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1) It would be if only Vic wasn't going around raising rats like Ginsburg from the dead. God raised a mouse from the dead. I was merely present. Not sure what that has to do with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The text of the 14th Amendment is clear, and it applies here. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I expect an 8-1 ruling that Birthright Citizenship is what the 14th Amendment says. Thomas will say no. Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh will all agree with me. Not sure about Gorsuch, maybe 7-2. This fight is not going to be won like this. We have to patrol the border and wall it, and enforce existing law to stop illegal immigration. Messing around with the Constitution's plain words is not going to fly - the court, 7-2 at worst, and maybe 9-0, will say that the 14th Amendment's plain English bestows birthright citizenship on illegal aliens, because it does.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction. That is a fact proven by the easy to understand words and the words of the people who wrote the fourteenth amendment. Which has the force of law but truthfully was never lawfully ratified.
#9. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#3) No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction. What jurisdiction was claimed to prosecute the killer of Kate Steinle; said killer being a bona fide illegal alien? The 14th Amendment speaks to the status of the newborn child, without respect to the parents of the child. The status of the newborn child is not affected by the parents being legal or illegal aliens. The child, at the time of birth, is in the United States and has never been anywhere else. The child is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless he or she is the child of persons such as officially recognized foreign diplomats or visiting royalty who enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction. The ratified words of the 14th Amendment are controlling.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. This was just a pre-election Trump troll.
Trump: I can eliminate birthright citizenship by Executive Order. As long as the Democrats are talking about Trump, they are not getting out any message of their own. A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.
Replies to Comment # 9. If they said all persons born on the United States you would be correct. I respectfully disagree with you.
#11. To: nolu chan (#9) (Edited) My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.
#12. To: nolu chan, vicomte13 (#9) Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.
#20. To: nolu chan (#9) A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided. I agree. To stop the illegal alien invasion we have to spend the money and the effort to wall and patrol the Border, and to patrol the workforce and punish businesses that hire illegals. The easy end-run won't work. Trump has started the conversation, and will move on immigration after the election - maybe even move for a constitutional amendment. (Probably not.) He can police the border, put the army there, throw up a wall, and heavily enforce border security. He's not going to be able to erase birth right citizenship.
#55. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, All (#9) The 14th was for and only slaves. It has been stated as such many times since. The Elk v Wilkins reaffirmed it. This is why we have the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 because even if born on American soil you are not a citizen. Im not sure how it could be any clearer. I believe even the writer of the 14th stated as much. The 14th has been bastardized to allow anyone born on US soil ie US Jurisdiction to be US citizen even though they really are under the jurisdiction of the parents country. I think people really have to tie themselves into a legal pretzel to say otherwise.
JMHO
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|