Anchor Babies

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a legal permanent domicile and legal residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

> whose parents have a legal permanent domicile and legal residence in the United States
> whose parents have a legal permanent domicile and legal residence in the United States
>LEGAL

It does, according to letter of the law.

I listen to Mark Levin. He os spot on constitutionally. This is a highlight from last night.

>Tuesday’s Mark Levin show, there’s been no law passed or Supreme Court decision that conveys birthright citizenship onto illegal aliens. Paul Ryan claimed the 14th Amendment creates the birthright citizenship and that therefore an executive order by President Trump would be unconstitutional. Not until the 1960's has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. The president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment

Exactly, but the problem at the time was that Chinese couldn't become citizens because California was racist af. Question: Would the US have jurisdiction since California refuses to cooperate with federal authorities regarding illegals?

The legal precedent is based on English common law and is mostly a practical thing. He can't change it and the Supreme Court will most likely not take the case at all and defer to whatever the district Court ruling against it is

Good stuff

>The legal precedent is based on English common law
So, if my wife drops a baby on vacation in London, my baby is British if I want him to be?

>Exactly, but the problem at the time was that Chinese couldn't become citizens because California was racist af. Question: Would the US have jurisdiction since California refuses to cooperate with federal authorities regarding illegals?

nigger, you just went crazy

the left got abortion by judicial fiat, thats how we have to get a common aense change the evil cunt dems will never allow because they hate america.

according to wiki
United Kingdom: Since 1 January 1983, at least one parent must be a British citizen or be legally "settled" in the country or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status (see British nationality law).

A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[5] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[

>there is no SCOTUS precedent granting citizenship to anchor babies of illegal aliens
the supreme court has NEVER taken up this question
>all SCOTUS law is based on people born to parents in the country LEGALLY

The EO will be enacted, then challenged, then lower courts will prevent the EO from being implemented until the SCOTUS can hear the case and SCOTUS, manned by 2 Trump appointees at minimum, will finally be forced to rule on the question of illegals' anchor babies

That’s much stricter than what we do. Interestingly, an Irish user in a thread a night ago said Ireland had the anchor baby policy like we do, and that they actually changed it because they were getting swamped. Are we the last country to get on board, lol?

Andrew Jackson that shit.

Law is downstream from culture. Over 80% of us want anchor babies to come to an end. It WILL happen.

Donald Trump just previewed his new 2020 campaign slogan!

Attached: MAGA VOTE.png (758x565, 310K)

ban these unneeded spawns, 90% of illegal immigrants come here to breed like rats and turn the US into something that look like south america

>>LEGAL
sounds like "subject to the jurisdiction" to me as opposed to non-legal such as someone who has either been admitted on a temporary basis to petition for refugee status or another who has just rushed the border. Neither of the latter's children born while on US soil have any constitutional claim to US Citizenship.

Levin is a great guy and brilliant mind and Paul Ryan a is a disgusting shit who should vanish.

Attached: Ryan_LeVey.jpg (500x375, 41K)

What would the status of the children born to diplomatic staff working in USA? Are they automatically citizens of the USA as well?

Fox is controlled opposition.

I am afraid this user is correct, and the court will dodge it. They have a track record of sidestepping huge cases.

There are FOUR countries on the face of the Earth that have jus soli citizenship. USA, Canada, and two shitholes in Africa that nobody would want to steal citizenship from anyways.

What would the status of the children born to diplomatic staff working in USA? Are they automatically citizens of the USA as well?

Fox news is controlled opposition. They cuck out when it comes to any issue that is actually meaningful.

>I am afraid this user is correct, and the court will dodge it
Not with Kennedy gone.

No they aren't

What does the T stand for?

It's true.

Fox is hard Jew loving neo-cuckservative, except for Tucker. Tucker will be fired after the mid-term.

Attached: fhy111ehf -- 0683 -- ymb111fpp'.jpg (630x565, 23K)

I like Tucker, but he is definitely shabbos goyim. he got red faced and started talking over an advocate of banning circumcision that he invited on the show. The guy was making too much sense and I could tell there was a jew screaming into his earpiece.

fox news is owned by News Corp, not 20th Century Fox

>firing their 2nd-highest rated primetime host

Attached: 1535505778440.gif (448x308, 188K)

it doesn't matter. Trump issues the order, it's taken to court and eventually ends up in front of the SCOTUS. Then my boy Brett piledrives Ginsburg through the bench, slams a beer, declares birthright citizenship horseshit, and orders that all of next year's tax money be spent buying every white man, woman and child in the nation a rifle.

Attached: 1539475087845.gif (320x240, 991K)

Dude, tucker is great. The icegate op-ed piece he wrote was the best thing I had ever read from fox news. it was so savage

It does for now.
Next week maybe not.

Same thing happened with the muslim ban idea. Trump's just ahead of the curve and it takes a while before everyone else catches up and starts seeing his political stances as normal.

So what is the difference? Why do the children of border jumpers get citizenship and not working people?

kek

fow jews? shocking

This.
Even if we don't get it, we should be ramping up the memes and conflict over this.
We have to make MAGAtards and mainstream conservatives realize how subversive this law is.
I am talking about bringing this thing to a constitutional amendment process if possible.
When the right inevitably does not get enough votes to change the constitution, we can start drawing lines between us and them by hardcore meming the demographic data and the reality of why it didn't pass.
This will harden people in their position and begin discussions about the legitimacy of the UD government.
Good stuff right now.

Attached: 1541003002155.jpg (640x498, 60K)

That’s why the issue will be pushed to the supreme court, where the conservative majority will pass new legislation banning anhcor babies and chain immigration.

(((fox news))) is controlled opposition.
(((Their))) final solution to world rule is to fill every country with retarded shitskins that can't fight back. Of course (((fox news))) would be against anything that might make a country less shitskin filled.

No, but they can automatically get permanent resident status (green card).

Proof:
uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat

Nope. They can get greencards, though.
uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat

If you're born on American soil then you're American. This isn't rocket science you retarded Trumpcucks. Ending Birthright citizenship would harm us more then the illegals you retarded faggot dumbshits

If their parents arent us citizens they dont fall under us law

If an undocumented migrant crosses the border and kills someone are they subject to the jurisdiction of this country?

Judge Napolitano is a nearly illiterate dumbfuck that thinks his crooked, veiny nipples=a right to park in handicap spaces...

the 14th amendment was meant to protect freed slaves...nothing else...

Attached: untitled4.png (1243x1143, 1.99M)

Are you pretending?

Shills sucking each other off.
Trump is right and I fully support ending that bullshit birthright citizenship.

>be me
>work for a Texas' welfare agency
>do a study of hospital workers
>shadow three on various work days
>day in and day out
>one fucking illegal alien shitting out anchor babbys after another
>endless list of gibs for these moms
>who ALL just happen to be single and 14 or 15
>feed food!
>free healthcare!
>free babbycare!
>free education!!
>meanwhile the one white couple that had babby and asked for assistance was rejected.
>made too much monies!
>it was a revolting experience and made me turn my back on illegal immigrants

DIE ANCHOR BABBYS AND THEIR WETBACK MOMMYS

The only opinion that matters is the one SCOTUS shits out if this makes it to them.

ty for posting the obvious

Attached: untitled002.png (399x385, 232K)

>Ending Birthright citizenship would harm us

How faggot? Convince me.

Attached: glenn-beck pull my finger.jpg (333x500, 45K)

Yeah that's the point, it's a compromise for us sheep. They want us divided but not this polarized, that's just bad for business.

>ty for posting the obvious

it's what i do best!

Attached: 1418238399118.jpg (473x480, 68K)

Answer the question.

>Ending Birthright citizenship would harm us more then the illegals
How, specifically?

Text is either clear or unclear, but in either event doesn't clearly say what Trump wants, and what makes sense. EO's cannot Amend the Constitution, we have a process for a reason.

obvious is under-rated in this world

Attached: untitled.png (500x402, 171K)

Do you want popular DC opinion deciding who is a citizen despite being born in the US?

>Anchor baby law has to go but if it happens the next liberal president will do the same to the 2nd amendment.
This will simply never happen, and it's a fairly lame shill tactic to imply it would. The 2 are not comparable.

If it's done by EO, and upheld, the precedent is set. Use the process offered, stop mystifying Parliamentary Procedure.

Attached: TalkLikeA.jpg (236x168, 12K)

Moron, doesn't matter if you are a citizen or illegal alien or a literal alien, if you are on US soil you are subject to the law

no...you are stupid to type that...

the 2nd is not the 14th

Attached: hmmm.png (465x200, 127K)

He's mistakenly using a terminology regarded for diplomats, by which we offer limited immunity (diplomatic immunity) on our shores. If his argument was correct, all illegals would be Attache's and while their children would not be citizens, they would have immunity for most misdemeanors.
Of course we have jurisdiction over illegals, otherwise we wouldn't be able to claim the territory and throw them out.

Attached: 2GenderKids.jpg (960x639, 107K)

Yes.

DC is mostly black people and foreigners, you can bet 100% on that.

It's going to be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

gropes for technicalities...gets sperm shot into face...is still wrong....fail

Attached: idiot.png (885x516, 477K)

Technicalities are what fire bullets. Don't play with law like it's a football.

Attached: sight_vs_bore_line.jpg (879x339, 132K)

You can’t be subject to the jurisdiction of a state, when you snuck in the back door, and the state doesn’t even know you are there.

Who gives a fuck what the propagandists say?

^gets metaphorical...is a dumbfuck...loser^

Attached: untitled012.png (249x249, 65K)

It shouldn't be, that would be the equivalent of asking them to amend. Just set the Amendment out, get it ratified, and move on. Stop asking for the wrong branches to fix what you're too afraid to do correctly.

Attached: ReadShoutListen.jpg (634x296, 20K)

They are scared

>turns his ass over and sees his face, turns his face over and everyone's confused by this point, shit in either event.

Attached: 1Race.jpg (399x583, 50K)

Birthright citizenship is a farce for the following reasons:

>If you are an American and have a baby overseas, that baby is a citizen of the United States.

>If you are a foreigner, and have a baby overseas (not in the US) that baby is still a foreigner.

>There is no law requiring you or your parents to report your birth to the US government. You could be delivered in a basement by your dad and never need to have a social security number, but you are still a citizen because your parents are citizens. This is easily provable, even without a birth certificate.

>Only a certified physician, midwife, obstetrician is required by law to issue a certificate of live birth.

>Obtaining a social security number as an adult citizen is merely paperwork proving your parents are and were citizens at the time of your birth.

>If your illegal parents deliver you in a basement, there is literally no way to prove that you were born in the US.

>Only a physician, midwife, or obstetrician can provide a certificate of live birth.

>Therefore, the mere act of being born on US soil IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CITIZENSHIP. A certificate of live birth is required for you to prove that you were born on US soil.

>The issue this presents is that what if a woman has her baby 25 feet from the US border in Mexico, then stumbles across the border. How do you prove that the child WASN’T born on US soil?

>Again, to summarize. The mere act of being born on US soil to foreigner parents is not sufficient for citizenship. It still MUST BE PROVEN that you were born on US soil. This is easily done at a hospital/detention facility in observance of medical professionals.

>the 2nd is not the 14th
That's my point, dumbass. Reread what I said.

These are great arguments, how should we word the Amendment so that we achieve what you want?

Attached: HowABill.jpg (599x700, 97K)

types on Jow Forums...swears she can read...

not sure

Attached: untitled87.png (395x401, 115K)

>Ingredients of Wrongful Gain:
>(i) There must be gain of some property;
>(ii) Gain must be by unlawful means;
>(iii) Person gaining must not be legally entitled to that property;

>A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.
>The words “gaining wrongfully” or ‘losing wrongfully’ need not be confined only to the actual acquisition or actual deprivation of property and would cover also cases of wrongful retention of property in one case and wrongfully being kept out of property in the other.

>A certificate of live birth is required for you to prove that you were born on US soil.
You, person, will deliver your first born to us, in our approved locations, or you won't really have a person as a child...
Hmm... National Registry anyone?

Attached: OtherMe.jpg (644x649, 50K)

quotes communist manifesto...sux dic daily

Attached: untitled44.png (221x320, 114K)

Protections of your own government are a Property, as the Institutions you Establish and Fund are part of the Property you have in your Rights.

fuck jefferson was a retard with no foresight. virtue signalling little faggot

no1 gives a fuc about you

Attached: mentally ill.png (920x595, 395K)

They're right. The 14th amendment destroyed the USA.

>I listen to Mark Levin
Kill yourself

This is how it's been interpreted thus far. Trump really shouldn't legally be able to change this with an executive order. This is as 'executive lawmaking' as you could possibly get. There is ambiguity, room for alternative interpretations, but that is the Judiciary's domain, not the Executives. The Legislature could also step in and attempt to explicitly contextualize it, but they'd be fighting the existing Judicial interpretation. Current informal doctrine on judicial review directs the SCOTUS to accept whatever plausible interpretation supports the legislation, so this might or might not work (if they feel like following that informal doctrine or not - this would definitely be a case inviting them to not).

If the President issues an order saying "These aztec invaders are not under my jurisdiction," then they're not under his jurisdiction.

If you go to any country and murder someone, are you subject to that jurisdiction's laws regarding murder? This is a stupid argument.

Fact is, illegals aren't subject to all those laws that a legal citizen is in the USA.

Illegals can not (among other things)
*Legally purchase/own a gun
*Peaceably assemble and redress the Government regarding grievances
* They aren't secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (which is why you can deport them)
*Many more instances too numerous to list
Any right for "the people" or afforded to a "person" (singular instance of the people) is for legal us citizens ONLY. If you aren't afforded those protections, you aren't under US jurisdiction.

Read the bill of rights for yourself if you don't believe me; go see how much of it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants and foreigners.