• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Boardman lies when blocking Trump’s E.O. restricting birth citizenship

Grizzly Adams said:
Yeah, and we can't charge an alien with it. Why? Because they do not owe us allegiance. And we are thus unable to exert full jurisdiction over them.


The question is not whether some other charge could be levied. If an alien enters the US and then decides to wear the uniform of a foreign power and engage in lawful acts of war against the United States, the worst thing we can do is hold him as a prisoner until the cessation of hostilities. We can charge a US citizen who does the same with treason. Because they are subject to our jurisdiction.


"Under" is not the same thing as "subject to."
Click to expand...

Assuming you're referring to someone who was born in the United States and subject to it's jurisdiction, they absolutely can be charged with Treason provided that the acts in question were committed after they reached adulthood.
 
Cordelier said:
Assuming you're referring to someone who was born in the United States and subject to it's jurisdiction, they absolutely can be charged with Treason provided that the acts in question were committed after they reached adulthood.
Click to expand...
Only because, by practice, they are deemed US citizens by virtue of being born here. Using that as a justification for obligating us to continue that practice is nothing short of a perfectly circular line of reasoning.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Only because, by practice, they are deemed US citizens by virtue of being born here. Using that as a justification for obligating us to continue that practice is nothing short of a perfectly circular line of reasoning.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm using the unambiguous text of the 14th Amendment.
 
johnwk said:
US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented facts and actually lied when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

Judge Boardman unforgivingly and falsely asserts, "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

The truth is, American citizens and their children will suffer an ever increasing irreparable harm if Trump’s Executive Order is enjoined and the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are continually recognized as citizens of the United States who are already taking over and overburdening the nation’s emergency health care rooms; public schools, public housing and even recreation facilities . . . all meant for America's needy citizens and their children.

How dare Judge Boardman intentionally close her eyes to the devastating consequences she knowingly inflicts upon American citizens and their children in her quest to recognize the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens are being made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic and social needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.
Click to expand...
So now you'd like all laws to be brought about royal edict?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And by "unambiguous" you, of course, mean "these clauses mean what I say they mean, despite non-trivial claims to the contrary that I can't explain away."
Click to expand...

You can spin it however you like. There's nothing ambiguous about the terms person, born, or in the jurisdiction of the United States - anywhere ICE can deport someone from is within the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
Cordelier said:
You can spin it however you like. There's nothing ambiguous about the terms person, born, or in the jurisdiction of the United States - anywhere ICE can deport someone from is within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...
As you decree, so must it be, apparently.
 
Crakhobarbie said:
So now you'd like all laws to be brought about royal edict?
Click to expand...


Heavens no! But I certainly embrace our system’s guarantee to elections which are meant to allow for public policy change which is expressed by “We the People” through our vote.

We suffered the devastating effects of the previous Democrat Leadership’s open border “edicts” for four long years under which our public schools, emergency care facilities, public housing, and even local recreation centers ___ all meant for the good citizens of the United States and their children ___ have been overrun with millions upon millions of the world’s poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals. And that doesn’t take into account other consequences (murder, rape, theft, property damage, etc.) inflicted upon American citizens under the open border “edicts” of the Democrat Party Leadership.

So, in answer to your question, I do embrace new public policy being put in place which advances the interests of American citizens and their children, so long as such policy is in harmony with the text of written constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

What is troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?
 
noonereal said:
Your post is fanatical.

FYI, i am against anchor babies and birthright citizenship.

Still, your post is fanatical.
Click to expand...
You are against people who are born in America being Americans? Why?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The status quo has been the way of the world for more than a century. While I think the administration's interpretation of the citizenship clause is not without merit, I also don't think the world is going to end if the current rules are maintained while this plays out in the courts. It also prevents mass confusion as to who was born when and who is a citizen or not.
Click to expand...

I keep writing that I'd rather see a discussion in the govt of the merits and drawbacks. I'm not even against changing birthright citizenship because I dont know all the angles.

But it should be a national examination and then Congress should act appropriately and thru proper process. If changes are needed to the 14th A, then do it properly.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
But if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anyone present within our borders can be charged with treason, regardless of their nationality, right?

Or maybe it's more complicated than "diplomat or 'subject to the jurisdiction'" after all?
Click to expand...

Not everything accorded citizens is accorded visitors to the US, legal or illegal. The latter cannot vote in national elections for example. And for acts against the US the US would indeed be able to subject them to our jurisdiction, it would be punishable...the charges would just be different. Just like spies.

It doesnt mean they arent subject to US jurisdiction. If that were the case, we couldnt take any action against them at all except kick them out of the country.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And by "unambiguous" you, of course, mean "these clauses mean what I say they mean, despite non-trivial claims to the contrary that I can't explain away."
Click to expand...

If they needed clarification, why wasnt more included in the wording?

Allegiance is meaningless in a legal sense here...it doesnt apply to natural born citizens...no one tracks or questions my allegiance and I could deny my allegiance is to the US with zero legal consequences. If a naturalized citizen, who does swear allegiance in their oath, decides later to say their allegiance is no longer to the US...nothing will happen to them. It's an expression of personal commitment, but not actionable.
 
Cordelier said:
If they were born here, they are American citizens too.

The 14th Amendment is unequivocal, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

What are you going to argue? That they aren't persons?
Click to expand...
The only amendment that counts is the 2nd. The rest should be shredded.
/S
 
Grizzly Adams said:
But if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anyone present within our borders can be charged with treason, regardless of their nationality, right?
Click to expand...
No
Grizzly Adams said:
Or maybe it's more complicated than "diplomat or 'subject to the jurisdiction'" after all?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not more complicated than that. As the Supreme Court had already told you.
 
johnwk said:
Yes it is . . . more complicated.


See the case of Richard Greisser not being a U.S. citizen and not entitled to a U.S. Passport
.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester letter which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.


Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington, November 28, 1885.
No. 26.]
Sir: Your No. 24, in regard to the request of Richard Greisser for a passport, has been received. In reply, I have to say that on general principles of international law I do not consider that Richard Greisser is a citizen of the United States. He was, it is true, born in 1867 in the State of Ohio. His father, however, was at that time a German subject, and, so far as we can gather from the facts stated, domiciled in [Page 815]Germany. The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father. Had he remained in this country till he was of full age and then elected an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality. But so far from this being the case, he left this country with his mother when he was under two years old, apparently joining the father in Germany, to which country the latter had previously returned, and then, after his father’s death, moved with his mother to Switzerland. His technical nationality and domicile would, therefore, during his minority and his father’s life, be in Germany, and afterwards in Switzerland.

It does not follow, however, that though on general principles of international law his nationality and domicile are in Germany, he may not in this country by force of our special legislation be a citizen of the United States and as such entitled to a passport. We have in the naturalization legislation of modern civilized states numerous illustrations of the rule that, the law of nations, as to particular matters, may be, as to such particular countries, either expanded or contracted by local legislation, and we have, therefore, to inquire how far the rule above stated is affected by the legislation of the United States.

By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 3866—

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

By the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868—

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 in which they reside.

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

I am, &c.,

T. F. BAYARD.
Click to expand...
Refuted already. Wong Kim Ark and plyler
V doe.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Those two cases do not apply. As you've been told already.
Click to expand...
But they do apply, as you’ve been shown. They are the controlling precedents regarding birthright citizenship and the meaning is subject to the jurisdiction. It’s why trumps EO is dead.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Hasn't been affirmed, as you've been told.
Click to expand...
Has been affirmed, as you’ve been shown. US v Wong Kim Ark and plyler v doe. It’s why trumps EO is dead.
 
rahl said:
Has been affirmed, as you’ve been shown. US v Wong Kim Ark and plyler v doe. It’s why trumps EO is dead.
Click to expand...
As you've been (repeatedly) shown, neither Ark nor Plyler are on point. As you've been shown, you've been shown. It's why you're wrong. You've been shown.
 
I just came here for the froth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom