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

[soap box]

Debunked. Neither are applicable.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite where the S.C. was called upon and took up the specific question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

The first case the judge in Seattle cited was issued years after the citations you posted. The judge cited the case that students read in law school textbooks.

I don't know what all those posts for the last three pages are about.

Are you saying it's your opinion the cases aren't applicable?

Or

You would judge this differently than the judge did because you believe illegal immigration is an emergency?

Or

Are you saying you don't agree with current law or that the judge is simply wrong?

Answer however you like, I can't be sure exactly what you're saying but wish I knew.

Actually, he cited three cases,


edit- Before she cited precedent, the judge said the government brought her a goose egg, calling it "losing arguments from over a century ago."

 

[Lursa]

Cite the statute by which Congress exercised its 14th Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority, granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

Then use the legal means to change the Constitution provides to create an Amendment that makes Trump's EO on this particular matter legal that is listed within the Constitution.

And if you can't...too ****ing bad for you.

Or, let me put it to you this way: if you let this stand and a future president decides an EO is in order over 2nd Amendment rights to restrict them, Trump will have created the precedence to do so.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But you know I’m not. It’s why trumps EO is dead.

This is a lie.

I accept your concession.

You're wrong. As you've been shown.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been.

Are there only two levels of jurisdiction then? All or none? Nothing else?

 

[Lursa]

Are there only two levels of jurisdiction then? All or none? Nothing else?

Does the 14th A specifiy any other for citizenship? If you'd like to source a definition for "complete" definition, I'd love to see it.

 

[rahl]

You're wrong. As you've been shown.

But you know I’m not, so why lie?

 

[rahl]

Are there only two levels of jurisdiction then? All or none? Nothing else?

There is only 1 type of jurisdiction.

 

[The AntiDonald]

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.

The judge did not lie, as you claim. She gave her assessment of the law as it's written. There is an appeal process. You should urge Trump to use it instead of attacking the judge. This is typical MAGA outrage. Instead of following procedures and norms, just attack the judicial process and attempt to intimidate.

 

[johnwk]

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been.

What does the fourteenth Amendment say with regard to a child born to a subject of a foreign country while on American soil? Is that child a United States citizen upon birth?

 

[johnwk]

The judge did not lie, as you claim. She gave her assessment of the law as it's written. There is an appeal process. You should urge Trump to use it instead of attacking the judge. This is typical MAGA outrage. Instead of following procedures and norms, just attack the judicial process and attempt to intimidate.

Judge Boardman certainly did lie.

Judge Boardman ignored the current devastating effects put upon American Citizens and their children by recognizing the offspring of illegal entrant foreign national as citizens, who then overburden 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.

And those devastating effects do not even take into account the financial draining of our Citizen’s federal and state treasuries being drained to accommodate the economic and social needs of newly born illegal entrant offspring which continues and expands during the injunction put upon American citizens by the E.O. in question.

Judge Boardman certainly did lie with respect to no harm being inflicted upon American citizens by placing an injection on Trump's E.O. The above cited consequences will continue, and American citizens will be harmed.

 

[johnwk]

Are there only two levels of jurisdiction then? All or none? Nothing else?

PROOF: child born on U.S. soil to foreign national is not U.S. citizen upon birth

The following evidence confirms a child born to a subject of a foreign country, (which obviously includes an illegal entrant foreign national) while on American soil is not a United States citizen upon birth.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington,

November 28, 1885.

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. (SOURCE)

 

[Ikari]

PROOF: child born on U.S. soil to foreign national is not U.S. citizen upon birth

The following evidence confirms a child born to a subject of a foreign country, (which obviously includes an illegal entrant foreign national) while on American soil is not a United States citizen upon birth.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester.
Department of State,
Washington,

November 28, 1885.

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. (SOURCE)

1885, but afterwards the Courts, including SCOTUS, have heard cases regarding birth right citizenship and ruled that those born here are US Citizens.

 

[Luce]

I'm just sitting here enjoying the rage.

 

[johnwk]

1885, but afterwards the Courts, including SCOTUS, have heard cases regarding birth right citizenship and ruled that those born here are US Citizens.

Well, without you citing the "cases" you mention and their specifics, we run into a dead end. I have been unable to find one Supreme Court case where the United States Supreme Court was called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth. What case, since 1885, are you referring to?

BTW, in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893), the court noted the Naturalization Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power ... [t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8, and went on to observe that the Naturalization Clause reflects the fundamental proposition, inherent in sovereignty, that “[e]very society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members.”

 

[Ikari]

Well, without you citing the "cases" you mention and their specifics, we run into a dead end. I have been unable to find one Supreme Court case where the United States Supreme Court was called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth. What case, since 1885, are you referring to?

The judge blocking the EO called out three, as was previously pointed out to you.

Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1942)

Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1942) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

law.justia.com

This case is exceptional because the sole question it presents to this court is one which has been definitely decided by the United States Supreme Court: Is a person of the Japanese race, born within the United States, a citizen? The question has been answered in the affirmative in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 281, 78 L. Ed. 664; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S. Ct. 884, 83 L. Ed. 1320.

Counsel for plaintiff frankly stated that he was asking this court to overrule the leading case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, because he believed the decision was erroneous. Since the decision was rendered it has been twice cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. California, supra, and in Perkins v. Elg, supra. In the Morrison case Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, said [291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 283, 78 L.Ed. 664]: "A person of the Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States." In the Perkins case, Chief Justice Hughes delivering the opinion, it was held that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.

 

[johnwk]

The judge blocking the EO called out three, as was previously pointed out to you.

Judge Boardman is engaging in misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.


In Neither of those cases was the United States Supreme Court called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

But in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893), the court noted the Naturalization Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power ... [t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8, and went on to observe that the Naturalization Clause reflects the fundamental proposition, inherent in sovereignty, that “[e]very society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members.”

Also note that under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress, not our Supreme Court, is authorized to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation" and that includes granting birthright citizenship to specifically identified groups as it did under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and earlier by CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes which set specific condition to be granted United States citizenship. . .( at the above link enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3.

That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

Additionally, our United States Supreme Court noted in 1872 in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36: The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

A few years after the above mentioned case, Richard Greisser born on American soil, whose father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .” SOURCE



So, when Judge Boardman asserts "We need not till the same ground more than a century later..." she blatantly exhibits an intentional defiance and negligence to abide by a fundamental duty stated by our Supreme Court:


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Ikari]

In Neither of those cases was the United States Supreme Court called upon to determine if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

But in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893), the court noted the Naturalization Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power ... [t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8, and went on to observe that the Naturalization Clause reflects the fundamental proposition, inherent in sovereignty, that “[e]very society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members.”

Also note that under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress, not our Supreme Court, is authorized to enforce the amendment by "appropriate legislation" and that includes granting birthright citizenship to specifically identified groups as it did under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and earlier by CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes which set specific condition to be granted United States citizenship. . .( at the above link enter 673 in box at top and press “Enter” on your keyboard)

“SEC. 3.

That if-any adult member of said tribe shall desire to become a citizen of the United States, shall prove by at least two competent witnesses, to the satisfaction of the circuit court of the United States for the State of Kansas, that he or she is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to manage his or her own affairs, and has, for the period of five years, been able to maintain himself or herself and family, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, and shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States, as provided by law for the naturalization of aliens, he or she shall be declared by said court to be a citizen of the United States, which shall be entered of record and-a certificate thereof given to said party.”

Additionally, our United States Supreme Court noted in 1872 in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36: The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

A few years after the above mentioned case, Richard Greisser born on American soil, whose father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .” SOURCE



So, when Judge Boardman asserts "We need not till the same ground more than a century later..." she blatantly exhibits an intentional defiance and negligence to abide by a fundamental duty stated by our Supreme Court:


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Well it looks like you have to take this to Congress, so the EO is still unconstitutional.

lol

 

[Lursa]

What does the fourteenth Amendment say with regard to a child born to a subject of a foreign country while on American soil? Is that child a United States citizen upon birth?

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been. So they dont affect the child's status.

 

[johnwk]

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been.

You are giving an interpretation of that passage, not what is written.

 

[Lursa]

You are giving an interpretation of that passage, not what is written.

I am using the meaning of the words written...not adding or subtracting anything. It's you that insists there is more "intended." That intent is NOT written in the words. Yes or no?

 

[johnwk]

I am using the meaning of the words written...

And how do you substantiate that 'meaning"?

What do you mean by "as anyone else born in the US is already a citizen"?

 

[Lursa]

And how do you substantiate that 'meaning"?

Feel free to use a dictionary and then tell me what "else" (according to you) is implied in the 14th A?

 

[johnwk]

Feel free to use a dictionary and then tell me what "else" (according to you) is implied in the 14th A?

The qualifier "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " are not irrelevant words. The qualifier must be met with respect to being recognized as a citizen of the United States.

 

[Lursa]

The qualifier "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " are not irrelevant words. The qualifier must be met with respect to being recognized as a citizen of the United States.

They're not irrelevant. Those born here are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (the US). I already explained why the qualifier is there. Do you not understand it? What part? (see immediately below)

The exception is children of diplomats because their legal status declares them not "subject yada yada yada"...and so the qualifier was added to except them.

Where are those born here excepted from the jurisdiction of the US?

It is written right here in Section 1:

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.​

It intentionally excepts the offspring of diplomats by including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as anyone else born in the US is a citizen. Your exceptions arent addressed, even tho they could have been.