• 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

Those mentioned in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, were not

Those mentioned in CHAP. CCCXXXII. - An Act to abolish the tribal Relations of the Miami Indians, March, 1873. And for other Purposes were not

Nor was Richard Greisser, who was born on American soil whose father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth and was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Richard Greisser wasn't born an American citizen because he was born before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
 
I dont know anything about the taxes...feel free to post the law so I can examine it.
You want me to cite a law that says who we don't tax? I don't think it works like that.

And those are legal consequences and he can be held or deported.
But he cannot be charged with treason because we do not have full jurisdiction over him. We can even charge an American citizen with treason for levying war against US forces in a foreign country. We cannot for the foreign soldier because he owes us no allegiance and we do not have jurisdiction over him.

A man cant be charged with having an abortion in a red state either....some charges dont apply to every situation or circumstance. Yes or no?
I'm not sure why the biological impossibility for a man to get pregnant should have some bearing on an alien's lack of obligation to a sovereign.
 
You want me to cite a law that says who we don't tax? I don't think it works like that.

I cant respond about something I know nothing about then.

But he cannot be charged with treason because we do not have full jurisdiction over him. We can even charge an American citizen with treason for levying war against US forces in a foreign country. We cannot for the foreign soldier because he owes us no allegiance and we do not have jurisdiction over him.

Who says someone has to be charged with everything? I gave you an example with abortion.

Just because the specific charge is different doesnt mean they arent subject to our jurisdiction and the legal consequences that come with that.

I'm not sure why the biological impossibility for a man to get pregnant should have some bearing on an alien's lack of obligation to a sovereign.

Are you are being intentionally obtuse, I hope, because the alternative is pretty sad. We were discussing being subject to US jurisdiction. I was showing that sovereignty doesnt make a difference because it's about being held accountable (legally) and subject to actual legal consequences, not the name of the charge.
 
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.
What she said is a matter of opinion. A Judges job is to issue an opinion based on the law. Perhaps she got it wrong, perhaps not. That does not make it a lie.

It's why we have an appeals process.
 
Judge shopping is an art with the left.
Apparently, there's a couple of GOP congress critters currently drafting Articles of Impeachment on two judges
D.C. Circuit Paul Engelmayer, and District Judge RI, McConnell

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...eachment-charge/ar-AA1zJsGp?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Good for them. It'll keep them busy with an unwinnable chore which is much better then screwing up our government. Maybe they can set a record and get less done than the last congress.
 
Richard Greisser wasn't born an American citizen because he was born before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
I'm not sure what your point is relative to Greisser being found not a citizen of the United States.

Having been born a year before the 14th Amendment was ratified had absolutely zero to do with why he was not considered a United States citizen. This fact is emphatically pointed out by our Supreme Court 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."


Richard Greisser’s father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, and by the very purpose of the 14th Amendment, to exclude "citizens or subjects of foreign States", was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .”
 
Last edited:
What she said is a matter of opinion. A Judges job is to issue an opinion based on the law.
Judge Boardman is either lying, or is incompetent to be a federal judge in view of what she wrote:

“Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

It is neither the “law”, nor “tradition” that “. . . virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.” By existing unwritten federal “policy” yes, but not by the law or tradition.

Judge Boardman apparently disagrees with Trump changing existing federal public policy, and has used her office of public trust to obstruct changing public policy which the people approved of when electing Trump. Therefore, Boardman is also subjugating the very purpose of our elections, which are designed to accommodate for change by the people’s vote.
 
Are all the racists still outraged?

Good.
 
You've been told this before, but here we go on what I'm sure will be a pointless ride again: Plyler dealt with the "within its jurisdiction" clause, not the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
There is no difference. It’s why everyone born on US soil is a citizen except for children of diplomats. It’s also why everyone on US soil can be arrested, charged, tried and incarcerated except diplomats with immunity. It’s also why trumps EO has died in court.
 
I'm not sure what your point is relative to Greisser being found not a citizen of the United States.

Having been born a year before the 14th Amendment was ratified had absolutely zero to do with why he was not considered a United States citizen. This fact is emphatically pointed out by our Supreme Court 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."


Richard Greisser’s father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, and by the very purpose of the 14th Amendment, to exclude "citizens or subjects of foreign States", was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .”
Had he been born after the 14th he would have been a citizen.
 
Judge Boardman is either lying, or is incompetent to be a federal judge in view of what she wrote:

“Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

It is neither the “law”, nor “tradition” that “. . . virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.” By existing unwritten federal “policy” yes, but not by the law or tradition.

Judge Boardman apparently disagrees with Trump changing existing federal public policy, and has used her office of public trust to obstruct changing public policy which the people approved of when electing Trump. Therefore, Boardman is also subjugating the very purpose of our elections, which are designed to accommodate for change by the people’s vote.
It is settled constitutional law that every child born on US soil is a citizen, with the sole exception being children of diplomats with immunity.
 
Doesnt look like it answers the question.
Senator Lyman Trumbull was one of the two principle authors of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. Here's what he had to say:

capture.webp

The most important bits relevant to this discussion are highlighted.
 
There is no difference. It’s why everyone born on US soil is a citizen except for children of diplomats. It’s also why everyone on US soil can be arrested, charged, tried and incarcerated except diplomats with immunity. It’s also why trumps EO has died in court.
Such a shock, that it has fallen again on your deaf ears.

Even less shocking is your contention that a court case about a particular clause should be applied in exactly the same manner to a different clause with different language. Hey, let's take a look at this commerce clause case to see what we should think about this provision in the third amendment about quartering troops!
 
It is settled constitutional law that every child born on US soil is a citizen, with the sole exception being children of diplomats with immunity.
Even this isn't true. Invading soldiers are not diplomats, yet children they father or birth in the US are not citizens of the US. You don't know as much as you think you do.
 
Are they within the legal jurisdiction of the United States?
"Within" is not synonymous with "subject to."

If yes, then the 14th Amendment applies. If no, then they obviously can't be deported.
Fun fact: people not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US can be deported. Diplomats who piss of their host country enough (including the US Government) can have their status revoked by that country and expelled. There isn't even one level of "diplomatic immunity," either. Which diplomats are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and which aren't?
 
Just because the specific charge is different doesnt mean they arent subject to our jurisdiction and the legal consequences that come with that.
What legal consequence does an alien face for engaging in lawful warfare against the United States? None. Because he owes us no allegiance.

Are you are being intentionally obtuse, I hope, because the alternative is pretty sad. We were discussing being subject to US jurisdiction. I was showing that sovereignty doesnt make a difference because it's about being held accountable (legally) and subject to actual legal consequences, not the name of the charge.
A man cannot be charged with having an abortion for the same reason a man with no arms cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to submit to fingerprinting. Neither has anything to do with establishing whether an alien is subject to our complete jurisdiction or owes us allegiance.
 
What legal consequence does an alien face for engaging in lawful warfare against the United States? None. Because he owes us no allegiance.

Execution, imprisonment, deportation.

A man cannot be charged with having an abortion for the same reason a man with no arms cannot be charged with obstruction for refusing to submit to fingerprinting. Neither has anything to do with establishing whether an alien is subject to our complete jurisdiction or owes us allegiance.

Here's the relevant example. A woman has an abortion and may be charged with murder. A man harms a woman and kills her fetus and may be charged with murder. Still murder but the perpetrators are completely different.
 
I'm not sure what your point is relative to Greisser being found not a citizen of the United States.
Who knows why you think the 14th Amendment is irrelevant in a debate about the 14th Amendment?

Having been born a year before the 14th Amendment was ratified had absolutely zero to do with why he was not considered a United States citizen. This fact is emphatically pointed out by our Supreme Court 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."
That was an observation, not a ruling. And it was in regard to citizens of the U.S. without regard to their citizenship of any particular State. The Slaughter-House cases resolved issues pertaining to privileges and immunities, not birthright. Prior to the 14th Amendment, to be born a U.S. citizen, the baby's parents needed to be U.S. citizens at the time of their birth. That disqualified Greisser. The 14th Amendment changed that by eliminating the requirement of needing parents to be U.S. citizens.

Richard Greisser’s father was a "German subject" at the time of Richard’s birth, and by the very purpose of the 14th Amendment, to exclude "citizens or subjects of foreign States", was found to not be “. . . a citizen of the United States . . .”
The birthright clause of the 14th Amendment does not exclude all foreigners. Just ones who are not subject to our jurisdiction.
 
Even this isn't true. Invading soldiers are not diplomats, yet children they father or birth in the US are not citizens of the US. You don't know as much as you think you do.
Because invading soldiers are not subject to our jurisdiction.
 
Back
Top Bottom