Why the Supreme Court should find for the Judges power, and Birthright Citizenship.

[uptower]

The US population is growing.

"US population growth rate for 2023 was 0.49%, a 0.12% increase from 2022"

U.S. Population Growth Rate 1961-2025 | MacroTrends

Annual population growth rate for year t is the exponential rate of growth of midyear population from year t-1 to t, expressed as a percentage . Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.

www.macrotrends.net

Yes, right now. It will not do so indefinitely without immigration. Certainly not if trumpies get the white America they want while tanking the economy.

 

[newpublius]

Allegiance has exactly zero legal meaning. It’s completely irrelevant.

There is no such thing as partial or complete jurisdiction. Everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction with the sole exception being diplomats with immunity.

The 19th century writers tended to think of the term with an allegiance element so in Wong Kim Ark the court rules:

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Of course a person merely present but not resident would be subject to arrest for breaking a law.

 

[rahl]

The 19th century writers tended to think of the term with an allegiance element so in Wong Kim Ark the court rules:

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Of course a person merely present but not resident would be subject to arrest for breaking a law.

Allegiance is completely meaningless. Every single person on US soil with the sole exception being diplomats who have been granted immunity, are subject to US jurisdiction. Which is why every single child born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents status, with the sole exception being children of diplomats with immunity.

 

[newpublius]

Allegiance is completely meaningless. Every single person on US soil with the sole exception being diplomats who have been granted immunity, are subject to US jurisdiction. Which is why every single child born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents status, with the sole exception being children of diplomats with immunity.

Its not though, Wong Kim Ark is often thought of as the bedrock jus soli case and it really isn't. It stands for the proposition that the children of resident aliens are citizens.

"Every single person on US soil with the sole exception being diplomats who have been granted immunity, are subject to US jurisdiction."

Many in the 19th century including the framers of the XIV Amendment, caselaw subsequent in the 19th century, indeed there are even instances of white nonresident aliens giving birth and those children not considered citizens. Many writings about subject to the jurisdiction as contemplated in the 19th century unequivocally contains an allegiance element that is expressly noted in Wong Kim Ark.

 

[rahl]

Its not though, Wong Kim Ark is often thought of as the bedrock jus soli case and it really isn't. It stands for the proposition that the children of resident aliens are citizens.

It absolutely is.

"Every single person on US soil with the sole exception being diplomats who have been granted immunity, are subject to US jurisdiction."

Correct.

Many in the 19th century including the framers of the XIV Amendment, caselaw subsequent in the 19th century, indeed there are even instances of white nonresident aliens giving birth and those children not considered citizens.

The 14th is crystal clear.

Many writings about subject to the jurisdiction as contemplated in the 19th century unequivocally contains an allegiance element that is expressly noted in Wong Kim Ark.

Nope. Allegiance is completely meaningless. It has no legal relevance or meaning. Every single person on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction unless granted immunity by the state department. Immigration status is completely irrelevant.

 

[newpublius]

It absolutely is.

It isn't the court notes the parents being domiciled, the question presented to the court contains within it that the parents are domiciled, the ruling itself notes resident aliens. Its a ruling with respect to resident aliens.

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Correct.

That was your quote of course so you'll have to forgive me.


Case will come up of course and there's a decent possibility it can be interpreted to apply to the children of resident aliens.

 

[rahl]

It isn't the court notes the parents being domiciled, the question presented to the court contains within it that the parents are domiciled, the ruling itself notes resident aliens. Its a ruling with respect to resident aliens.

Nope. There was no such classification as “resident aliens” in 1898.

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Nope. Simple presence on US soil is all that is required. Plyler v doe.

That was your quote of course so you'll have to forgive me.


Case will come up of course and there's a decent possibility it can be interpreted to apply to resident aliens.

It applies to everyone. This has been litigated more than once already and the Supreme Court has already told you simple presence is all that is needed.

 

[newpublius]

Nope. There was no such classification as “resident aliens” in 1898.

You're wrong, the case expressly notes resident aliens, not just domiciled, the actual term 'resident aliens' IS used.

Nope. Simple presence on US soil is all that is required. Plyler v doe.

Plyler v Doe is NOT a citizenship case and is about children NOT born here. TX had to let those children attend school, but the case had nothing to do with demanding those children be granted citizenship.

 

[rahl]

You're wrong,

I’m not.

the case expressly notes resident aliens, not just domiciled, the actual term 'resident aliens' IS used.

There was no such thing as resident alien, illegal alien etc in 1898.

Plyler v Doe is NOT a citizenship case and is about children NOT born here.

It further clarified what subject to the jurisdiction means.

TX had to let those children attend school, but the case had nothing to do with demanding those children be granted citizenship.

I know. I was correcting you on what subject to US jurisdiction means. It means anyone on US soil regardless of immigration status.

 

[newpublius]

I’m not.

There was no such thing as resident alien, illegal alien etc in 1898.

"including all children here born of resident aliens"
Joseph Story wrote well prior to XIV Amendment, of course not controlling the XIV Amendment: "'Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.' Which of course initially seems to be support for a brightline jus soli rule, but the quote actually does continue on in the original: "reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business." Story's rule distinguishes between what we would call resident aliens and nonresident aliens, the concept exists, 'resident aliens' DO exist, a rose is a rose by any other name.

"The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Consequently, 'as a consequence' of being domiciled and being within the allegiance Wong Kim's Ark's parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If he weren't domiciled he obviously could be arrested for a murder, so mere presence is NOT what is being discussed here.

 

[rahl]

"including all children here born of resident aliens"

"The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Consequently, 'as a consequence' of being domiciled and being within the allegiance Wong Kim's Ark's parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If he weren't domiciled he obviously could be arrested for a murder, so mere presence is NOT what is being discussed here.

Allegiance is completely meaningless. It has no legal relevance. Resident alien is not a requirement. It’s why the amendment says all persons, and not citizens or resident aliens. There was no such thing as a resident alien or illegal alien in 1898. Every single person on Us soil with the sole exception being diplomats with inhibits, is subject to US jurisdiction. Plyler v doe.

You have no legal legal to stand on. This is long settled law.

 

[newpublius]

You have no legal legal to stand on. This is long settled law.

This court overturned Roe v Wade, hate to break this to you, but there is a possibility here that a case like Wong Kim Ark might be seen to apply to the children of resident aliens only and NOT to the children of nonresident aliens.

Wong Kim Ark is NOT applying a brightline jus soli rule, it just isn't. It does NOT say that.

If allegiance were irrelevant in Wong Kim Ark they wouldn't have written it like that. They would've said his parentage was irrelevant, their allegiance was irrelevant and all that mattered was the locus of the child's birth and they specifically and expressly did NOT say that.

 

[newpublius]

There was no such thing as a resident alien or illegal alien in 1898.

Yes, there were, indeed Wong Kim Ark was the child of resident aliens, the case notes the case of Greisser, whose parents WEREN'T domiciled and he was not considered a citizen (this case obviously does NOT control the Supreme Court but that's not the point), so the concept between aliens who were resident and aliens who weren't resident absolutely existed. There was SUCH A THING.

 

[rahl]

This court overturned Roe v Wade, hate to break this to you, but there is a possibility here that a case like Wong Kim Ark might be seen to apply to the children of resident aliens only and NOT to the children of nonresident aliens.

There is zero chance Wong is overturned or only applies to children of resident aliens. Because the constitution explicitly states otherwise.

Wong Kim Ark is NOT applying a brightline jus soli rule, it just isn't. It does NOT say that.

Of course it does.

If allegiance were irrelevant in Wong Kim Ark they wouldn't have written it like that. They would've said his parentage was irrelevant, their allegiance was irrelevant and all that mattered was the locus of the child's birth and they specifically and expressly did NOT say that.

Allegiance has exactly zero legal meaning. It’s completely irrelevant. Wong isn’t the only controlling precedent here. I’ve already given you the controlling case regarding jurisdiction. Plyler v doe.

You have no legal leg to stand on.

 

[AZRWinger]

District Court Judges are allowed to "impose" national injunctions, and none of this has come true.

You understand that injunctions can be appealed, right?

The Trump administration has faced an unprecedented 220 lawsuits during the first 100 hundred days of Trump's Presidency. That's more than an average of 2 sttempts per day by Democrat dead enders to rewrite the election results. Democrats seek to turn the judiciary into a dictatorial super legislature resulting in the chaos Democrats claim curbing the wave of abusive national injunctions will create.

You do understand what the district in Federal District court means, right

 

[rahl]

Yes, there were, indeed Wong Kim Ark was the child of resident aliens, the case notes the case of Greisser, whose parents WEREN'T domiciled and he was not considered a citizen (this case obviously does NOT control the Supreme Court but that's not the point), so the concept between aliens who were resident and aliens who weren't resident absolutely existed. There was SUCH A THING.

There was no such thing as a resident alien or illegal alien in 1898. This is not debatable. There was no such legal classification at the time.

Everyone born on Us soil is a citizen. The sole exception are children of diplomats who have immunity. This is long settled law, and the 14th is crystal clear and completely unambiguous on this.

 

[newpublius]

There is zero chance Wong is overturned or only applies to children of resident aliens. Because the constitution explicitly states otherwise.

Of course it does.

Allegiance has exactly zero legal meaning. It’s completely irrelevant. Wong isn’t the only controlling precedent here.

For something irrelevant the case seems to make a big deal of it. If it were irrelevant they would've said the parents' status, allegiance, domicile were irrelevant. That's not what the case says though, The case references the domicile and allegiance as the facts supporting being 'subject to the jurisdiction' here they absolutely DO say that, the case is NOT a brightline jus soli rule, it just isn't.

I’ve already given you the controlling case regarding jurisdiction. Plyler v doe.

You have no legal leg to stand on.

This is just bad argumentation is all that is.

 

[newpublius]

There was no such thing as a resident alien or illegal alien in 1898. This is not debatable.

No its NOT debatable that the concept existed. And I didn't say ILLEGAL alien, I said NONRESIDENT ALIEN and yes the distinction existed.

 

[rahl]

For something irrelevant the case seems to make a big deal of it.

No it doesn’t. It’s dicta.

If it were irrelevant they would've said the parents' status, allegiance, domicile were irrelevant.

No. Dicta has no relevance to the actual ruling.

That's not what the case says though, The case references the domicile and allegiance as the facts supporting being 'subject to the jurisdiction' here they absolutely DO say that, the case is NOT a brightline jus soli rule, it just isn't.

No it doesn’t.

This is just bad argumentation is all that is.

It’s not an argument. It’s a statement of fact and settled constitutional law.

 

[rahl]

No it’s NOT debatable that the concept existed.

It didn’t exist. There was no such legal classification as “resident alien” or “illegal alien”.

And I didn't say ILLEGAL alien, I said NONRESIDENT ALIEN and yes the distinction existed.

No it didn’t.

 

[Fletch]

This court overturned Roe v Wade, hate to break this to you, but there is a possibility here that a case like Wong Kim Ark might be seen to apply to the children of resident aliens only and NOT to the children of nonresident aliens.

Wong Kim Ark is NOT applying a brightline jus soli rule, it just isn't. It does NOT say that.

If allegiance were irrelevant in Wong Kim Ark they wouldn't have written it like that. They would've said his parentage was irrelevant, their allegiance was irrelevant and all that mattered was the locus of the child's birth and they specifically and expressly did NOT say that.

How could the court overturn this without causing mass confusion and harm to people who are citizens due to the current understanding of the 14th amendment?

 

[newpublius]

How could the court overturn this without causing mass confusion and harm to people who are citizens due to the current understanding of the 14th amendment?

Because aside from the Constitution there are statutes which are far less ambiguous. Let's say right now the court were to agree with me that the child of a nonresident tourist has no constitutional claim to citizenship, well there IS a statute which actually does exist and which acts to naturalize that child. At that point it would then be up to change the statute if Congress actually wanted to such that a child of a nonresident tourist would no longer be considered a citizen ... going forward. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely of the opinion brightline jus soli might prevail, but it might not, but I also suspect that the court could theoretically just opine that the EO is contrary to statutory law without even considering the constitutional question at all. There IS no citizen rug pull though

 

[newpublius]

It didn’t exist. There was no such legal classification as “resident alien” or “illegal alien”.

No it didn’t.

Yes there were, the case clearly noted aliens who were resident and aliens who weren't.

 

[newpublius]

No it doesn’t. It’s dicta.

No its the actual holding of the case.

 

[rahl]

Yes there were,

There was not.

the case clearly noted aliens who were resident and aliens who weren't.

Which was dicta. It has no relevance or precedential meaning. Because there was no such legal distinction at the time.