Nope. It’s dicta. The holding was Wong was a citizen because he was born on Us soil under the 14th amendment. It’s why every child since regardless of parents immigration status has been a citizen. Because the 14th is crystal clear.No it’s the actual holding of the case.
There was not.
Which was dicta. It has no relevance or precedential meaning. Because there was no such legal distinction at the time.
All children born on Us soil became citizens regardless of the parents status. The sole exception are children of diplomats with immunity. I’m sorry, but you have no legal leg to stand on. This is long and repeatedly settled constitutional law.Well it was relevant because the children of resident aliens became citizens and the children of nonresident citizens didn't.
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
Only due to net immigration.
Without immigration, the United States would be in a slight population decline, as the deathrate exceeds the birthrate.
Right, Democrats launch a wave of forum shopped lawsuits designed to provide an opportunity for political activist judges to act as petty tyrants but I am to blame for not knowing the role of the judiciary. You want to live in a country ruled by 688 unelected petty tyrants? That's not a Constitutional Republic.Maybe you should either retake Civics or read a book explaining America's court system.
We do. Over 1 million immigrants per year are admitted legally. The immigration system can be reformed but the last time it was tried with HR2 the Democrat Senate majority leader blocked the House passed bill from consideration.Well then, we should be encouraging immigration.
Of course we can. That's because they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. We cannot prosecute them for acts we have made unlawful even overseas because our jurisdiction does not cover them there, though US citizens are subject to those same laws outside the US because we exercise complete jurisdiction over them, no matter where they are.So we can't prosecute illegals for crimes committed inside the United States?
They are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the US. You've refuted nothing.Never claimed otherwise. Feel free to show what does render a person in the US from being outside the jurisdiction of the US? You were linked to a list. Topmost were diplomats/their kids.
And your example re: allegiance has been refuted...unless you can show that allegiance also "renders a person in the US outside the jurisdiction of the United States."
Stop trying to blame me for your untrue statements.Stop trying to divert. It shows your claims are weak. As does the rather desperate sarcasm.
That's not what you said, initially.I was clear I've only seen it here on the same subject and STILL undefined, so why would my answer be any different?
Same as it was three months ago.Citation? Asking again.
It demonstrates that they are subject only to partial jurisdiction, not complete jurisdiction, because they can leave the United States and not be subject to our jurisdiction like US citizens are.How does any of that provide examples where illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US"
You really want to go through a reading comprehension exercise?
The power to enact the AEA was, through congressional legislation, imbued in the president and the president alone.
There were qualifications upon which the Act could be declared but NONE of those qualifications included congressional or judicial review.
Trump, in his declaration for implementing the Act CLEARLY laid out the reasoning and did so in a manner that absolutely fulfills the qualifications requirement.
If the judiciary disagrees with his reasoning then that's just too bad BUT they can request congress to look into the matter as an abuse of power subject to impeachment.
Clearly addressing someone else or some other view as I never articulated such a view anywhere in this thread or ever, and your soapbox diatribe is irrelevant to my position.The idea that Trump just pulled this whole idea out of his ass makes a good narrative for political "news" commentary but it's completely wrong and IGNORES the stated basis on which the Act was declared.
Again, invocation of the act DOES NOT require advice and consent.
Nowhere in the legislation does the invocation of the Act require judicial review and, as an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive, it implicitly leaves review to congress through impeachment.
They are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the US. You've refuted nothing.
Stop trying to blame me for your untrue statements.
Same as it was three months ago.
It demonstrates that they are subject only to partial jurisdiction, not complete jurisdiction, because they can leave the United States and not be subject to our jurisdiction like US citizens are.
Lemme ask you a question; do we have three co-equal branches of government or not?For your sake, yes.
So what? There’s a distinction between a power vested and the substance of that power. The two aren’t the same and your flaw is to treat them as the same.
The AEA, a statute passed by Congress, vested a power to the President. Despite that, the law doesn’t leave to the President’s discretion the substance of that power and the written statute determines the substance of that power, and it is the province of the judicial branch to interpret the substance of that power as expressed by the written statute.
Incorrect. Judicial interpretation of a statute is inherently a component of the judicial branch’s constitutional power of judicial review. The statute doesn’t have to grant to the judicial branch the ability or power of judicial review of said statute, the judicial branch already possesses such authority under the Constitution.
That’s your argument, your opinion, which may or may not be true. Regardless, Trump doing so doesn’t foreclose judicial review as judicial review exists and allows to test the veracity of Trump’s actions and reasoning in relation to the words of the statute and their meaning.
Not under our Constitutional systems, if SCOTUS disagrees they can, consistent with their Article 3 power, declare Trump’s actions as not authorized by the statute and reverse or affirm a lower court’s ruling upholding Trump’s action or reverse or affirm a lower court’s ruling Trump’s conduct as not adhering to the statute and any corresponding orders or declarations of the lower courts.
What exactly is your source for thinking the judiciary has no role under the Constitution?
Clearly addressing someone else or some other view as I never articulated such a view anywhere in this thread or ever, and your soapbox diatribe is irrelevant to my position.
“Advice and consent” is in relation to the appointments by the President and is solely a power of the Senate. “Advice and consent” is completely devoid of any relation to the passage of federal laws and the authority of judicial review under the Constitution.
Judicial review is a constitutional power under Article 3 of the Constitution, nullifying any requirement this statute authorize or permit judicial review.
Next, “require judicial review” is a misplaced necessary condition as I have never taken the view the statute created such necessary condition.
Finally, Congress granting a power to the President to exercise does not imply judicial review nonexistent, forbidden or impermissible, since judicial review is a constitutional power that neither branch can deny the judicial branch from having or forbid from exercising under the Constitution.
Indeed, the Line Item Veto Act of 96, was a federal statute signed into law and vested power to the President veto, effectively to cancel specific provisions of a bill, such as spending items and targeted tax benefits, without vetoing the entire law.
Despite this law constituting as, in your phraseology, “an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive,” the federal judicial branch, District Court and SCOTUS, exercised judicial review of the law and SCOTUS ultimately determined the law as unconstitutional. Clinton v City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, (1998).
So no, the statute operating as vesting “an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive” does not “implicitly leaves review to congress through impeachment” such that judicial review is prohibited, as Congress did the same with the Line Item Veto Act and the judicial branch retained its judicial review authority and exercised that authority with respect to the statute.
For your consideration: The only reason we are having this discussion about an issue long ago decided is that it is the latest plank in Trump’s anti-everything-about-immigrants-except-perhaps-White-South-Africans platform, but one exhibit in his Make America Hate Again theme park of ignorance and lawlessness.
We do. Over 1 million immigrants per year are admitted legally. The immigration system can be reformed but the last time it was tried with HR2 the Democrat Senate majority leader blocked the House passed bill from consideration.
Oh, not even the Democrats who supported it claimed the backroom border bill was comprehensive immigration reform.
But NOW you want specifics. Okay, I can do that, too.
In addition to the aforementioned treason, there's also the scope of the PROTECT Act of 2003. US citizens can be criminally charged for engaging in sex acts with minors abroad, just as they can be charged for doing it in the US, even if the acts are completely legal in the jurisdiction in which they occurred. How can they do this? Because the US citizens are under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and the laws of the United States can reach them anywhere in the world. This jurisdiction does not reach a Canadian citizen who travels to Thailand to engage in such activities. Why? Because we do not have complete jurisdiction over him and our laws cannot reach him when he is outside of the territory of the United States.
Income tax is another point. US citizens are obligated to file a tax return, even if they are living abroad, haven't been in the US for years, and have acumulated no income within them. Persons who are not US citizens and have earned no income in the United States are not required to file a return. Why? Because the United States has complete jurisdiction over expats and not the typical alien abroad.
Would you care for an analogy? If I'm your parent (and you were a minor child), I exercise jurisdiction over you everywhere. I can command you to not curse at your grandmother's house and you are obligated to obey. If you are my co-worker over for a beer and the football game, I can command you to not root for the Packers; because you are in my home you are obligated to obey, but that obligation vanishes at my door. There is jurisdiction that I have because of who you are, and jurisdiction I have because of where you are. Jurisdiction based on who is "complete."
How are your "examples" applicable? No one ever said the US has jurisdiction over illegal immigrants in other countries. If they're in another country, they're not here, illegally or otherwise,and they're not citizens . If they were outside the US and had committed a crime here that we want to prosecute them for, we have to request extradition. That's "not" under our jurisdiction.
It demonstrates that they are subject only to partial jurisdiction, not complete jurisdiction, because they can leave the United States and not be subject to our jurisdiction like US citizens are.
Or what?.put up or ...?
Or what?
The US has no jurisdiction over anyone outside the US. The US has jurisdiction over everyone on US soil with the sole exception being diplomats with immunity. There is no such thing as partial or complete jurisdiction. It’s something you made up and have been corrected on dozens of times.Of course we can. That's because they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. We cannot prosecute them for acts we have made unlawful even overseas because our jurisdiction does not cover them there, though US citizens are subject to those same laws outside the US because we exercise complete jurisdiction over them, no matter where they are.
Kindly provide evidence of US legal immigration being exclusively white. You can't.Provided they're white:
"As the Trump administration faces multiple lawsuits over its rescission of temporary protected status for people of various nationalities who are fleeing legitimate strife in their countries, it’s preparing to roll out the red carpet for a new group it has designated as refugees: white South Africans who say they’ve been discriminated against by their country’s anti-apartheid government."
Trump welcomes white South Africans to the U.S. while other immigrants get the boot
As the administration lifts protections for some nationalities, it’s rolling out the red carpet for Afrikaners Trump says are oppressed.www.msnbc.com
Kindly provide evidence of US legal immigration being exclusively white. You can't.
Oh, you got called out for falsely claiming Trump is racist so time for denial. You wrote "provided they are white" learn to WRITE more carefully.I didn't say it was, just that Trump prefers it to be
Learn to READ more carefully.
Not your country, not your constitution, not your concern.The problem, as I see it, is that the right interprets "natural born citizen" as meaning born in the USA. And, IMO, it does not mean that.
There is no window into Trump’s heart about racism, but his actions, policies and lies speak loud and clear of his appeals to bigotry.Oh, you got called out for falsely claiming Trump is racist so time for denial. You wrote "provided they are white" learn to WRITE more carefully.
In contrast to the anti Trump invective the objections to South African refugees are purely based on race.There is no window into Trump’s heart about racism, but his actions, policies and lies speak loud and clear of his appeals to bigotry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?