Results 1 to 3 of 3
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
04-02-2026, 01:24 PM #1
S.C. needs to keep nose out of immigration policy making decisions, Trump v. Barbara
.
FACT: Unwritten federal public policy, and only federal unwritten public policy, now recognizes citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.
But the qualifier in the 14th Amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was explicitly adopted by its framers to exclude the offspring of foreign nationals not owing an allegiance to the United States.
During the debates on the 14th Amendment, and with regard to the 14th Amendment's wording, the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States. Mr. TRUMBULL responded as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.
And just how would aliens relinquish their allegiance to their country of origin so a child born to them thereafter and on American soil would be considered a citizen of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?
SURPRISE! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” and which renounces an allegiance to their country of origin, which is one of the requirements referenced in the debates during the framing of the 14th Amendment!
Trump's Executive Order is acting within Executive Office powers in changing existing citizenship public policy with regard to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. keep in mind the Biden Administration ignored the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and allowed millions of foreign nationals to cross our border without being vetted, and included tens of thousands criminals, child molesters, mentally ill, drug dealers, etc.
Does our Supreme Court need to be reminded that Elections have consequences?
See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
The S.C. needs to keep its stricken nose out of policy make decisions of this magnitude, Trump v. Barbara, especially when Congress is authorized by the terms of the 14th Amendment to make adjustments if needed, and not our Supreme Court.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
JWK
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands (Our Supreme Court) whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
-
04-03-2026, 10:25 PM #2
Our Supreme Court is not clothed with power to create citizenship law.
There is nothing in our federal Constitution granting U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or a U.S. S. C. opinion declaring U.S. citizenship is granted by our constitution to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. In fact one U.S. Court opinion, UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, confirms U.S. citizenship was acknowledge by the Court after the following conditions were met:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:
For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Our Supreme Court would have to assume the powers of our legislature, or a sitting constitutional convention, to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nations born on American soil, and such assumption of power would totally subjugate the right of the people to give their consent through their elected representatives, and likewise assume the exclusive power delegated to Congress by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Under our Constitution the Supreme Court is the discoverer of the law and not its maker!
JWK
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) Justice SUTHERLAND, J., dissenting.Last edited by johnwk; 04-03-2026 at 10:40 PM.
-
04-18-2026, 11:31 PM #3
S.C. should keep nose out of birthright citizenship case, which is a political matter
Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress indicates the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, I’m having great difficulty imagining, under what legal reasoning can our Supreme Court members grant the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship to the mentioned offspring?
For our Supreme Court to create this new priviledged category of legally recognized citizenship, would be doing so without the people’s consent, or the approval of the people’s elected representatives. In fact, doing so would make a mockery of and nullify why our founders provided Article 5, in our Constitution (its amendment process) by which a willing and affirmative consent of the people is require to be obtained for such a significant recognition to be added to our Constitution.
Seems to me, by the explicit terms of our Constitution, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are granted exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment’s, Section 5, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are delegated the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the 14th Amendment. Not our Supreme Court.
Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and its “Republican Form of Government”, should they not apply the reasoned approach found in Luther v. Borden, and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President?
If our S.C. members do not follow Luther v. Borden, and decides to omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship __ a hallowed and most precious privilege ___ would that not meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison?
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Finally, our system provides elections in order for the people to adopt new public policy, which they did by electing Trump as their President. Are we to forget, the good people of the United States lived under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years. If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new category of citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have also nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.
Similar Threads
-
Harvard vows to continue making enrollment decisions based on AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, whi
By Airbornesapper07 in forum Other Topics News and IssuesReplies: 0Last Post: 07-07-2023, 12:22 PM -
5 Disastrous Obama Policy Decisions That Have Already Blown Up In His Face
By AirborneSapper7 in forum General DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: 06-15-2014, 10:16 PM -
Beware of Indirect Immigration Policy Making
By Texas2step in forum News & Releases from Other GroupsReplies: 2Last Post: 08-17-2010, 01:36 PM -
The Who's Who of Immigration Policy Making in Congress
By Texas2step in forum News & Releases from Other GroupsReplies: 5Last Post: 09-30-2009, 02:22 PM -
Saudis running U.S. policy? Vexing decisions facing Obama
By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and IssuesReplies: 2Last Post: 05-13-2009, 01:34 AM


1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks



Reply With Quote

We will not make it like this :(
05-30-2026, 12:33 PM in illegal immigration Announcements