tvc184

They didn’t specifically mention the presidency but Sauer in his arguments stated that by 2015 there were like 200 or 500 (I don’t remember the numbers) companies in China whose business it is to send women to the US to have babies and then bring them back to China to be raised by their laws and culture. Then they could return later as they were US citizens at birth. One is the follow up questions for his was something like, is there any evidence of that happening or any numbers of people returning or something to that effect. My follow up might have been, it’s only 11 years since 2015. No one born around then is an adult yet.

That was touched on in the oral arguments.

… or they wanted to put the issue to rest.

He

Yeah, that’s why I think interest balancing may come into play. Interest balancing when I heard it is like safety versus the Second Amendment. One side argues that it is an individual right to possess defense firearms. The other side says that has to be weighed against the safety of the public because of statistics. So if the homicide rate is higher in Chicago, the city can ban the possession of firearms in the interest of safety over individual rights. So government interest is balanced against individual rights. No matter what Elk and Wong Son Ark say, is it more of an interest for consistency as opposed to the original intent. In the oral arguments going on right now it was asked, “what about the humanitarian crisis?”. Was humanitarian issues of people from other countries intent of the Fourteenth Amendment or was the intent to make sure that African slaves were not denied citizenship after the Dred Scott decision? I don’t thing they writing and debate on the Fourteenth Amendment at that time was about people in other countries who may have bad living conditions. I such an issue would be ludicrous but that was the question just asked. What about the humanitarian crisis….. So no matter what, I think and have thought that the Supreme Court will finally put the issue to rest and simply say if you can make it to US soil at birth, you are a citizen, which in effect changes nothing from the last 150 years. But….. what will they say, if anything, about territories overseas?

If you look at Supreme Court precedent , there is a good case for not having birthright citizenship. I just don’t see it happening. I think interest balancing (which this court doesn’t really subscribe to) may come into play.

I might make it over there. My older brother did 26 years in the Navy and lives in Richmond. I am sure that he will take part. I wish the Battleship Texas was back open to the public but it still has a few months before the final berth is ready in Galveston.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship for people illegally in the country. People who support birthright citizenship almost always point to Wong Kim Ark as the defining case demanding it. After reading Ark (a long time ago), that doesn’t seem to be the conclusion that the Supreme Court decided. In Elk v. Wilkins 14 years after the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American born on US soil in what is now called the lower 48 contiguous states, was not an American at birth. Why? Because he owed allegiance to a sovereign Indian nation, the Winnebago. In owing allegiance to a foreign nation, in this case on US soil, did but fit the meaning in the Fourteenth Amendment of being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Was Elk subject to US laws? Absolutely. If new committed theft, murder, not paying taxes, etc., he was subject to American laws. The Supreme Court decided that didn’t fit the meaning of being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Along came Wong Kim Ark not long afterwards. Ark was born in the US to parents were subject to the Emperor of China. Like Elk, Ark owed allegiance to a foreign nation. So what was different? Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally and had submitted to US jurisdiction by being granted permanent residency and by running a business with the consent of this nation and the state. Again, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were given lawful permanent residence in this country before he was born. That was sufficient for being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But let’s not take my word for it. Let’s see what the Supreme Court said in their concluding statement in the case making Wong Kim Ark a citizen, …….who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed Note that the Supreme Court makes notice that the family are subjects to a foreign jurisdiction, the Emperor of China… BUT have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, again, their quote. is that the same as illegal entry into this country, as many people claim? If the Supreme Court intended for every person born on US soil to be citizens, why wasn’t that their decision? Why did the Supreme Court bring up the family being subject to the Emperor of China but it changed because they were given a permanent residence in the US? Hmmmm…. Because they thought it mattered perhaps? This was a precedent setting case and the Supreme Court was well aware of it. TheIr final statement could have simply been, “any person born on US soil is a citizen”. Nope, the Supreme Court worded the decision how it was asked. Was Wong Kim Ark a citizen? Yes as his family was given permanent residency under US law. In my opinion the Supreme Court has not ruled on people in this country unlawfully. In fact in the case of Elk, he was in this country lawfully and was still denied citizenship at birth. What in Wong Kim Ark overturned that? In my opinion, nothing. So we will finally have a ruling on birthright citizenship. Like I have already said in this forum, I feel like the Supreme Court will say that birthright citizenship is constitutional and that will put that issue away. Looking at Supreme Court precedent, it doesn’t appear to be so definitive as some people claim.

I am not bothered in the least. Trump started saying stupid crap in 2016 when he announced that he was running for president. It’s been 10 years and he hasn’t stopped. So what? He is a school yard bully. He’s the guy that if you have done something good, he has done it twice and did it better than you buddy times. Do you lose sleep over that? I have absolutely despised some people politically and don’t like hearing about their deaths. As an example I did not like Supreme Court Justice RBG. When she passed away I did but cheer as some people. I would rather she resigned from the Court when she found out that she had a terminal condition and lived out her last couple of years in peace. She didn’t but I didn’t cheer her death either publicly or privately. Others did but it is no different than when Charlie Kirk was assassinated or Rush Limbaugh died. Such stupid public behavior is not limited to one side if the aisle and in my opinion it is far more prevalent from the left. Far more…. Is it presidential? Not in the least. Since when has Trump been presidential? I want the border closed. I want to have a strong military. I want the government to be aggressive deporting illegal aliens. I want the federal government to stop with trying to disarm America. I don’t want men showering with women in school or college sports. I don’t want men playing in women’s sports leagues. I want essential services from the federal government like the TSA and HLS opened up and pay those critical workers while the parties argue over non-essential issues. None of that even closely would happen had Trump lost the election. The Democrats are obsessed with Trump’s demeanor while ignoring virtually everything else. That’s why Trump won the last election. NEWSFLASH: Trump can’t run again! The left is still obsessed with his words. In 2 years and 10 months at the most, Trump is gone from politics and for better or worse, we will all move on. Ten years after he announced his bid for the presidency, the left seems stunned that Trump has made a crude statement. 🤣🤣🤣 The often calls of the Trump cult are equally hilarious. The only true cult is the other side of the aisle who hangs on a lame duck president’s latest comment which is almost certainly made to enrage them. It works!!! But again, I couldn’t care any less about Trump’s crude comment. I would never make such a statement and I don’t support it. I do care completely about the political issues that I posted and others. So keep letting Trump live rent free in your head. I am sure that new appreciated it! 😂😂😂

Trump said something stupid and crude. I’m shocked!!

Great diversion! 🤣 I clearly ended with they all need to be reigned in. If you can’t comprehend that, they are all equally guilty. It also shows the disingenuous title of the debt “surges past $39T”. That surge must have started 5 years ago…. But we won’t count that, right? 😎

I merged identical topics.

SURGES PAST $39T!! Wow! But let’s do a quick Google/AI search. National Debt by year: 2020, the last full year Trump was in office. ND increased by $1.49T 2021 or Biden’s first year in office increases $2.45T in a single year or almost double Trump’s last year in office. 2022 it increased $2.24T. 2023 it increased $2.33T 2024 it increased $2T Now in the first year of Trump’s second term the ND increased $2,35T. So which year was this dramatic surge again? I think they all need to be reigned in but pointing out Trump seems disingenuous at best.

The House Democrats can’t block anything.

Neither of your follow ups addressed my comment. I made no prediction nor refuted any of the current polls posted this thread. I only noted that you apparently scour the internet trying to find another person’s comment that agrees with your own. You can post whatever but none of the claimed blowout of Cornyn has happened. Zero….. So yet again you are referring to someone else’s opinion or poll to back up your beliefs. It is having an opinion and then trying to find a comment that backs up your pre-determined beliefs. That’s okay. I will refer back to my comment a year ago that said it is tough to beat an incumbent no matter what the polls say. To date I have been correct…. you haven’t, not even once. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. It is like a guy who predicts who will be in the Super Bowl and for 20 years has been wrong every time. Then after two decades of failure, his prediction is correct and he says, “See, I told you!!”. My only prediction to date is that it is tough to beat an incumbent. I gave the example of KBH whose early poll showed that she would annihilate Perry. I am fairly certain that anyone reading this thread would agree that Cornyn to date has been a tough opponent. Let me guess, you will again search the internet high and low to find another poll that has nothing to do with this comment. 😎 And for a side note, I voted early and for Paxton. I don’t think he will be the best choice to beat the Democrats. He carries too much baggage. I don’t believe politically slanted polls however. I also believe that the Democrats might come out to support Paxton in order to eliminate Cornyn. Anyone who didn’t vote in the Democrat primary is eligible to vote in the runoff.