Read what the judge said about why they don’t.
lol. Yeah. He just made it up…dear lord…
The phrase “jus soli” does not appear in our Constitution. You made that up.
That’s not true.
That is true. So how do you prove anybody “owes” allegiance to any country?
“Illegal alien parents” does not appear in the Constitution. You made that up.
The Court, in 2015, expounds upon jus soli as follows:
"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).
Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).
Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015)"
Read and addressed.
I have a question about that nonsensical court claim about Samoans.
“Non-citizen nationals”
Why would anyone “owe allegiance” to a country that refused them citizenship?
1 Like
Happy to see you finally agree with a voice of authority
I don’t. I’m a citizen (like 14th babies), not a subject.
A voice of recognized authority disagrees with your sophomoric opinion.
Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
I don’t recognize their authority.
Answer the question.
You have made that abundantly clear.
You need me to repeat the question?
Send your inquiry to the court.
A voice of recognized authority disagrees with your sophomoric opinion.
Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
I’m asking you how you rationalize that BS.
Get off your powerpoint slides and use your brain.
Be a citizen instead of a subject.
Be a Man.
1 Like
Grow a pair and send a letter to the court, a voice of recognized authority which DISAGREES with your sophomoric opinion.
Sure. In the morning. Answer the question.
Grow a spine and ask the Judge his reasoning in Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015). I’m not a mind reader.
In expounding upon jus soli the Judge wrote:
"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).
Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).
Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015)"
I’m not making up anything. Your posts speak for themselves.
1 Like
