It does, and I feel like I have confirmed this twice. What sort of mea culpa will satisfy you?
I imagine one where you don’t simultaneously claim it’s the law of the land.
But it is the law of the land. Kim is the guiding principle used on 14th ammendment citizenship cases.
But it is also true that the SC has never ruled on the specific issue of children born to illegals (anchor babies)
We are waiting.
Already answered, see post 19
That? lol. You found them but somehow don’t have the resources to tell us which cases? Traditionally, if you can’t back up an assertion it is time to withdraw it and stop repeating it.
Well, what I actually said was that in my research, the article would refer to cases getting turned back, but it wouldn’t reference what the cases were.
What are you trying to prove here? That Kim is not the reason for anchor babies? If so, what do you think it is?
Sounds like a ■■■■■■ article then.
Well again, I ask: what are you trying to do here? Are you saying Kim is not the cause of our current approach to birthright citizenship?
Actually, the “cause” for the “current approach to birthright citizenship” is probably linked to millions of people who have never read and understood United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but yet are quick to cite the case as proof that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant mother becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth . . .
in other words my friend, the current approach is out of pure ignorance.
JWK
Okay, “people” can cite it all day long without effect.
But when the courts do it, that is an entirely different matter. And no, I still can’t provide examples. If you are aware of some website that catalogs and references federal cases and appeals, I’d be happy to take a look.
I see the same nonsense has been posted yet again, even though it has been established that “Kim Wong Ark” had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to an illegal entrant while in the United States becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. In fact, as previously pointed out, Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
I think this will be the fourth time that I agree with you that the SC has not ruled if the 14th applies to illegals. I don’t know what more I can do for you.
Perhaps the solution is to vaccinate every single illegal caught at the border with J and J vaccine.
Even if you do what you are referring to it’s to the ones that are caught, a high percentage doesn’t get caught and make it through. I am not sure why democrats want to stake everything on illegal immigration right now the two single biggest dings to the current white house is the border 33% approval and crime 38%.
All politicians want to win reelection and I would imagine those vulnerable candidates who are in regions that can go flip blue or red are not feeling to secure right now with those ratings as well as inflation the highest since 1991. Then there is just the common sense of letting people flood during a global pandemic in which many are infected according the NHS a 900% increase in infections making it in to the general population. As opposed to a system like South Korea and Japan were everyone is stopped at the airport has to take a covid test and if they are positive must isolate for two weeks.
No pandemic is going to go away with more than a million people coming in from our southern border each year, there is very few dense enough to think it’s not a huge problem, and if I was a politician in a swing district I sure as hell wouldn’t want that on my shoulders coming in the midterms. And if one needs proof of how unpopular the immigration system is under democrats every single border state in Texas with majority Latino voters picked a republican congressman. Seems Latinos who are Americans don’t want hordes of people coming through there properties every day as well.
Unlike many others I know, you have stepped up and confirmed “Kim Wong Ark” had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to an illegal entrant while in the United States becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. And that is very encouraging.
Hopefully, the myth that our Constitution grants birthright citizenship to any child born to any and all foreigners while on American soil, including illegal entrants and those who do not meet the stated qualifier of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as found in the Congressional debates when the 14th Amendment was being debated, can be put to rest. I know there are some notoriously evil activists who hate our federal constitution and enforcement of its intended protections. But we have been amply warned that . . .
“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ The Old Guard, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787.
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
Did you miss my response to you?
JWK
Oh no, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don’t have the resources for further contribution. I assume that there is a website that catalogues and indexes appeal cases, but I have no idea what it is.
What on earth are you looking for, which you do not have the resources for?
The irrefutable fact is, Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
That fact is irrefutable. I believe this will be my 5th acknowledgment of that fact.
However, when researching Kim I would run into variations of the following statement: " Appeal courts have ruled in favor of birthright citizenship due the the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kim".
However, citations are never given, so I don’t know what, where, and when these cases are. And those cases are the ones I want to see.
