I think an invading army is one of the statutory exceptions.
4 Likes
Though piecemeal rather than en masse, isn’t that exactly what has demonstrably taken place? Surely, a SCOTUS which has “construed” some of the bizarre things it has over the years, might label it as the invasion which it, in fact, IS! It’s not as though this influx has acted in a manner formerly known as immigration/assimilation. Judicial NOTICE, anyone?
5 Likes
Here’s a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood - to which every Muslim organization in the US belongs:
“And right here in the U.S. of A., the Muslim Brotherhood, with which virtually every major Muslim organization in the country is affiliated in one way or another, is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house, so that it falls, and Allah’s religion reigns supreme over other religions.” - from an article in today’s Frontpagemag.com by Robert Spencer.
5 Likes
Oh, yeah - how could I forget - where’s the axiomatic objection to “Supremacy”? It seems it’s fine to ascribe the supremacist inclinations of a few dozen (some vanishingly small number) crazies to every ‘white’ person in existence. At the same time, the usual suspects ignore the Islamic Scriptures and deny 1400 years of violent, explicitly supremacist actions on most evry border of Muslim societies. Why the silence - even support? Did you notice the same king (sic) and head of the anglican (sic) church, had not a word for Easter - only for Ramadan… I wonder why that might be.
4 Likes
The Normie position is laughable. For one thing, “it’s been this way forever” is a lousy reason to keep a bad policy. The Court overturns long-standing decisions all the time, most recently Roe v. Wade. More important, the rule of law is a myth. The law is whatever the courts say it is, reason and consistency be damned.
Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and the country continues to live with the consequences.
3 Likes
I’m not saying it’s MY position. It’s just the feeling I had bout this from the beginning. And the ACLU attorney (Ms Wang, too bad is wasn’t Wong like Mr. Kim Ark) opened her argument with “Ask any American how you become a citizen, and they all will tell you: by being born here.” Longstanding custom and consensus can be considered, it seems. The court mentioned that in the case which challenged the Miranda warnings.
1 Like
Daniel Pipes predicted all this. It’s happening just like he wrote in his book “Militant Islam Reaches America”. And he also said The UK would be a Muslim country in 40 years. That was 2002, so they’re right on schedule, at least halfway there…..
4 Likes
This question is “talking past the sale” by choosing a specific wording. How about ask any US citizen whether being born here while your mother was on vacation makes you a citizen or if your a citizen if your mother snuck across the border and gave birth? I think the overwhelming amount of citizens would say “What?”. People so assume that if your born her it was from parents that are citizens. This is why her deception works. See most people aren’t going to say anything about what the Supreme Court ruled or didn’t rule. They just logically assume you’re born here because your parents are citizens. This is very typical of liberal manipulation. It is used in college to prove racism. The “professor” will ask a white student. Have you ever been followed around in a store and then have some black person say how they were. Or they ask, when you go to a hotel and ask for the manager do you expect them to be white? If you come from a predominantly white neighborhood, then yes you do and it has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with generalizations which come from experience which in this case is dictated by where your experience. When I am in Korea, I fully expect a Korean to be the manager because almost always the manager is Korean.
Just goes to show that regardless of your education level, you can fall for the simplest forms of deception
5 Likes
Well, Wang obviously thought it’d work on the Court.
Like Trump said on Truth Social, I wish Mark Levin coulda argued the case. But I gotta say, both attorneys quoted the Congressional,record at length. I don’t think you can say as Levin did that NO legislators ever voted for jus soli.
1 Like
That is what meant by my last statement. After the fact, I thought maybe you would think I was referring to you. I was referring to the court and the Government’s attorneys
3 Likes
Alternatively, we could get past lawyers dancing on the heads of pins and bring in the accountants. With approximately $30 Trillion in debt and north of 300 Million residents, any new US citizen baby starts off life owing about $100,000 +/-.
A non-citizen gives birth in the US – OK! Let’s see that $100,000 that a citizen would owe right now. The only way to avoid that debt is to take the baby out of the country immediately.
2 Likes
Regardless of all the legal fine points concerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the plain fact is that if all the scams connected to birthright citizenship are not terminated, this country is finished. The words on paper can be interpreted to reach any conclusion. Let’s not kid ourselves; this is a political matter, as are all major Supreme Court decisions.
As an aside, birthright citizenship is a New World concept. The peoples of the Old World understood that this was not a viable model for citizenship since people could readily cross borders. Modern transportation has made this true globally. Europe has always been blood and soil, at least until recently. Same goes for Japan.
3 Likes
Birth tourism in Guam:
4 Likes
I just wonder if the IRS is poised to collect the tax on lifetime earnings - regardless of in what country it is earned - by these particular US citizens? Or, as I suspect, are earnings effectively taxed (and remorselessly taxes - and the tax duly collected) for actual US born citizens? There’s a long and growing list of privileges and immunities enjoyed by illegals. What, I wonder, will it take to restore equality before the law?? More and more, it is obvious the left feels empowered to engage in violence to achieve political (and almost always unconstitutional) goals. Do they think at some point their increasing violence - justified by nothing more than their own morally superior SUPREMACY, will only be met by words, as their authority-based tyrannical demands continue to mount?
4 Likes