Re: CBS' "Elsbeth" Star Wendell Pierce: "Mass Deportation of Illegal Immigrants a Racist Purge"

On Jan 31, 2025 at 8:00:49 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
 

Yet, the Court ruled in 1925, based on uncontested precedent, that those
living here unlawfully don't even satisfy the meaning and intent of
"dwelling in the United States"-- even in a case where they were granted
temporary permission to live here on humanitarian grounds. It is therefore
simply preposterous to assert that those who willfully violate our laws
and sneak into the country without permission can secure jurisdiction
for their children against the consent of the nation. As the Left would
say, it's "settled law" that illegal immigrants are considered "at the
boundary line and have gained no legal foothold in the United States",
irrespective of where they reside now.

 
Can't you imagine unintended consequences? If one of my ancestors
entered illegally (or there's no paperwork proving a legal entry any
longer), you've just rescinded my American citizenship and I'm on my way
back to Russia or Poland, I'm not sure which.
 
Glad your ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Mine didn't.

Mine immigrated legally from Germany through Ellis Island and we still have
the documentation that proves it.

BTR1701 is not undocumented!

The reality is that there was never a formal decision, much less a piece
of legislation or a court case, mandating automatic citizenship for people
who break into our country. Wong Kim Ark was about those invited in on
immigrant visas. Justice Horace Gray, the author of Wong, referred to
"domiciled" immigrants on twelve occasions in the case. Those promoting
citizenship for the children of illegals conveniently ignore his opinion
six years earlier in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651
(1892), which clearly held that an alien not legally domiciled in this
country is legally as if he is standing outside our soil as it relates
to even due process rights, much less the right to assert jurisdiction
on behalf of his child.

 
I'm missing something. A Japanese woman was denied entry for fear that
she would become a public charged. She claimed to have an American
husband whose address she didn't know but wasn't believed.
 

Bottom line, it would not be that radical of an interpretation for the
Court to rule that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause
does not apply to illegals. There seems to be substantial SCOTUS precedent
for that position

 
Wong would have to be overturned first. Trump can't repeal the
Fourteenth Amendment. Only the Supreme Court can do that.

Well, for those who believe as I do, this is definitely the time to test it,
which is what Trump's EO is all about. He knows very well that he has no
authority to overturn part of the Constitution. The EO was specifically
designed to goad blue states like California and New York to run to court to
challenge him, giving him a case that he can bring before the Supreme Court,
believing he has the votes (backed by the presidential cases I cited above) to
obtain a definitive ruling from the Court that illegals are not "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof".