Gorsuch directly quotes Elk v. Wilkins at 1:31:21https://youtu.be/RYecNCgwSfE?t=5481REMINDER THAT SCOTUS WILL RULE IN TRUMPS FAVOR ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP! IN A 7-2 DECISION!Wong Kim Arks parents were "Permanent Residents" who were "Domiciled" in San Francisco and held "Allegiance" to the United States of America when they gave birth to Wong Kim Ark. They were not Temporary Visa Holders/Sojourners/Workers, nor were they Illegal Migrants.To be protected under the 14th Amendment you need more than to be "subject to the laws of the united states" as was determined in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) where it was ruled that one must be "completely subject to the united states political jurisdiction" and "owing them (the united states) direct and immediate allegiance."This was later reaffirmed in 1898 with United Sates v. Wong Kim Ark in which the word "Domicile" was used 28 times, and the word "Allegiance" was used 114 times.
>>532296275they wont. giving people free disposable income is the only way our fake and gay economy works.
>>532296706They will, but don't take my word for itHere is Larry Fink telling you they will: https://streamable.com/jiatzo
>>532296275You are forgetting one very important fact. That is, if I go to Japan and steal someone's wallet they will arrest me. Check mate, nazis.
>>532296275how is a baby going to swear allegiance retard?
>>532296275>Elk v. WilkinsElk was born on a reservation, not subject to the united states.
>>532298526By fitting the legal definition of "domicile" retardThose who are subject to removal and deportation the moment they are caught by DHS and ICE agents cannot ever fit the legal definition of "domicile".
>>532298650And illegal migrants were born in another nation state, not subject to the united states.
>>532300478>While Elk was born within the United States, he was born as a subject of a Native American nation within the sovereign jurisdiction of a Native reservation. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birthhuh, imagine that.
>>532296275>>532296805>born here>stay here and be loyal
>>532301013Correct, while Elk was born within the "geographical limits" of the United States of America he was born on a reservation and reservations at the time in 1868 and 1884 were considered "quasi nation states" which meant that even though Elk was born within US borders on what the US considered its "soil" he was not eligible for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. Now what reasons did they use for this, you can see how made this decision with this line which is quoted directly by Justice Gorsuch as THE requirements to be protected under the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendmentElk v. Wilkins says:>the evident meaning of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are 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 defines jurisdiction and WHO is subject to that jurisdiction in the context of the 14th Amendment. Through this precedent which still stands today they set the a requirement of "allegiance" in the context of the 14th amendment. Later on another common sense requirement was added on in Wong Kim Ark which is "DOMICILE" which is an ancient legal term that goes all the back to the greeks, and its meaning was well understood in the 1860s, 1880s, and 1890s as>Domicile - Lawful presence with the intention to stay permanently. Wong Kim Ark not only uses the word Domicile 28 times it uses the word "Allegiance" which was previously established in Elk v. Wilkins 114 times!Now when you put all of that together you understand how and why Temporary Visa Holders who by the very definition of their immigration status are TEMPORARY and thus still owe ALLEGIANCE to whatever nation state they originated from.And you understand how an Illegal Migrant who is subject to REMOVAL at any time cannot fit the legal definition of DOMICILE.
>>532296275Can this shit happen or not happen already? I see this thread every day.
>>532296275that video stops before the endhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCygktDbU3Qhas it alli have watched since your time stamp and it is very interesting as a non-american>the government (of the time) had an intuition that was consistent to the founding aversion to inherited rights and disabilitiesinteresting.the ACLU lady is pinning everything on Wong Kim Ark
>>532296275you have to be so retarded to believe this its hard to see how you are alive at all
>>532301937>US considered its "soil"Not it's jurisdiction>>the evident meaning of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"concurring opinion, not majority.>Elk v. Wilkins defines jurisdiction and WHOwrong>Now when you put all of that together you understandI understand that you love coping, and were swindled of logic by idiots.
>>532302652>wronghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68
>>532296275these are great for news
>>532302804>suppose trump is rightlol, lmao
ACLU is saying lots of things are "clear from the debates [at the time of the Amendment]" but surely the Justices need to make their own decisions on what is and isn't meant by what was said those debates. a lot of assumptions and presumptions from the ACLU argument
>>532304261They know they don't have an argument so they are attempting to appeal to emotion, they are attempting consensus crack by claiming that illegals and temporary visa holders because it would be wrong and bad and would make the justices meanie heads if they ruled in favor of the actual cogent, logical argument being presented by the Trump Administration. This is why the ACLU lawyer specifically tells the justices to throw out the entire concept of "domicile" at one point in the oral arguments because they know that legal precedent and concepts like "domicile" that go back thousands of years are simply not on their side.
>>532302126>the ACLU lady is pinning everything on Wong Kim ArkWong Kim Ark essentially establishes that only the few pre-existing exceptions matter, i.e. only that were found in common law predating the 14th (diplomats, children born on US soil under occupation, etc.).At the time, however, chinks couldn't become citizens no matter how long they've been domiciled. Congress didn't want them to and made that clear via Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.So, what your justices did with Wong Kim Ark was to create a loophole by pretending the current will of the people (no chink immigration, let alone citizenship) doesn't matter, and only pre-14th exclusions count.It's the true face of your "originalism" and a good chunk of the more based judges will think that's the right way to go. Add in the wise latina, "I'm not a biologist"-sheboon and the "conservative" who adopts niggers and there's no fucking way they'll overturn it.Easiest bet of my life.
>>532302126Speaking to the mutts ITT. Sorry for picking your post, I guess.
>>532302652This specific case was to aplow native americans to be considered US citizens. People coming here to shit out their kid to claim citizenship for them is nowhere near the same thing.
>>532307796>This specific case was to aplow native americans to be considered US citizensbeing born on non-us soil
