philbo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:57 pmIf you have taken that the position that the Look Tin Sing case was the best case on point, then you have mistaken the point of the entire post. Look Tin Sing was one of a series of appellate cases dealing with the birthright citizenship issue. Followed by Ex parte Chin King , Ex parte Chan San Hee and Gee Fook Sing v. U.S. The case directly on point to the issue is the one SCOTUS heard interpreting the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. The one case you failed to address in either your original post or rebuttal is United States v. Wong Kim Ark . It was this case which directly dealt with the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof in both the 14th Amendment and the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866.Your failure to reposnd to this case and it's holding which is directly on point. This case cannot be ignored, unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship. One of the passages most directly on point follows:TXHawk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pmAgain, your ad homenim is unnecessary. Frankly it weakens your argument because it clearly points out a means to an end bias rather than an objective look at the issue from an honest position of scholarship. However, I will address the case you cited. I was actually waiting for it as it is the case most cited by those arguing the 14th addresses this issue although they as you have connect it erroneously. In short the Sing case addressed his citizenship as he was born from parents who were LEGALLY residing here even though they themselves were not eligible for citizenship. It really should not need to be pointed out there is a vast difference between legal residency and illegal residency. So in his case the 14th amendment correctly addressed his citizenship eligibility.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 682. (and if you've read much law, you'll recognize the legal cite provided.)
TXHawk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pmYou are correct in pointing out the Elk case dealt with a Native American. The connection you failed to make was while the SCOTUS ruling in that case rules on the exclusivity of Natives, meaning they were already here prior to the rule of law currently followed, it and that is a vastly different scenario that currently being discussed but none the less still set precedent.
Wong Kim Ark directly referenced not just Elk, but all of the slaughterhouse cases in reaching it's conclusion. An educated legal analysis needs to refer to this case or an argument on this issue is in vain by you or any other talking head on Fox news.
As stated previously the phrase inserted by Mr. Howrd is where the debate should be centered. To conclude without supporting argument that only one interpretation of that phrase must now be considered, in the face of previous SCOTUS decisions which were directly on point and ignored in your response, offers nothing to your argument. To take them out of the context of the congressional debates is definitely not helpful to your argument. A careful reading of the original debates will reveal a pattern from Howard, as well from Senator Trumball who worked on the 14th, and drafted the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 from which Howrd paraphrased the indicated passage in the 14th amendment. In each case these men repeatedly talked about all immigrants, not just some, having citizenship at birth despite the standing of their parents. If you can come to a different conclusion from the original transcript provided below, I'll be interested in reading it.TXHawk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pmAlthough you did address in mostly correct fashion the background of racism surrounding these cases you completely either failed or chose to ignore what the author of the 14th amendment very specifically stated as of the intent, inclusions, and exclusions. That cannot be ignored unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=603
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... &recNum=11
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=605
The biggest issue with your response is the total lack of reference to the underlying issue, which is whether previous holdings of SCOTUS, laws passed by Congress, and the 14th Amendment can be overturned by a presidential directive. Congress may be able to pass legislation for SCOTUS to subsequently review, but not likely any other way. A failure to address the underlying issue is not the sign of a serious scholar.
I will allow you the last word after this as we clearly are at impasse and I am not going to make an honest attempt at a discussing an issues with your dedication to the the ad homenim. I will just say this. I have clearly presented the legal precedence which you and your side of the aisle who prefer a broader definition do not accept. Fortunately that is precisely what the SCOTUS is for is to settle questions such as this. My guess is they will do exactly that in regard to the 14th, pending 2nd issues, and many more. I will go ahead and address what is sure to be a diatribe about court stacking with this. Elections matter. Blue lost in 2016.