Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

Fox News Insider ^ | August 17, 2015

[EternalVigilance]

You’re confusing being subject to the laws and being “subject to the jurisdiction of.” Two very different things, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[chuckee]

There is a bloodless way around the legal requirement for a hearing and an appeal for every immigrant he wants to deport after he repeals Obama’s executive order.
And that may be what Trump is referring to. Institute a national e verify system much like Romney was suggesting and force them to self deport.Not only that but the message goes out to Mexico and Central America to stop coming because there are no jobs here for them.

[semimojo]

By this reasoning a child born in Cancun while the parents are on vaction is a Mexican citizen?

Every country determines their own citizen requirements. Depends what their constitution says.

[DoodleDawg]

They are subject to the laws of our land just like everyone else, as long as they're here.

Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

[Ghost of SVR4]

The judge is wrong.

Yup, I think we're about to see another blowhard become a casualty as Trump marches right over his political corpse.

"Judge" my ass, just another illegal supporting suck up. F'em.

[EternalVigilance]

Wrong.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

You really need to educate yourself on this subject. Your ignorance makes you look like a troll.

[EternalVigilance]

The Fourteenth Amendment makes a clear distinction between citizens and non-citizens, between persons in general and citizens in particular.

[Ghost of SVR4]

Hosepipe’s giving out hummers. Everyone line up.

bwahahahaa.....

[Las Vegas Ron]

Educate your self, start here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts

[Godebert]

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.

Napolitano is a Liar.

[semimojo]

The absolutists believe that in order to be 'subject to the jurisdiction' all one needs to be is physically within the boundaries of the USA, regardless of how you arrived and whether anyone knows you're here or not.

Not sure about the "absolutists" but many think that foreign diplomats and in some instances members of the Indian nations aren't fully subject to our laws and that is what the carve out in the 14th was addressing.

[Godebert]

"the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” and U.S. code sucks in its definition"

The Constitution is not a dictionary. Natural Law defines a natural born Citizen.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

[Las Vegas Ron]

Bump to your outstanding post!!

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Judge Nap: What about Obama’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws and executive orders?

Oh those don’t count do they toupee man do they?

[Spaulding]

“Repeal the 14th.”

Many judges have misrepresented the meaning of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment nowhere involves natural born citizenship. The case providing precedent for the “Anchor Baby” interpretation, Wong Kim Ark, rests entirely on the 14th Amendment and its plaintiff, Wong Kim, born in San Francisco to resident parents from China was not deemed a natural born citizen; the decision quoted Minor v. Happersett and made Wong Kim a “citizen”, naturalized at birth but not natural born. The opinion written by, Justice Gray, cites and quotes the precedent defining case Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

It is depressing to read opinions from many beholden Federal Judges, who are all political appointees. Barack Obama was careful and credible when he told us “I was born a subject of the British Commonwealth; my father was a British subject, and by the British Nationality Act of 1948” so was I.” He has never declared himself a natural born citizen, knowing perfectly well, as his Harvard advisor Larry Tribe stated in the hearings to support John McCain’s questionable eligibility, Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008. Being born on our soil makes one a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

How foolish would our framers have been before the War of 1812 when many children were born on U.S. soil to British subjects, royalists, who never intended to reject The Crown, to define eligibility to the presidency/command of our military to include sworn enemies? Natural born citizenship is only in the Constitution to define presidential eligibility.

Since McCain wasn’t born on sovereign U.S. territory, Obama, his campaign co-chair McCaskill, Pat Leahy and a few others sponsored two actions to appear to solve McCain’s problems, shutting off eligibility questions from both parties, SB 2678 and SR511. They were both actions to protect McCain’s campaign, since no law prevents even non-citizens from campaigning for office. One candidate for the presidency in 2008 wasn’t even a citizen. The Green Party candidate Calero had a green card. He wasn’t on ballots in every state, but states have no requirement to check constitutional eligibility. Only Arizona required a statement by the party confirming Obama’s eligibility. There were, though I haven’t seen the letters in years, two versions of the Democrat Party eligibility form, one containing the term natural born citizen and one omitting it, both signed by Nancy Pelosi and not Barack. He is covered. His team is well lawyered-up; no surprise.

While the form of birthright citizenship being misconstrued and creating the anchor baby phenomenon should be reexamined, the 14th Amendment is built upon Article 1 Section 8, “Congress SHALL have the power.... to create an Uniform rule for Naturalization...” There are two classes of citizen, natural born and naturalized. Congress creates naturalized citizens only. It tried once, in 1790, to extend the definition of natural born citizens to include the children of two citizen parents born “beyond the seas.” Larry Tribe tried that ploy, as did several otherwise respected Republican pundits and candidates for the presidency. They assert that natural born citizenship was extended by the 1790 Nationality Act, but that act was rescinded in 1795, signed by George Washington, and no act has yet been passed to “repute” children of citizen parents not born on our sovereign soil as natural born. Otherwise the Supreme Court would be beholden to Congress, which could extend definitions when it felt the need, as it has for both Obama and McCain. This writer sees the need to include the children of parents serving our nation in the Military, but Barack and Clair McCaskill took a stab at it in February of 2008, the “Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens Natural Born Citizen Act,” SB 2678. It failed to pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written to make McCain eligible. There needs to be such an act or interpretation, but that hasn’t yet happened.

Anchor babies are not natural born citizens but these days who really reads or honors the Constitution. At least Barack was honest enough to say publically that he considered the Constitution to be an historical relic, and suggested a number of amendments to enforce various “rights” he believed were the province of governments, the right to health care, the right to fair compensation, he right to own a home. He is an example of what the Constitution was written to exclude.

Born to parents, one of whom was also an alien, who openly declared their disgust with our form of government. Even our naturalization oath, which Obama is now in the process of revising, requires sole allegiance to the U.S. and our Constitution. Obama declared himself to be a citizen of the world, a “global citizen”. He was careful and never lied about his constitutional ineligibility. Obama, with some difficulty, and after two previous tries, said the oath, and not (I may be corrected) over the Koran, like the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison.

Why did no Congressman object when all probably know Obama is ineligible? Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal did object. He wrote an open letter to the White House in January 2009 asking them to end the questions by clarifying Obama’s eligibility. Their response was to loose the IRS on Deal’s returns for at least a decade. The White House response was to unleash the Justice Department based upon old tax returns, an unwinnable battle since legal costs are born by the taxpayer. Deal resigned and became governor of Georgia. No public official has dared open his or her mouth after that.

[semimojo]

The Fourteenth Amendment makes a clear distinction between citizens and non-citizens, between persons in general and citizens in particular

Uh.. I'm not sure it's as clear as you imagine.

The courts certainly don't think so.

It amazes me how many FReepers think the constitution means whatever agrees with them.

[Red Steel]

So we do see that the 1965 Immigration act (Ted Kennedy) law has provisions to deport babies along with their alien parents.

But as we know, Obama has given this a very low priority where it is almost non-existent.

[VideoDoctor]

The Judge is a PAID Fox patsy.

[Godebert]

Don't forget what they did to Col. Terrance Lakin when he asked for proof of eligibility.