U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2010, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,145,829 times
Reputation: 3949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Who cares? If we make laws retroactive on sex offenders, why not everyone else?
We do not make laws retroactive on sex offenders.

We make new laws regarding sex offenders and apply them prospectively. Not retroactively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2010, 09:13 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,924 posts, read 30,173,166 times
Reputation: 17744
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And the Supreme Court overturns them.
Sometimes , and sometimes not. CA has some of the most harsh gun laws of any State easily slipping around the (what I believe) intent of the 2nd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,145,829 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Sometimes , and sometimes not. CA has some of the most harsh gun laws of any State easily slipping around the (what I believe) intent of the 2nd.
If "not" that's only because a challenge never got to them.

SCOTUS has been unremittingly hostile to laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment. DC v. Heller is the obvious most recent landmark decision along those lines. We're expecting similar results in McDonald v. Chicago any day now.

As to California gun laws, "harsh" is (I guess) in the eyes of the beholder. I live in San Diego and I have guns. What problems are you having?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,191 posts, read 18,566,454 times
Reputation: 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
You can argue what the original intention of the amendment was all you like, but the Supreme court and the Federal government have set precedent in the application of the citizen clause. Precedent is not very easily and and almost never overturned.

No State's law will or can change the current interpretation. A law from Congress has more chance, but still little. An amendment to constitution expressly forbiding US citizenship to any person born on US soil of alien parents, will change the current interpretaion of the 14th.
We shall see how this plays out.

Just as the Arizona law about to go into effect shortly, it will call attention to something that needs correcting. It will not be easy, and there are going to be setbacks and bumps in the road, but that's how things are accomplished at times.

It would make you deleriously happy to have completely open borders, wouldn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Lake Norman, North Carolina
1,213 posts, read 1,399,780 times
Reputation: 392
Seeing that hordes of illegal aliens with puckered up a**holes have fled to mexifornia becaues of SB1070 maybe the "intended consequences" of simply proposing a law targeting anchor babies is that ignorant tribally ethnocentric pregnant hispanic women with puckered up a**holes will also simply flee to the promised land of mexifornia before giving birth to their anchors making the problem a mexifornian problem and not an Arizonian problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 12:48 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,145,095 times
Reputation: 1103
The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed because it did not intend to allow illegal born immigrants immediate status. The Supreme Court will have to refer to ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is 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 (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=112&invol=94
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,145,829 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed because it did not intend to allow illegal born immigrants immediate status. The Supreme Court will have to refer to ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is 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 (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=112&invol=94
You need to connect those dots, and you do not do so. Specifically, you need to establish that, at the moment of birth, the child of an illegal immigrant is not "completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance."

You will find that a challenging task, because in point of fact a half millennium of common law establishes that such a newborn is completely subject after all. Elk v. Wilkins did not consider that circumstance because, as noted in later decisions, it concerned an issue completely unprecedented in the common law; the citizenship of indigenous members of their own nations.

This point was driven home in the ratio decidendi of the later Wong Kim Ark decision where SCOTUS took Elk v. Wilkens to its more explicit and unavoidable conclusions. In fact, they were referring directly to Elk v. Wilkins when they wrote:

Quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 02:57 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,145,095 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You need to connect those dots, and you do not do so. Specifically, you need to establish that, at the moment of birth, the child of an illegal immigrant is not "completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance."

You will find that a challenging task, because in point of fact a half millennium of common law establishes that such a newborn is completely subject after all. Elk v. Wilkins did not consider that circumstance because, as noted in later decisions, it concerned an issue completely unprecedented in the common law; the citizenship of indigenous members of their own nations.

This point was driven home in the ratio decidendi of the later Wong Kim Ark decision where SCOTUS took Elk v. Wilkens to its more explicit and unavoidable conclusions. In fact, they were referring directly to Elk v. Wilkins when they wrote:
From my understanding, the Wong Kim Ark case concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in the determination of the citizenship of a child.

The 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted, today, because it is assuming that the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case included illegal aliens. It did not address the children of non-immigrant and illegal aliens. It did determine an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based upon the meaning of "domicile". Because illegal alien parents could not have had legal domicile in the US, the ruling is clearly not extending citizenship to their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,145,829 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
From my understanding, the Wong Kim Ark case concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in the determination of the citizenship of a child.
Your understanding is 180 degrees in error. Wong Kim Ark concluded that the children of aliens born on American soil are US citizens. It did not make any effort to distinguish between legal or illegal aliens, even while going out of its way (repeatedly) to distinguish the two classes of foreign diplomats and armies in hostile occupation. Designatio unius est exlusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum (The designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
The 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted, today, because it is assuming that the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case included illegal aliens. It did not address the children of non-immigrant and illegal aliens.
That could only be true if the children of illegal aliens were not children of aliens... which of course would be palpable nonsense. Wong Kim Ark provided a ruling that is general to the children of aliens which by definition must include children of both. The attempt to carve out a third implied exemption from the WKA ruling is justified by nothing in the decision, nor by anything in subsequent case law. It is frankly excluded by the legal maxim already quoted above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
It did determine an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based upon the meaning of "domicile". Because illegal alien parents could not have had legal domicile in the US, the ruling is clearly not extending citizenship to their children.
I have just revisited the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and note that the concept of "legal domicile" as opposed to the general concept of "domicile" cannot be found within it. So the ruling "clearly" does nothing along the lines you assert here.

Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 04:11 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,094,154 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2 View Post
I agree totally!! American citizenship has been "cheapened" for waaay too long! It should take more than someone dropping a baby through a birth canal. Even for a "legal" foreign tourist.

The only way American citizenship has "cheapened" is if you devalued your own citizenship. Because I have never looked upon American citizenship as a "cheap" thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top