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, 03:59 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
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.
It is cheapened by giving a newborn citizenship in this country just because its foreign mother without legal right to be here was able to make sure her birth canal was on our side of the border during birth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2010, 04:25 PM
 
8,743 posts, read 10,001,736 times
Reputation: 3384
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
It is cheapened by giving a newborn citizenship in this country just because its foreign mother without legal right to be here was able to make sure her birth canal was on our side of the border during birth.
I so agree. You are 100 percent spot on.

Not foreign mother...ILLEGAL mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 10:02 PM
 
4,802 posts, read 3,137,446 times
Reputation: 1098
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
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.)


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.


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.
Well, this part still confuses me from the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

Quote:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
If what the Wong Kim Ark ruling says is true, Elk v. Wilkins states, according to the "framers of the Constitution" - "a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of birth cannot become so afterward 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."

Quote:
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
Perhaps we could follow Ireland's lead when they amended their Constitution in 2004 (25% foreign births taking place) to say that a person born on the island of Ireland, who at the time of birth not having, at least, one parent who was an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen cannot be entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 10:10 PM
 
4,271 posts, read 7,887,141 times
Reputation: 1552
No, Arizona is being a total drama queen. "He" or "she" (pick a gender for whatever the state is - Is Arizona a boy to you, or a girl?) needs to be slapped by the feds for filing something that is guaranteed to fail (this is not a constitutional amendment proposal - this is just a bill that will almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional) and to take up additional legal fees and time.

Arizonans do need to do something about the smuggling going on at the borders. But these media attention drama queen measures are simply going to make lots of people angry, take up taxpayer money (legal fees), stymie politics, stifle Arizona as a state (distrust across party and ethnic lines - This will happen).

Smart states pass measures that are uncontroversial and take effective steps against illegals (there was a thread about Massachusetts passing such a bill). I am sure many of you could come up with a bill that could effectively cripple illegal immigration and that would not have any constitution problems. Instead Arizona politicians are egging on an incredibly heated and anger-filled political circus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by getout View Post
This time America has taken notice and this time America will speak. I think this one will have a great chance of passing.

Arizona targets 'anchor baby' citizenship - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 02:08 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
No, Arizona is being a total drama queen. "He" or "she" (pick a gender for whatever the state is - Is Arizona a boy to you, or a girl?) needs to be slapped by the feds for filing something that is guaranteed to fail (this is not a constitutional amendment proposal - this is just a bill that will almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional) and to take up additional legal fees and time.

Arizonans do need to do something about the smuggling going on at the borders. But these media attention drama queen measures are simply going to make lots of people angry, take up taxpayer money (legal fees), stymie politics, stifle Arizona as a state (distrust across party and ethnic lines - This will happen).

Smart states pass measures that are uncontroversial and take effective steps against illegals (there was a thread about Massachusetts passing such a bill). I am sure many of you could come up with a bill that could effectively cripple illegal immigration and that would not have any constitution problems. Instead Arizona politicians are egging on an incredibly heated and anger-filled political circus.
Except the 14th Amendment was never intended to be a way to get around the immigration laws to access the giant welfare system.

It wasn't written for illegal foreigners at all. It was written for the children of slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 03:59 AM
 
Location: US
3,074 posts, read 3,336,186 times
Reputation: 1621
As I recall, the parents in Wong Kim Ark were in the US legally, despite the fact that they were not US citizens.

[quote=Pressing-On;14628834]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.

Last edited by carolac; 06-16-2010 at 03:59 AM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 04:46 AM
 
10,652 posts, read 11,347,155 times
Reputation: 6011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguer View Post
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?

I hope they all leave for California!! Let's see what happens then!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:09 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice View Post
I so agree. You are 100 percent spot on.

Not foreign mother...ILLEGAL mother.
1000% incorrect says US constitution.

Child born is US citizen.

ILLEGAL mother does not mater.

No LIKE...Change It
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:12 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,032 posts, read 6,860,628 times
Reputation: 4207
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
1000% incorrect says US constitution.

Child born is US citizen.

ILLEGAL mother does not mater.

No LIKE...Change It

They are looking at changing it. Perhaps you don't understand that. It's also not just AZ involved in looking at the change.


Congress Mulls Bill to Revise 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship - ABC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:19 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Except the 14th Amendment was never intended to be a way to get around the immigration laws to access the giant welfare system.

It wasn't written for illegal foreigners at all. It was written for the children of slaves.
that is incorrect, the impetus may have been to address the newly freed slaves, but the Amendment was writen to apply to all persons[as the amendment states]born on US soil.
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