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 10-21-2010, 10:21 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
The point of passing the law is that these states KNOW there will be a court battle over these laws and the lawmakers are intending to take this to the Supreme Court in hopes of re-interpreting the 14th Amendment to NOT include anchor babies
Thats not how it works. If you have legislation banning the granting of citizenship to persons born on American soil by parents that are illegal aliens...then the constitutionality of that legislation will be in question before the courts, not section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 20,593,561 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
LOL...I agree. but your typing it out long form doesnt change the fact...Legislation, whether by one or 14 states, can not change an Amendment to the constitution...I can not be any clearer.
That is true. It would have to be done via amendment. That said, I think that it should be done carefully. I do not have a problem with saying that at least one parent have a legal presence in the United States for a kid to be a citizen thereof. Note that I said a "legal presence"- not a "citizen" or a permanent resident but if a person was not a citizen or resident, they would have to declare in writing that they desire the baby be a US Citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 20,593,561 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
I believe the objective is to introduce state legislation that will be challenged by the feds and hopefully lead to a Supreme Court re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment. A pressure tactic so they can issue state birth certificates stamped with "not a legal resident" and withhold state services. I don't understand that tactic as no matter how it is interpreted it is still a federal responsibility that the states can't legislate. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely as it requires 2/3 majority in both Houses and 3/4 of all states (38) to ratify. In the end it won't go anywhere and is just state politicians trying to milk an emotional issue and ride a tea party wave to re-election.
It will NEVER fly. The Supreme Court would strike it and it would not even be close- probably 8-1 (assuming Thomas is still there).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:56 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
That is true. It would have to be done via amendment. That said, I think that it should be done carefully. I do not have a problem with saying that at least one parent have a legal presence in the United States for a kid to be a citizen thereof. Note that I said a "legal presence"- not a "citizen" or a permanent resident but if a person was not a citizen or resident, they would have to declare in writing that they desire the baby be a US Citizen.
Then your giving a Foriegn national the ability to decide who is a Citizen and who is not. If I agreed to your terms, I would have the illegal parents state that they did not want the Child it be a citizen, but then(either way)...what would be the point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,959,982 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Thats not how it works. If you have legislation banning the granting of citizenship to persons born on American soil by parents that are illegal aliens...then the constitutionality of that legislation will be in question before the courts, not section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Getting the Supreme Court to debate the 14th Amendment in this case is like a birther thinking that by disobeying orders he will force the court to view and rule on Obama's birth certificate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 11:22 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
Getting the Supreme Court to debate the 14th Amendment in this case is like a birther thinking that by disobeying orders he will force the court to view and rule on Obama's birth certificate.
If they can debate other issues, why not this one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 02:03 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
If they can debate other issues, why not this one?
Its not the fuction of the Court to "debate" issues.

Quote:
]The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in [proper cases]; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.When the court rules against the constitutionality of a statute or an executive action, its decision can be overcome only if the Constitution is amended or if the court later overrules itself or modifies its previous opinion. The decisions are not confined to the specific cases, but rather are intended to guide legislatures and executive authority; thereby they mold the development of law. Thus, in the U.S. governmental system the Supreme Court potentially wields the highest power.
Read more: United States Supreme Court: Functions — Infoplease.com United States Supreme Court: Functions — Infoplease.com

For a panel of Supreme Court Justices to "overrule" another SC panel's Ruling is even more rare that the Constitution being amended.

Case in point...look at how hard is has been for "Right to Life" Americans to over-turn the Supreme Court rulling in Roe v Wade.

The court does not visit a previous rulling on their own, there has to be a Rulling from a lower court that address some sort of harm caused to a citizen by the 14th amendment, specifically the clause dealling with citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Its not the fuction of the Court to "debate" issues.


Read more: United States Supreme Court: Functions ó Infoplease.com United States Supreme Court: Functions — Infoplease.com

For a panel of Supreme Court Justices to "overrule" another SC panel's Ruling is even more rare that the Constitution being amended.

Case in point...look at how hard is has been for "Right to Life" Americans to over-turn the Supreme Court rulling in Roe v Wade.

The court does not visit a previous rulling on their own, there has to be a Rulling from a lower court that address some sort of harm caused to a citizen by the 14th amendment, specifically the clause dealling with citizenship.
Admittedly, I am not a Constitutional scholar. However, I didnít realize the Supreme Court had previously ruled on Birthright Citizenship. Would you mind posting the ruling?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,959,982 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Admittedly, I am not a Constitutional scholar. However, I didn’t realize the Supreme Court had previously ruled on Birthright Citizenship. Would you mind posting the ruling?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1898)

Whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe (1982)

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1898)

Whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Thanks for posting, but I am aware of that ruling. However, to my knowledge, there hasnít been one in recent history.
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