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, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,840,521 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (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."
Plyler v. Doe relates to public school education, not birthright citizenship. However, that should also be rescinded. Both are bankrupting this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2010, 03:47 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,095,331 times
Reputation: 957
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.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (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.
thank you Sir.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 03:49 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,973,479 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Plyler v. Doe relates to public school education, not birthright citizenship. However, that should also be rescinded. Both are bankrupting this country.
The court in Plyler vs Doe interpreted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents - thus the state had no right to discriminate against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,840,521 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
The court in Plyler vs Doe interpreted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents - thus the state had no right to discriminate against them.
The purpose of Plyler v. Doe was to afford a tax-funded public school education to children of non-citizens. That was the ONLY issue. Citizenship, and all the rights and privileges thereof, was already conferred if born on U.S. soil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 04:37 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,973,479 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
The purpose of Plyler v. Doe was to afford a tax-funded public school education to children of non-citizens. That was the ONLY issue. Citizenship, and all the rights and privileges thereof, was already conferred if born on U.S. soil.
The no-citizenship-for-anchor-babies movement claims that the 14th Amendment is misinterpreted and that anchor babies are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. But in both the Wong Kim and Plyler cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" line to mean physical presence in the US.

Quote:
Citizenship, and all the rights and privileges thereof, was already conferred if born on U.S. soil.
This sounds like an agreement that anchor babies are US citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 04:45 PM
 
1,150 posts, read 992,902 times
Reputation: 369
<<I didnít realize the Supreme Court had previously ruled on Birthright Citizenship.>>

They haven't. They've ruled on individual cases, but never the 14th in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 05:00 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,973,479 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
They haven't. They've ruled on individual cases, but never the 14th in general.
Of course. That's how it works. The Supreme Court hears actual individual cases and makes decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution. You can't go to traffic court with a hypothetical "what if I went though a stop sign but it was covered in mud" case. Same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,840,521 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
The no-citizenship-for-anchor-babies movement claims that the 14th Amendment is misinterpreted and that anchor babies are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. But in both the Wong Kim and Plyler cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" line to mean physical presence in the US.

This sounds like an agreement that anchor babies are US citizens.
There were also dissenting opinions. According to them, a person cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if one holds no allegiance to this country. Unfortunately, the majority ruled. Hopefully, the next time, common sense will prevail. They couldn’t possibly have predicted that foreigners would enter this country illegally, and be rewarded in this manner. They all must be turning over in their graves.

I have never denied that through the deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment anchor babies are legally U.S. citizens. However, they are only citizens because their parents have no respect for the laws of this sovereign nation; and, their entire existence in this country is based on lies, theft, and deception. In my opinion, the abuse of the 14th Amendment is the most egregious of all illegal alien scams.

Last edited by Benicar; 10-21-2010 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Spokane via Sydney,Australia
6,611 posts, read 10,975,847 times
Reputation: 3084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
This sounds like an agreement that anchor babies are US citizens.
I haven't seen anyone here that is anti illegal immigration suggesting that they aren't as they are as the law currently is interpreted. It's the interpretation that we are disputing and hope to see changed in the future to prevent those born here to those here either illegally or "in transit" (such as tourism birthers) from being automatically USC.

But you knew that already, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 20,651,249 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
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?
No, what I said was that a child born to a parent or parents that have a LEGAL presence in the United States but are NOT U.S. citizens or Permanent Residents. For example, a college student from another country- such as England let's say- is here on a student visa. She becomes pregnant and has a baby while in the United States. If she wants the baby to be a citizen of the United States, should should have to declare that desire at the time that the baby is born. There are many people that have babies in the United States that never intended for the baby to be a citizen of the USA.
For example a mother to be in the small city of Windsor Canada with a difficult or multiple pregnancy might be sent across the river to the large city of Detroit to give birth because maybe Detroit, being a large metro has hospitals and specialist more equipped to handle such a thing. If the mother has the baby in Detroit, it is quite obvious that she does not intend for the baby to be a citizen of the USA but of Canada.
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