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 02-01-2011, 03:29 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,161,367 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoranrat View Post
For those who want to use nonsensical creative definitions of "jurisdiction" to do an end-run on the Constitution, “Jurisdiction” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, in relevant part, as: “A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory.” Consequently, all persons, citizens, resident aliens, legal visitors and illegal immigrants alike within US are subject to the jurisdiction (general power) of the US unless they have some sort of immunity. This is first-semester law school and so well-recognized that there are literally thousands of cases affirming this. Lacking jurisdiction, a government. through its courts, cannot exercise power over the individual in question, which is manifestly not the case with illegal immigrants.

If people want to change it, then it should only be done by actually amending the constitution instead of using clearly absurd and nonsensical definitions of "jurisdiction". It is troubling that many of the people who claim to respect the Constitution are so willing to defy its plain meaning. Don't like it, then amend it!
There have been many topics started in here in regards to birthright citizenship with much compelling evidence that the right to birthright citizenship has been improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court. No new amendment is needed. The Supreme Court merely needs to re-visit it and interpret it the way it was intended by the writers of it.

If anyone born on our soil was meant to be granted instant citizenship then there would have been no need for the qualifer of "AND" subject to the jurisdiction to be added into the clause it would have been automatic jurisdiction.

Even the illegal parents are not subject to our "full" jurisdiction as their jurisdiction and alliegience is to their own homelands and so would their newborn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:36 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,161,367 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
Not "may be the way it is now", it is the way it is now.

You can't chop and dice the United States Constitution as you see fit. As the previous poster stated, if you claim to respect the Constitution then respect and abide by the entire document, not just the parts you like.

Be careful what you wish for.
That is what I meant. I meant that is the way it is now.

No one is chopping and dicing the Constitution as we see fit. We just want it interpreted the way the writers of the 14th meant it to be. If nothing else new amendments can be made to amend a current one.

Wanting it changed is not disrespecting it. Otherwise we have had several amendments to it already that are disrespectful then according to you.

Bet you don't have a problem with illegal aliens and their advocates that only want to honor the parts of our immigration laws that they like (if any), do you? Pot, kettle, black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Tempe, Az
1,421 posts, read 1,239,446 times
Reputation: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
That may be the way it is now but that is all going to change. You should have bolded the qualifier part and that is "AND" subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoranrat View Post
For those who want to use nonsensical creative definitions of "jurisdiction" to do an end-run on the Constitution, “Jurisdiction” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, in relevant part, as: “A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory.” Consequently, all persons, citizens, resident aliens, legal visitors and illegal immigrants alike within US are subject to the jurisdiction (general power) of the US unless they have some sort of immunity. This is first-semester law school and so well-recognized that there are literally thousands of cases affirming this. Lacking jurisdiction, a government. through its courts, cannot exercise power over the individual in question, which is manifestly not the case with illegal immigrants.

If people want to change it, then it should only be done by actually amending the constitution instead of using clearly absurd and nonsensical definitions of "jurisdiction". It is troubling that many of the people who claim to respect the Constitution are so willing to defy its plain meaning. Don't like it, then amend it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
Not "may be the way it is now", it is the way it is now.

You can't chop and dice the United States Constitution as you see fit. As the previous poster stated, if you claim to respect the Constitution then respect and abide by the entire document, not just the parts you like.

Be careful what you wish for.
Birthright is going away. More and more people are mad about the illegal alien problem. Even Chicanos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 09:20 PM
 
108 posts, read 145,165 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
There have been many topics started in here in regards to birthright citizenship with much compelling evidence that the right to birthright citizenship has been improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court. No new amendment is needed. The Supreme Court merely needs to re-visit it and interpret it the way it was intended by the writers of it.
There is no such compelling evidence whatsoever. If they felt that only children of legal residents or citizens born in the U.S. should be U.S. citizens then they would have obviously spelled that out. The fact of the matter is that the United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Many people from Europe basically got on boats or walked across land borders and while these immigrants were not citizens (unless they naturalized later), their children have always been explicitly considered so based on the 14th amendment.

It is always bad to judge laws based on "intent". The law was not written and made law by a single person but a group of people and different people had different "intents". The law is defined only by what it says in plain language and what case law says it to be. Asking to defy Constitutional law based on vague notions of "intent" is asking for judicial activism of the worst kind.

It is important to note that the lawmakers of the 39th Congress absolutely and explicitly recognized the impact of the 14th Amendment on "aliens." In proposing the Citizenship Clause, Senator Howard stated on May 30, 1866:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
One of the actual proposer of the amendment says that the only exception is for "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

Quote:
If anyone born on our soil was meant to be granted instant citizenship then there would have been no need for the qualifer of "AND" subject to the jurisdiction to be added into the clause it would have been automatic jurisdiction.
The qualifier was added because the writers wanted to exclude foreign diplomats and their children that's why. It has nothing to do with "illegal immigrants". Until the turn of the 20th century, there wasn't such a concept as people just got on board ships and just disembark in the U.S. with little immigration control.

Quote:
Even the illegal parents are not subject to our "full" jurisdiction as their jurisdiction and alliegience is to their own homelands and so would their newborn.
You are again using some bizarre redefintion of "jurisdiction". As I wrote already, all it means is that someone is subject to our laws and our police and courts can fully enforce ALL LAWS upon them. This is obviously true of anyone in our country, citizens, permanent residents, tourists and yes illegal immigrants. It is only not true of diplomats who have some immunity to U.S. laws.

Therefore illegal aliens are subject to our FULL jurisidiction PERIOD. There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents full enforcement of ALL U.S. laws upon illegal immigrants up to and including the death penalty!

As I said again, if you don't like the 14th amendment then by all means work to actually amend it! Don't disrepect the Constitution by using bizarre, nonsensical definitions of "jurisdiction" or appeals to vague notions of "original intent" which are contradicted by evidence.

If gun control advocates wanted to "re-interpret" the 2nd amendment based on "intent" and the phrase "A well regulated militia", you and others would probably be the first to ask them to respect the constitution and the precedents of case law. Well then don't be a hypocrite and not do the same for the 14th amendment. If you don't like it, then by all means amend it by in the mean time respect it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 12:41 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,783,393 times
Reputation: 22171
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoranrat View Post
For those who want to use nonsensical creative definitions of "jurisdiction" to do an end-run on the Constitution, “Jurisdiction” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, in relevant part, as: “A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory.” Consequently, all persons, citizens, resident aliens, legal visitors and illegal immigrants alike within US are subject to the jurisdiction (general power) of the US unless they have some sort of immunity. This is first-semester law school and so well-recognized that there are literally thousands of cases affirming this. Lacking jurisdiction, a government. through its courts, cannot exercise power over the individual in question, which is manifestly not the case with illegal immigrants.

If people want to change it, then it should only be done by actually amending the constitution instead of using clearly absurd and nonsensical definitions of "jurisdiction". It is troubling that many of the people who claim to respect the Constitution are so willing to defy its plain meaning. Don't like it, then amend it!
Nope - because illegals can't be given the death penalty for their crimes as Americans can be given it. Illegals can go to their Consulate -- and in fact their own country's Consulate will intervene for them because they are under the jurisdiction of their own country.

Can't have it both ways. If for example Mexican citizens have the right to call the Mexican Consulate when they get in trouble here - and they do, it's because of jurisdiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:02 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,161,367 times
Reputation: 2130
Isn't it interesting that citizens wanting birthright citizenship changed based on one's interpretation of the original intent is considered to be disreseptful by illegal alien apologists but they have no problem with illegal aliens disrespecting our immigration laws and in fact think they should be rewarded for it. Hypocricy at its finest!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,310,387 times
Reputation: 6451
Why doesn't our Govenment just welcome each illegal who crosses our borders, with open arms, and have a welcoming committee to greet them all. Nothing will ever change, unless we freaking get tough with these illegals, and it has to start with our Government, actually giving a damn. We need to have a President, who is tough on these kinds of situations, not someone who can talk us into why illegals is not a bad thing! Tough is what we need, and if this situation does not get under control, all States are going to feel, what it is like to have these Illegals in their States, which i understand from realitives, they are there already. In the East Coast, and my realitives don't like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 02:31 AM
 
2,381 posts, read 4,414,646 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Nope - because illegals can't be given the death penalty for their crimes as Americans can be given it. Illegals can go to their Consulate -- and in fact their own country's Consulate will intervene for them because they are under the jurisdiction of their own country.

Can't have it both ways. If for example Mexican citizens have the right to call the Mexican Consulate when they get in trouble here - and they do, it's because of jurisdiction.
There is a big difference between the two. The death penalty has nothing to do with this subject. If a foreigner is given the death penalty in our country (U.S.) the prisoner's country can "speak for" but they cannot tell us or make the decision for us...to stop the death penalty for their citizen.

On the other hand, Mexico follows the same birthright for children of illegal immigrants. Once born on Mexican territory, they are citizens of Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 02:39 AM
 
2,381 posts, read 4,414,646 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Then he should be given custody of the child and she should be deported. It doesn't sound like he cared enough for his wife to sponsor her as a legal immigrant, nor does he love her enough to live with her back in her country.

If she really cares more about US citizenship for the baby than she does about having custody - so be it. Let her relinquish custody to the child's father but I don't believe in cases like this that custody should always be denied the Mexican parent. Custody should go to the better parent and illegals who love their children should be allowed to take them back home with them.
There is no "he should" or "she should". There is no custody battle and no immigration detention or deportation in process. As far as we are concerned our government does not even know this person is in the country. This country is her place of residence, irrespective of her legal status, and as far as I'm concerned this is where she will give birth. Therefore, that child will be a U.S. citizen. It is not our place to act as Child Protective Services to determine the welfare of a child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 04:29 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,783,393 times
Reputation: 22171
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacatecana View Post
There is no "he should" or "she should". There is no custody battle and no immigration detention or deportation in process. As far as we are concerned our government does not even know this person is in the country. This country is her place of residence, irrespective of her legal status, and as far as I'm concerned this is where she will give birth. Therefore, that child will be a U.S. citizen. It is not our place to act as Child Protective Services to determine the welfare of a child.
And when she is known, she should be deported and if she wishes to abandon her child as so many seem to want to do, then let the baby be raised by someone here legally.

We cannot continue to make ourselves the flophouse of the world where everyone who can't make it in their own country comes here and uses birth as a way around the immigration laws and into the welfare offices.

There are over 2 billion impoverished people throughout the world and we simply cannot afford to hand them all USA citizenship with all the government benefits. If the illegals were at all responsible, they'd buy a health insurance plan before they show up at the hospital but that's never the case. It's always at our expense.
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