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)
 
Old 06-16-2011, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
So you want to repeal the 14th Amendment? Good luck with that. Do you hate America?
More hyperbole. No one has even implied that the 14th Amendment should be repealed. In case you don’t know, the 14th addresses much more than simply Birthright Citizenship. Birthright Citizenship is only ONE clause. No, we want the citizenship clause properly interpreted, according to the intent of the framers.

 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:00 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,515 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Again, "jurisdiction" has been cited in numerous cases, none of which, relate to Birthright Citizenship for illegal aliens, including Plyler v. Doe.

Show me a Supreme Court decision which defends the “rights” of illegal aliens to even be here, let alone entitles their children to be granted U.S. citizenship. Keep grasping at straws.

Yeah well you are wrong. They don't readdress it concerning birthright citizenship because it's already been laid out clearly in these previous cases and no one is dumb enough to try and fight a law that is a done deal.

Answer me two questions:

1) What did you do to place yourself under American jurisdiction when you were born?

2) If illegals are not under our jurisdiction under what sense are they illegal?

Is this the thread where I should be circular arguing like you guys with "It's the law!!!!! Do you not respect America's laws?!!!?!" The difference is I know the law and just want immigration policy changed. You actually think you are right and somehow despite like numerous Supreme Court judges ruling against you and numerous others writing on the topic including those same judges, you think your interpretation is correct lulz.

Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-16-2011 at 09:38 AM..
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:10 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
More hyperbole. No one has even implied that the 14th Amendment should be repealed. In case you don’t know, the 14th addresses much more than simply Birthright Citizenship. Birthright Citizenship is only ONE clause. No, we want the citizenship clause properly interpreted, according to the intent of the framers.
So according to the pro-illegals wanting birthright citizenship changed is "hating America"? Actually, changing it would show love for America by holding our citizenship up to a standard of esteem rather than making a mockery out of it as today's interpretation of it.

Funny how these pro-illegals think changing things that will not benefit illegal aliens is hateful but they wanting our immigration laws changed to benefit these lawbreakers is not? Hypocricy rules with these people.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:14 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,515 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
So according to the pro-illegals wanting birthright citizenship changed is "hating America"? Actually, changing it would show love for America by holding our citizenship up to a standard of esteem rather than making a mockery out of it as today's interpretation of it.

Funny how these pro-illegals think changing things that will not benefit illegal aliens is hateful but they wanting our immigration laws changed to benefit these lawbreakers is not? Hypocricy rules with these people.

Yeah well the 14th Amendment has been ruled on. It's a done deal. Don't you respect the law?

Also, feel free to answer the above 2 questions I asked Benicar if you think you have a guess.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Yeah well you are wrong. They don't readdress it concerning birthright citizenship because it's already been laid out clearly in these previous cases and no one is dumb enough to try and fight a law that is a done deal.

Answer me two questions:

1) What did you do to place yourself under American jurisdiction when you were born?

2) If illegals are not under our jurisdiction under what sense are they illegal?

Is this the thread where I should be circular arguing like you guys with "It's the law!!!!! Do you not respect America's laws?!!!?!" The difference is I know the law and just want immigration policy changed. You actually think you are right and somehow despite like numerous Supreme Court judges ruling against you and numerous others writing on the topic by the same judges, you think your interpretation is correct lulz.
1. I am the offspring of two U.S. citizens, and I was born in Pennsylvania. Hence, I am a citizen.

2. They are illegal aliens because they are here in violation of our Federal immigration laws.

Please cite the “numerous” Supreme Court decisions involving Birthright Citizenship and illegal immigration.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Yeah well the 14th Amendment has been ruled on. It's a done deal. Don't you respect the law?

Also, feel free to answer the above 2 questions I asked Benicar if you think you have a guess.
Again, please cite the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of granting Birthright Citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:44 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,515 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
1. I am the offspring of two U.S. citizens, and I was born in Pennsylvania. Hence, I am a citizen.

Quote:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Quote:
2. They are illegal aliens because they are here in violation of our Federal immigration laws.
Under our jurisdiction, thank you.



Quote:
Please cite the “numerous” Supreme Court decisions involving Birthright Citizenship and illegal immigration.
I never said numerous decisions as the two I provided are sufficient and constitute a majority of the judges sitting at those times obviously. There are also judges who agree with those decisions and have written their thoughts on the decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Again, please cite the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of granting Birthright Citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Well besides the fact U.S. vs. Kim Ark says it despite the fact you don't accept that another case would never get to the supreme court because of the writing specifically describing jurisdiction in the cases I already laid out.

Also:
Quote:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Keep trying.

Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-16-2011 at 09:53 AM..
 
Old 06-16-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
2. They are illegal aliens because they are here in violation of our Federal immigration laws.

Under our jurisdiction, thank you.





I never said numerous decisions as the two I provided are sufficient. I said multiple judges agree with those decisions and have written their thoughts on the decisions.




The case would never get to the supreme court because of the writing specifically describing jurisdiction in the cases I already laid out.

Also: Keep trying.
Anyone who enters this country, legally or illegally, barring those with diplomatic immunity, is bound by our laws, and can be charged as violators. Does that mean every citizen of the world is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thereby entitled to U.S. citizenship? Can you actually not comprehend the difference?

For the LAST time, cite a Supreme Court case dealing specifically with Birthright Citizenship and illegal immigration, or you are simply repetitiously grasping at straws.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:02 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,515 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
For the LAST time, cite a Supreme Court case dealing specifically with Birthright Citizenship and illegal immigration, or you are simply repetitiously grasping at straws.
For the last time? Hilarious since I already posted one ITT. I can't help it you chose to ignore it.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the state. People born on our soil whether their parents were here legally or illegaly are subject to our jurisdiction and:

Quote:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Feel free to describe the legal reasoning that gets you to your desired result and that is consistent with Kim and Plyler, and in particular what those cases had to say about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
For the last time? Hilarious since I already posted one ITT. I can't help it you chose to ignore it.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the state. People born on our soil whether their parents were here legally or illegaly are subject to our jurisdiction and:



Feel free to describe the legal reasoning that gets you to your desired result and that is consistent with Kim and Plyler, and in particular what those cases had to say about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
More grasping at straws. For the LAST time, Wong Kim Ark was not the son of illegal aliens, Plyler v. Doe was not related to Birthright Citizenship, and you cannot cite one Supreme Court decision involving illegal aliens and Birthright Citizenship. Until you can produce a Supreme Court case which specifically relates to automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, there is nothing more to debate. I await the case.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Similar Threads
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