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.
As to the 14th Amendment, it is the States that decide what is and is not on a Certificate of Birth. It is the State that determines what legal requirements constitutes residency in the State. It is the Federal Government (Congress) that determines who is or is not "domiciled" (legally) here. It is the two requirements of residency that determines if a child born here is in fact a Citizen of the United States.
There is no need to Amend the 14th, only that the States start requiring proof of legal residency (SS Card, Passport - any Federally recognized document showing Citizenship or legality for being here as an LPR/CPR) or that they only issue a Certificate declaring that yes the child was born within the State to parents of said Nationality which they could then take to their consulate and obtain the child's passport and any other national documents.
As to the 14th Amendment, it is the States that decide what is and is not on a Certificate of Birth. It is the State that determines what legal requirements constitutes residency in the State. It is the Federal Government (Congress) that determines who is or is not "domiciled" (legally) here. It is the two requirements of residency that determines if a child born here is in fact a Citizen of the United States.
There is no need to Amend the 14th, only that the States start requiring proof of legal residency (SS Card, Passport - any Federally recognized document showing Citizenship or legality for being here as an LPR/CPR) or that they only issue a Certificate declaring that yes the child was born within the State to parents of said Nationality which they could then take to their consulate and obtain the child's passport and any other national documents.
Is your position only to provide U.S. citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen themselves? Legal Permanent Residents are nationals of another country, so parents would wrongly be directed to their consulate otherwise. In the cases where the parents are from two different countries other than the U.S. it might get interesting.
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.
Is your position only to provide U.S. citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen themselves? Legal Permanent Residents are nationals of another country, so parents would wrongly be directed to their consulate otherwise. In the cases where the parents are from two different countries other than the U.S. it might get interesting.
LPR/CPR Status recognizes those here as "domiciled" through the granting of the Federal Government (Wong Kim Ark), they have the intention to reside here permanently, (they hold valid SS cards and/or legal documentation recognized/issued by the Federal Government). There Children would be recognized as naturalized (not natural born) citizens, but the parents could also choose to allow for dual citizenship since they still retain their citizenship status of the originating Nation. As for the one citizen parent (Citizen married to Illegal Alien), Citizenship Status is conferred based on the nationality of the Mother, if mother is here as EWI then Child can petition for CPR status at age of maturity and eventually LPR and then Naturalized Citizenship.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-16-2011 at 06:30 PM..
Reason: worded incorrectly
Hello Chicagonut, long time no see. Allie sent me over here.
Yes, she told me and I thanked her for that. Hope you plan on being an oft contributing member in here. Your vast knowledge and intelligence are needed in here plus I know you are a "loyal" American. You might recognize one or two other members from "you know where" in here.
Ok, enough with the greetings. Back on topic now. I know you are very knowledgeable about birthright citizenship. Your input as greatly appreciated.
One more thing about Plyler vs Doe, as the Opinion States: Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
Note the use of "within its jurisdiction". This is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction of". Being "within the juridiction of a State" does not make one "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
Plyler Vs Doe is specific in that the 14th Amendment is directed at the State, not the persons. The opening paragraph says: <i>The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.</i>
This means that the State of Texas must allow these children the ability to goto school, even though they or there families have not paid for the desired benefit. <i>Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation.</i>
In section II of Plyler it clearly states: <i>To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power.</i>, further down it concludes with: <i>That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. (this is known as Plausible Distinction, note 10 at ID 693)
Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. <b>The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the [p216] United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. </b> </i> (this goes to the claims as made by Benicar on earlier pages) {....only begins the inquiry. - Does not grant 14th Amendment Protections to illegal aliens, there is no definitive claim that it does)
Section III
<i>The Equal Protection Clause directs that "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia,253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). But so too, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Tigner v. Texas,310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is "different" and what is "the same" resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill.</i>
Section A:
<i>The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. <b>Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants.</b> At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon,430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977).</i>
Section IV:
<i>To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).</i>
Conclusion:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial State interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.
Might I suggest learning to understand the cases and to whom it is directed before making claims that it infers something it do not.
Conclusion:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial State interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.
Might I suggest learning to understand the cases and to whom it is directed before making claims that it infers something it do not.
So you're telling me you can't explain how anchor babies aren't under U.S. Jurisdiction as well? I know what the case was about. Just because it wasn't specifically about birthright citizenship doesn't change the clarification and explanation of jurisdiction laid out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Note the use of "within its jurisdiction". This is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction of". Being "within the juridiction of a State" does not make one "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
Aaaaand this is completely false:
Quote:
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was
Quote:
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Id. at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that
Quote:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. Id. at 693.
Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-17-2011 at 09:55 AM..
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.
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.
