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 06-17-2011, 10:56 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,529 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
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.
I did explain it if you would look to the top of page 15.

 
Old 06-17-2011, 10:59 AM
 
951 posts, read 617,340 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I did explain it if you would look to the top of page 15.
No you explained a loop hole the states could use to (doubtfully) try to get around everything. That explains nothing about how they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:00 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,529 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Aaaaand this is completely false:
I would suggest looking up the words, "within" and "subject to", wait I'll do it for you.

"within": not beyond the limits of

"subject to": Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:01 AM
 
951 posts, read 617,340 times
Reputation: 89
I suggest you talk to Justice Gray lulz.

Quote:
impossible.......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.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,529 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
No you explained a loop hole the states could use to (doubtfully) try to get around everything. That explains nothing about how they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
What you are claiming is that since they ("anchor babies") have already received a Certificate they can legally claim as being subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. So far up to this point it has been recognized as such by our Government since the State issued the certificate required (Long Form Certificate) to receive an SS card (short form certificate will not get an SS card or Passport for that matter, thus not Federally recognized as a Citizen), but only since roughly 1946, there is no denying that, however that does not mean that that recognition can not be changed for those in the future, which goes to my previous comment.

I note you like to limit the vocabulary of the argument, thinking in some way that it proves your claim.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:15 AM
 
951 posts, read 617,340 times
Reputation: 89
Where does the law say someone needs a birth certificate or SS card id to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Please link.

When you finish that, explain:

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Where the requirements are for the state to do anything to require citizenship? In fact your idea seems like it violates the "No state shall make or enforce any law......" portion of Section 1. Hey the Constitution hasn't stopped the immigrant haters yet so why start now right?

Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-17-2011 at 11:26 AM..
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:36 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,529 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
I suggest you talk to Justice Gray lulz.
Wow, nothing like using a footnote to make a claim. The Wong Kim Ark case was about a Chinese immigrant who was born here while under the legalities of the Burlingame Treaty. When portions are taken out of context it only goes to show the ignorance of those doing so.

Why not use the actual paragraph in the case that the footnote goes to?:

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

But wait, you see this changes your claim and then suits my claim.

It then goes onto Brennans conclusion:

In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238. [n11] Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme: [n12]

You need to understand what "footnotes" actually do, not use them as the basis of your claims.

The discussion Brennan is having is the difference between "due process" and "equal protection".

There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection," and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated

If you could understand the Opinion, you would recognize that the State of Texas was arguing against granting "equal protection" while Brennan states it is a case of "equal protection" because they are "within the jurisdiction" of the State.

This would then also make them "within the jurisdiction" of the United States. It does not make them "subject to the United States" or the State for that matter. All it merely means is that they have some protections under Federal and State Laws (due process if charged with a crime), not that they are to be treated as citizens or legal residents (they can not own or handle firearms, they can not vote, etc.).

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...86-CR0.wpd.pdf
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:49 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,161,367 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Where does the law say someone needs a birth certificate or SS card id to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Please link.

When you finish that, explain:

Where the requirements are for the state to do anything to require citizenship? In fact your idea seems like it violates the "No state shall make or enforce any law......" portion of Section 1. Hey the Constitution hasn't stopped the immigrant haters yet so why start now right?
"Immigrant" haters? Whom would they be? I thought this was the illegal immigration forum.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,529 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Where does the law say someone needs a birth certificate or SS card id to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Please link.

When you finish that, explain:

Where the requirements are for the state to do anything to require citizenship? In fact your idea seems like it violates the "No state shall make or enforce any law......" portion of Section 1. Hey the Constitution hasn't stopped the immigrant haters yet so why start now right?
What does one need to be recognized as a Citizen of the USA? According to the Federal government one needs an SS Card or a US Passport or a recognized birth certificate.

To be under the Jurisdiction of the USA one needs to have a US Passport, SS Card,, recognized birth certificate, or a valid immigrant visa or Green Card.

The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics creates standard forms that are recommended for use by the individual states to document births. However, states are free to create their own forms.[22] As a result, neither the appearance nor the information content of birth certificate forms is uniform across states. These forms are completed by the attendant at birth or a hospital administrator, which are then forwarded to a local or state registrar, who stores the record and issues certified copies when requested.[1]


NVSS - Vital Certificate Revisions

The States have always been recognized as the means to obtaining Natural Born Citizenship, there is nothing in the Federal Laws that limit a State requesting documents from a parent in order to obtain said certificate, based on the numerous different types of Certificates the State can issue for birth, not all can be used to recognize citizenship status.
First Time Applicants

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-17-2011 at 12:11 PM..
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:55 AM
 
951 posts, read 617,340 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
This would then also make them "within the jurisdiction" of the United States. It does not make them "subject to the United States" or the State for that matter.
Well Justice Gray disagrees with you. I'm going to side with a Supreme Court Judge over some random internet dude all the time.

This is all pretty funny considering Brennan slipped in this statement that I originally quoted:

Quote:
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."
Here even Ann Coulter blames anchor babies on Brennan:

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=380 - broken link)


Please to be explaining how anchor babies aren't under jurisdiction.....
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