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, 06:03 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Registration in Selective Service equates to simply:
Quote:
To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, they are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance they will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
This is why they are required to register with Selective Service.

 
Old 06-17-2011, 06:11 PM
 
951 posts, read 617,163 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Until you can come back with Precedence that the Citizenship Clause pertains to Illegal Aliens, you very little credibility.
Is it your position that the citizenship clause wasn't addressed in Plyler vs. Doe?

I suggest you reread the case.

Are you also suggesting that they only meant to clarify the meaning of jurisdiction for the Equal Protection Clause while leaving a different meaning of jurisdiction for the other clauses? If so then lololol. In fact I'm pretty sure Gray specifically uses the term "14th Amendment" and not a certain clause in his clarifications. His footnotes which you think are so meaningless were actually cited in Plyler vs. Doe iirc. Yep they are, I just checked. Footnote 10. Why is it Brennan is further clarifying a position about jurisdiction made by Gray about the Citizenship Clause if it only pertains to the Equal Protection Clause? hmmmmmm

Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-17-2011 at 06:30 PM..
 
Old 06-17-2011, 06:33 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Is it your position that the citizenship clause wasn't addressed in Plyler vs. Doe?

I suggest you reread the case.

Are you also suggesting that they only meant to clarify the meaning of jurisdiction for the Equal Protection Clause while leaving a different meaning of jurisdiction for the other clauses? If so then lololol. In fact I'm pretty sure Gray specifically uses the term "14th Amendment" and not a certain clause in his clarifications. His footnotes which you think are so meaningless were actually cited in Plyler vs. Doe iirc. Then your friend Brennan further clarified jurisdiction in plyler vs. doe to make it pretty clear what jurisdiction means to illegal aliens.
The only spot the citizenship Clause is mentioned in Plyler vs Doe is in the footnote, in which Brennan is stating, " 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 (because Gray is arguing for Wong Kim Ark being here legally), and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used". (you do know why those commas are in that footnote sentence, right?)

Please point out where Brennan states anything about the Citizenship Clause in his opinion.

Brennan refers to Brown vs Education in making the case about "Equal Protection" and not "due process".

Gray, the opinion of Wong Kim Ark, if you knew anything about the case would realize that Gray was also talking about "Equal Protection" of the laws, thus the Equal Protection Clause. The whole paragraph from Wong Kim Ark:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Quote:
The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, 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."

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-17-2011 at 06:56 PM..
 
Old 06-17-2011, 06:38 PM
 
951 posts, read 617,163 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, 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."
So he's specifically talking about the opening sentence of the Clause you keep trying to refer to and not the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment as a whole (which he clarifies by stating 14th Amendment)? Mkay.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 06:40 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
So he's talking about the opening sentence of the Clause you keep trying to refer to and not the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment (which he clarifies by stating 14th Amendment)? Mkay.
Would you like to make this about Wong Kim Ark now? Do you need to be schooled there, too?

Your only argument is in the fact that you can not place into context the phrase you keep attempting to use. Here's a clue, it goes into the context as Brennan describes, Gray's defined opinion of jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark. Which is defined in the preceding paragraph:
Quote:
From the first organization of the National Government under the Constitution, the naturalization acts of the United States, in providing for the admission of aliens to citizenship by judicial proceedings, uniformly required every applicant to have resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and thus applied the words "under the jurisdiction of the United States" to aliens residing here before they had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, or had renounced allegiance [p687] to a foreign government. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20, § 1; June 18, 1798, c. 54, §§ 1, 6; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566, 568; April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 1, 2 Stat. 153; March 22, 1816, c. 32, § 1; 3 Stat. 258; May 24, 1828, c. 116, § 2; 4 Stat. 310; Rev.Stat. § 2165. And, from 1795, the provisions of those acts which granted citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents described such children as "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." Acts of January 29, 1795, c. 20, § 3; 1 Stat. 415; April 14, 180, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155; February 10, 1855, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 1993, 2172. Thus, Congress, when dealing with the question of citizenship in that aspect, treated aliens residing in this country as " under the jurisdiction of the United States," and American parents residing abroad as "out of the jurisdiction of the United States."
Alien as defined by Gray is:
Quote:
who are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile 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,
Domicile as defined:
Quote:
n law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-17-2011 at 07:43 PM..
 
Old 06-17-2011, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,014,480 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The choices the draft dodger has is to either leave the nation or enroll into some other portion of selective service outside of combat. The issue with illegal aliens being drafted, or for that matter joining the military, is the fact that they hold no allegiance to the USA. They have not renounced allegiance to their country of Nationality. thus, Congress would have to allow some sort of legalization for them to renounce foreign allegiance.
But Selective Service only registers, and does not place, would-be draftees. In fact the registration is completely independent of any ability to serve (i.e. a male with Down Syndrome is still required to register; A draft board would be formed at need to determine fitness). Currently Legal Permanent Residents serve in the military, and have not renounced their foreign citizenships or loyalties.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,014,480 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Registration in Selective Service equates to simply: This is why they are required to register with Selective Service.
I've also heard of successful waivers to Legal Permanent Residency, but when the LPR tries to naturalize, the failure to register for the Selective Service as an illegal alien delays their citizenship (usually until age 31, because they can't avoid their obligations within the last five years prior to citizenship). Again, the Selective Service registration doesn't determine fitness, nor have a clause solely because they could be legalized (it wouldn't then cover the female illegal aliens, which as LPR and citizens, are allowed to serve in the U. S. military).

The section you quote could even specifically apply to TPS (Temporary Protected Status), where despite illegal presence, an illegal alien is allowed to remain, even to gain work-authorization...
 
Old 06-17-2011, 07:39 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Currently Legal Permanent Residents serve in the military, and have not renounced their foreign citizenships or loyalties.
And they are limited in job duty and title. they may not become CO's, nor may they obtain anything more than basic clearance for documents. They are also here under the granting of our Immigration Laws with which comes some understanding on their part of what can be asked of/and taken from them.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 07:42 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,935 posts, read 4,593,172 times
Reputation: 2232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikCortez View Post
Birthright aint that good. Xcept for the USA and Canada, NO rich country has it anymore cause Ireland, etc. were being flooded by the kids of illegal aliens.
mexico has it
 
Old 06-17-2011, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,014,480 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
And they are limited in job duty and title. they may not become CO's, nor may they obtain anything more than basic clearance for documents. They are also here under the granting of our Immigration Laws with which comes some understanding on their part of what can be asked of/and taken from them.
That impression differs from who was our most-heavily trained sailor in my combat unit. They are barred from high-security and intelligence positions, but it isn't as limiting as you say. Isn't the declarations of jurisdiction getting a little gray by now?
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