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, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Tempe, Az
1,421 posts, read 1,237,724 times
Reputation: 410

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi View Post
mexico has it
If Mexico is rich; they can take home there people.

 
Old 06-17-2011, 10:00 PM
 
9 posts, read 6,312 times
Reputation: 19
Wait, people are arguing that Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The thousands of illegals in federal prison for non immigration related crimes would be surprised to hear that.

I mean, Liquid Reigns bolds this passage:

Quote:
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."
That demolishes his case. What side is he even arguing for?
 
Old 06-17-2011, 10:01 PM
 
951 posts, read 616,596 times
Reputation: 89
is anyone ever going to tell this guy the difference bt there their and they're? lol @ brainiacs and constitutional scholars
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen...
An illegal alien cannot become a citizen without going through Legal Permanent Residency first...
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:38 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81 View Post
Wait, people are arguing that Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The thousands of illegals in federal prison for non immigration related crimes would be surprised to hear that.

I mean, Liquid Reigns bolds this passage:


That demolishes his case. What side is he even arguing for?
Being "subject to the jurisdiction" is different than being "within the jurisdiction". I note you also fail, as huddlemasses does, in keeping the context of a sentence. It hardly demolishes my case.

The illegal aliens in our prisons are there for crimes committed "within the jurisdiction" of the State(s). You are aware that they can also be jailed for EWI, right? Immigration, Civil, and Criminal Law apply to all who are here, legal or not.
 
Old 06-17-2011, 11:55 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
is anyone ever going to tell this guy the difference bt there their and they're? lol @ brainiacs and constitutional scholars
I see your ignorance is still getting the better of you. Please, keep it up
 
Old 06-18-2011, 12:04 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
An illegal alien cannot become a citizen without going through Legal Permanent Residency first...
You are aware that that quote came directly from plyler vs doe, I simply removed child and children and inserted illegal and illegal entrant.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 01:07 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,596 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I see your ignorance is still getting the better of you. Please, keep it up

My ignorance? rofl mhmm

And, according to you IDs that are given to show you are a citizen are somehow gateways to citizenship rofl please, keep it up Use more emoticons too please. It amuses me more when your failures are full of cocky.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You are aware that that quote came directly from plyler vs doe, I simply removed child and children and inserted illegal and illegal entrant.
Perhaps to get back on-topic, I need to know whom that is born in the United States you are declaring to be "subject to the jurisdiction", and thus able to be a citizen under jus soli. The subject will be a challenge, because the 14th Amendment is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (wow, and we still had civil rights conflagrations over a hundred years later). We can debate the finer points from there.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 10:00 AM
 
9 posts, read 6,312 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Being "subject to the jurisdiction" is different than being "within the jurisdiction". I note you also fail, as huddlemasses does, in keeping the context of a sentence. It hardly demolishes my case.

The illegal aliens in our prisons are there for crimes committed "within the jurisdiction" of the State(s). You are aware that they can also be jailed for EWI, right? Immigration, Civil, and Criminal Law apply to all who are here, legal or not.
Yeah, no. From Wong Ark Kim:

Quote:
whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
How exactly are councils not "expressly invested with a diplomatic character" less subject to the jurisdiction than illegals?

Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
Here, Wong Ark Kim specifically defines "subject to the jurisdiction" to include exactly three categories: Indians living on reservations, Invading armies and foreign diplomats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Being "subject to the jurisdiction" is different than being "within the jurisdiction".
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."
I guess Justice Gray never met Liquid Reigns.

I'll just throw in this paragraph to pile on:

Quote:
By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
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