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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,715,868 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
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.
In Wong Kim Ark, Gray discussed a child born here to parents that are domiciled here (here with the legal allowance of our Government); his parents are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. I would suggest thoroughly reading the Wong Kim Ark case. Gray defines what "within the jurisdiction" means by going to Wick Ho vs Hopkins (which is also implied the same in The Schooner Exchange vs M'Faddon, and in Lem Moon Sing vs US):
Quote:
all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Brennan in Plyler vs Doe, merely accepts the useage of "within the jurisdiction" to allow the Equal Protection for children to attend school. In footnote 10, Brennan merely recognizes that Gray discussed Birthright Citizenship and "jurisdiction". If you have light of any newer case involving Birth Right Citizenship, please share it. Until an anchor baby is deported and sues the US Government, this matter will not be immediately resolved, or unless the States start requiring proof of Citizenship or immigration documents to obtain federally recognized birth certificates will this issue get resolved.

If we use huddlemasses logic, anchor babies have only been around since Plyler vs Doe (1982), since he claims that case grants full 14th Amendment wording to all here.

 
Old 06-18-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,715,868 times
Reputation: 299
I like your picking and choosing of phrases out of Wong Kim Ark, Iron 81. To sit here and devour you would take some time, but easily done. your first quote, I am wondering why you left off the first portion of it?
Quote:
16 Wall. 128, 129.
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
16 Wall. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was....
Is it because it makes your portion irrelevant?

Your second quote is from Elk vs Wilkens.
Quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The real object of the
Your batting -1000 so far.

Let's move to your third quote, again you leave off the entire first portion of the paragraph:
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."
I see your batting average has not improved any.

Your final quote I would suggest re-reading it, as it doesn't help your claim, since it is in discussion of children born to American parents abroad.

Here is a hint, when reading court Opinion you must follow the opinion as each paragraph discusses specific relations to the case in question. Many paragraphs can be used to rationalize the opinion as taken from another case. Your benched for the season, your batting average... you have yet to even hit the ball. Maybe next season.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 12:30 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,327,718 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
I wrote my senator about this several months ago, saying I thought children should be citizens of their parents' countries. She answered that she didn't think children should be punished for the actions of their parents. I wrote back saying I didn't know she considered citizenship in another country as punishment. I didn't hear from her again. Anyway, it was a pretty good indiation where she stands on the issue.

I kind of got the same email back to me from Boxer, California. She in her email said she did not agree with this and that her stance on immigration is much differerent then mine, yes We all know that. We also know why her and the Dems, seems to not want to do anything about our illegal situation. Infact both parties are guilty, of not doing the right things as far as our illegal situation gets worse. I write and email constantly driving those who think they are doing something for Calif, which they are not. i drive them nuts, sending emails constantly too. Does no good, get the same boring letter back, that they send too everybody. Brown, is of no help at all, his letters are he disagrees with my stance on immigration, and get boring reasons why we should welcome these people. I totally will never change my stance on immigration ever.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 01:19 PM
 
9 posts, read 6,324 times
Reputation: 19
From portions of passages you just cited, which explain why the evidence you cited doesn't carry much weight:

Quote:
[The sentence LR relies on] was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together
This is legal speak for "this guy doesn't know what he was talking about". The next few sentences go on to state what the law actually is, which is what I cited.

Quote:
[Elk v Wilkins] had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The reason why they said the decision applies to Indians is because Elk v. Wilkins restricts citizenship rights. The quoted passage in this post makes the point that aliens born in this country still get citizenship.

The third paragraph you cite simply supports my point by saying: '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... as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,"'
 
Old 06-18-2011, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,020,887 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...I would suggest thoroughly reading the Wong Kim Ark case. Gray defines what "within the jurisdiction" means by going to Wick Ho vs Hopkins (which is also implied the same in The Schooner Exchange vs M'Faddon, and in Lem Moon Sing vs US)... ...If we use huddlemasses logic, anchor babies have only been around since Plyler vs Doe (1982), since he claims that case grants full 14th Amendment wording to all here.
I was asking for your short list of whom is entitled to citizenship by birth in the United States. No definitions about jurisdictions yet, because there are classes of proven citizens that cannot do things like a lawsuit (because of being a minor, which is very relevant to a baby born here, even for the State suing on behalf of the minor). Save that for when we talk about the fine differences between the classes.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,715,868 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81 View Post
The reason why they said the decision applies to Indians is because Elk v. Wilkins restricts citizenship rights. The quoted passage in this post makes the point that aliens born in this country still get citizenship.
You are correct, it "restricts citizenship rights", so let me highlight a key word for you. The quoted passage in this post makes the point that aliens born in this country still get citizenship. This has never been denied as alien has been defined to to a person(s) here with the consent of our Government. Strike 1

Quote:
From portions of passages you just cited, which explain why the evidence you cited doesn't carry much weight:

Quote:
[The sentence LR relies on] was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together
This is legal speak for "this guy doesn't know what he was talking about". The next few sentences go on to state what the law actually is, which is what I cited.
Again, my quote is actual law as stated by Justice Miller in the majority Opinion of the court. Gray points out about Miller's remark:
Quote:
In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.
Strike 2

Except the third paragraph I used was in regards to the Schooner Exchange as Gray describes. Strike 3
You do know what the cases Gray uses are about, right? You still take portions of Precedence and attempt to use them out of there context of there individual cases. Each case Gray refers to is in some way about "jurisdiction" of a particular class of person.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-18-2011 at 04:07 PM..
 
Old 06-18-2011, 02:57 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,715,868 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I was asking for your short list of whom is entitled to citizenship by birth in the United States. No definitions about jurisdictions yet, because there are classes of proven citizens that cannot do things like a lawsuit (because of being a minor, which is very relevant to a baby born here, even for the State suing on behalf of the minor). Save that for when we talk about the fine differences between the classes.
Short list.
1) Children born to parents who are US Citizens
2) Children born to aliens here with the consent of our Government
3) Children born to Naturalized Citizens
 
Old 06-18-2011, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,020,887 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Short list.
1) Children born to parents who are US Citizens
2) Children born to aliens here with the consent of our Government
3) Children born to Naturalized Citizens
1) Both parents, or at least to one parent that is a U.S. citizen?

2) Valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas? I'm specifically understanding you that they also have to be in current status (not in a visa overstay). What about TPS? Also understood that we are not referring to the staff of foreign embassies, that are serving their country here at the consent of our government.

3) Redundant, you've already classified citizens in #1
 
Old 06-18-2011, 03:24 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,715,868 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
1) Both parents, or at least to one parent that is a U.S. citizen?

2) Valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas? I'm specifically understanding you that they also have to be in current status (not in a visa overstay). What about TPS? Also understood that we are not referring to the staff of foreign embassies, that are serving their country here at the consent of our government.

3) Redundant, you've already classified citizens in #1
1) According to Flores-Villar it appears to be Mothers Nationality if born abroad, there are also other factors.
2) Valid immigrants, yes; non-immigrants is perceived to be; Current Status, yes, visa overstay is perceived to be; TPS should not, but I believe is perceived to be.
 
Old 06-18-2011, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,020,887 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
1) According to Flores-Villar it appears to be Mothers Nationality if born abroad, there are also other factors.
2) Valid immigrants, yes; non-immigrants is perceived to be; Current Status, yes, visa overstay is perceived to be; TPS should not, but I believe is perceived to be.
Nothing about abroad yet, that's not the focus of my question (in fact I specifically said "birth in the United States), and can be determined through other standards. There was no answer if U.S. citizenship can come from a single U.S. citizen parent. That impacts portions of your second category.

I'm asking about YOUR short list, not current classifications...

Also glad that we remedied #3, as a naturalized citizen differs nothing in actual rights compared to a U.S. citizen by birth...
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