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 06-19-2011, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,220,459 times
Reputation: 4611

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
What is annoying is knowing I've corrected you specifically on this detail, and you bring it up again. Citizens of Mexico can apply for their children born outside Mexico to gain Mexican nationality. It does not confer Mexican citizenship, you acknowledged this before, but you are still willfully misrepresenting it.

I'm willing to concede to a position that someone wouldn't be a citizen at birth unless at least one parent (either gender) were a citizen. Legal Permanent Resident status would also be conferred to their children, with derivative citizenship if a parent naturalizes while the child is a minor. It ultimately involves marking birth certificates and tracking details by a state databases, but is much more simpler to implement, and more defined against court challenges.
Isn't it great to be selfcentered?

 
Old 06-19-2011, 04:39 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,160,108 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
What is annoying is knowing I've corrected you specifically on this detail, and you bring it up again. Citizens of Mexico can apply for their children born outside Mexico to gain Mexican nationality. It does not confer Mexican citizenship, you acknowledged this before, but you are still willfully misrepresenting it.

I'm willing to concede to a position that someone wouldn't be a citizen at birth unless at least one parent (either gender) were a citizen. Legal Permanent Resident status would also be conferred to their children, with derivative citizenship if a parent naturalizes while the child is a minor. It ultimately involves marking birth certificates and tracking details by a state databases, but is much more simpler to implement, and more defined against court challenges.
Now, assuming that the difference between Mexican citizen and national is similar for Mexico as it is the U.S., the general point that I am making still holds! At some point, these Mexican "nationals" should be able to apply to become full-fledged Mexican citizens when they are adults.

The point is that their circumstances are not as dire as the pro-illegals would have us believe, i.e., that without birthright U.S. citizenship they would be completely out in the cold, stateless, etc.

At any rate, why is this any of our problem in the first place? Their parents are the ones who choose to come here illegally, fully knowing the consequences and knowing that it is illegal. Right now they know that if they have children here, they will be conferred U. S. citizenship; however, they might think twice if they knew differently. In any case, it is their decision which affects their children negatively. No nation, including this one, should craft their immigration, naturalization, citizenship laws to accommodate law breakers.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,016,445 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Now, assuming that the difference between Mexican citizen and national is similar for Mexico as it is the U.S., the general point that I am making still holds! At some point, these Mexican "nationals" should be able to apply to become full-fledged Mexican citizens when they are adults...
Only if they naturalize in Mexico. Do you know whom is an U.S. National without being a U.S. citizen? The inhabitants of a couple small U.S. territories.

You are making far too many assumptions...
 
Old 06-19-2011, 06:15 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,160,108 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Only if they naturalize in Mexico. Do you know whom is an U.S. National without being a U.S. citizen? The inhabitants of a couple small U.S. territories.

You are making far too many assumptions...
As I said, it isn't our problem if we end birthright citizenship for children born on our soil from illegal aliens parents. We have a right to determine who is a citizen and who isn't regardless of the outcome. This huge tax sucking magnet needs to end. Our citizenship should be something of value rather than something to be given away to the offspring of illegal alien parents.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,016,445 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
As I said, it isn't our problem if we end birthright citizenship for children born on our soil from illegal aliens parents. We have a right to determine who is a citizen and who isn't regardless of the outcome. This huge tax sucking magnet needs to end. Our citizenship should be something of value rather than something to be given away to the offspring of illegal alien parents.
You didn't read what you responded to above, where I agree that U.S. citizenship should only be provided on birth when at least one parent is a U.S. citizen?...

But I'm as trapped as you are to change it...
 
Old 06-20-2011, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,826,194 times
Reputation: 3028
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment, most notably, Jacob Howard, the author of the Citizenship Clause, did not intend for U.S. citizenship to be conferred on the children of every foreign national who gives birth on U.S. soil. The nationality and allegiance of the parents must be salient factors in who is, and is not, considered a citizen. Otherwise, it would be pointless to even exclude foreign diplomats. And, why are they excluded? They are excluded because they are not citizens of this country, and hold allegiance to a foreign government. Yet, we are to believe that the framers intended to grant citizenship status to all other foreign nationals, who also hold allegiance to foreign governments? Would this not grant equal entitlement to every citizen of the world to be the parent of a U.S. citizen? C’mon, where is the logic?

At the very least, the parents should be required to actually reside in this country prior to giving birth. It is a monumental travesty to allow women to simply enter this country pregnant, and then confer U.S. citizenship on their children. How can anyone reach the age of maturity, and be of reasonable intelligence, yet actually believe this was the intent of the framers? Furthermore, U.S. citizenship would hold no value, if the ONLY requirement is birth on U.S. soil; ergo, the stipulation, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In other words, NOT subject to the government of a foreign nation.

Pro-illegals frequently reference Wong Kim Ark. However, that particular case simply proves that the Supreme Court erred in judgment, as was the case when they ruled that “separate, but equal” was constitutional, which later rendered Jim Crow constitutional. Fortunately, this glaring violation of the Constitution was later repealed in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Quote:
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.
Plessy v. Ferguson (http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/plessy/plessy.html - broken link)

The Supreme Court should rectify yet another obvious blunder, and repeal Birthright Citizenship for the children of non-citizens, particularly, those here in flagrant violation of our laws, and those with no residence within this so-called sovereign nation.

Quote:
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." This was familiar language. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had defined citizens of the United States as "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse for the passage of the fourteenth amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matters of Federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus it is clear that the idea of allegiance ("not subject to any foreign power") was somehow central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Quote:
The author of the citizenship clause, Senator Howard, emphatically agreed with Trumbull's assessment that Indians would not become citizens of the United States as a result of the passage of the fourteenth amendment:

the word jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certain, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.
Quote:
The Supreme Court in Elk noted that several congressional acts had been passed subsequent to the fourteenth amendment to bring various Indian tribes within the jurisdiction of the United States, acts "which would have been superfluous if they were or might become, without an action of the government, citizens of the United States." In this regard, the Court mentions the "Act of July 15, 1870," extending the jurisdiction of the United States to any member of the Winnebago tribe who desired to become a citizen. A similar act was passed on March 3, 1873, extending jurisdiction to members of the Miami tribe of Kansas. Indeed, this was the method used by Congress exercising its section 5 powers to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to bring various members of Indian tribes within the jurisdiction of the United States. General legislation was passed in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which provided that "all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States." Most recently, the amnesty provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 extended the jurisdiction of the United States to include illegal aliens residing in the United States for a specified period. Thus, Congress has a long history of exercising its section 5 powers to define who falls within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Note: Prior to the passage of the 1986 amnesty, it was understood that illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. However, this law ONLY legalized the status, and was applicable to, those residing in this country illegally at that time.

Quote:
In the case of the children born to aliens illegally in the United States, their citizenship would follow the citizenship of their parents or be determined by the laws of the country in which the parents hold citizenship. The fact that illegal aliens have violated laws of the United States precludes any possibility that they can be properly said to be within the jurisdiction of the United States as the aliens surely have demonstrated that they do not believe themselves to be subject to the laws of the United States, or are only partially subject.
06/25/97 Committee on the Judiciary - Erler Statement

Actually, it’s astonishing that this is even open for debate. Hopefully, soon, common sense will prevail, and the Supreme Court will decide to do what is right for this country, and end this blatant abuse, and despicable bastardization of the U.S. Constitution. Until then, U.S. citizenship is not reserved for citizens of this country. Rather, it is a constitutional right afforded the citizens of the entire world, which was certainly NOT the intent of the framers.

I have no intention of beating my head against a brick wall. Again, you either get it, or you don’t. If you don’t, so be it. Perhaps someone can explain why, if everyone is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as the defenders of illegals claim, it would have been necessary to even include it as a qualifier? It stands to reason, not only does it exclude foreign diplomats and their staff, but also anyone who is not under the “complete” jurisdiction of the government of the USA -- in other words, non-citizens.
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