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 06-14-2011, 07:08 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 18,510,024 times
Reputation: 9490

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkfarnam View Post
I've done did it. I've been with NumbersUSA longer than I have with CD.
Me too.

 
Old 06-14-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Me too.
Unless Fair, VDare, Numbers, CD are going to write and pass an amendment to the US Constitution...belonging to any organization makes no difference. none.
 
Old 06-14-2011, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkGuy View Post
Give it up, it's not going to happen even with Republicans controlling all levers of Government. With the fast growing Hispanic demographic, any president or party who tries to do this will be inviting political suicide. America is more divided than ever. It would take near miraculous unity in all corners of the country and on both sides of the political divide to change the constitution. Remember we are not talking about making a simple law, we are talking about AMMENDING the U.S. Constitution.
This issue has been debated on this forum ad nauseam. You either get it, or you don’t. However, why would we need to amend the Constitution, given that the inclusion of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has already been explained by the framers? No, the 14th simply needs to be properly interpreted.

Following are the words of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. I don’t know how much clearer it could possibly be.

Quote:
[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
06/25/97 Committee on the Judiciary - Erler Statement

Furthermore, if illegal aliens are completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” then why are they not required to serve as jurors, or in our military, or entitled to Congressional representation? Why is it not a violation of their civil rights to be denied tax-funded legal representation to defend their immigration cases, or denied a SSN, or the equal right to work? Why are they not afforded all of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution for all “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Of even greater importance is their allegiance to a foreign government, and the right of said government to intervene on their behalf. No, illegal aliens are not fully subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Hence, neither are their children.

I will never understand why so many U.S. citizens place such little value on this country that they endorse the indiscriminate conferment of citizenship on the children of anyone who manages to reach our shores, notwithstanding nefarious intent, or total lack of allegiance.

Perhaps, eventually, one of our enemies will send a woman to this country to give birth, with the intent of later grooming this illegitimate “citizen” to become a leader of this nation, for the sole purpose of facilitating its destruction. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
 
Old 06-14-2011, 08:05 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
This issue has been debated on this forum ad nauseam. You either get it, or you don’t. However, why would we need to amend the Constitution, given that the inclusion of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has already been explained by the framers? No, the 14th simply needs to be properly interpreted.

Following are the words of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. I don’t know how much clearer it could possibly be.


06/25/97 Committee on the Judiciary - Erler Statement

Furthermore, if illegal aliens are completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” then why are they not required to serve as jurors, or in our military, or entitled to Congressional representation? Why is it not a violation of their civil rights to be denied tax-funded legal representation to defend their immigration cases, or denied a SSN, or the equal right to work? Why are they not afforded all of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution for all “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Of even greater importance is their allegiance to a foreign government, and the right of said government to intervene on their behalf. No, illegal aliens are not fully subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Hence, neither are their children.

I will never understand why so many U.S. citizens place such little value on this country that they endorse the indiscriminate conferment of citizenship on the children of anyone who manages to reach our shores, notwithstanding nefarious intent, or total lack of allegiance.

Perhaps, eventually, one of our enemies will send a woman to this country to give birth, with the intent of later grooming this illegitimate “citizen” to become a leader of this nation, for the sole purpose of facilitating its destruction. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Howard wrote durring the 14th debate, and prior to the writing to the language of the 14th. If those were the sentiments of the drafters, they would have been added in the language of the amendment. Its crystal clear what Howard's idea of "Under jursidiction there of" meant...but that is not the language finally adopted for the 14th amendment.

Rights held only by citizens can be denied by actions of the citizen, but does not deny /exclude that person from being "under the jusridiction there of".

If an American citizen, through their actions, loses the right to vote, jury, serve in the military...they are still "under the jurisdiction there of" and still have to obey the laws, pay taxes, are constituents in their congressional district...ect.

Serving on a Jury or Military...are actions done by adult citizens. Does that mean minor aged citizens are not "under the Juridiction of" the US because they are restricted from serving on a jury or joining the Military?

Think further of all the Americans that have contions that restrict them from serving the military or jury. Mental and physical conditions...do these conditions allow make less protected under the law, or subject to those laws?
 
Old 06-14-2011, 08:05 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Unless Fair, VDare, Numbers, CD are going to write and pass an amendment to the US Constitution...belonging to any organization makes no difference. none.
There has been legislation pending in congress over this issue, written by congressmen.
 
Old 06-14-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Howard wrote durring the 14th debate, and prior to the writing to the language of the 14th. If those were the sentiments of the drafters, they would have been added in the language of the amendment. Its crystal clear what Howard's idea of "Under jursidiction there of" meant...but that is not the language finally adopted for the 14th amendment.

Rights held only by citizens can be denied by actions of the citizen, but does not deny /exclude that person from being "under the jusridiction there of".

If an American citizen, through their actions, loses the right to vote, jury, serve in the military...they are still "under the jurisdiction there of" and still have to obey the laws, pay taxes, are constituents in their congressional district...ect.

Serving on a Jury or Military...are actions done by adult citizens. Does that mean minor aged citizens are not "under the Juridiction of" the US because they are restricted from serving on a jury or joining the Military?

Think further of all the Americans that have contions that restrict them from serving the military or jury. Mental and physical conditions...do these conditions allow make less protected under the law, or subject to those laws?
Apples and light bulbs. Citizens may “lose” certain rights, or their medical condition may disqualify them. However, illegal aliens NEVER had those rights to begin with. Again, Senator Howard’s words are clear, and HE was the author of the clause. If it included everyone, there would have been no need for clarification.
 
Old 06-14-2011, 09:42 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Apples and light bulbs. Citizens may “lose” certain rights, or their medical condition may disqualify them. However, illegal aliens NEVER had those rights to begin with. Again, Senator Howard’s words are clear, and HE was the author of the clause. If it included everyone, there would have been no need for clarification.
Being a citizen and being under the jurisdiction of the US are not the same. I pointed out...through your examples, that citizen can lose these rights and still be under the jurisdiction of the US. These rights ti jury, military, constituents[YOUR EXAMPLES] are not a determinent of who is under the jurisdiction of the US.

The argument is not if illegal have the same rights as citizens...it is if they, and US citizens, and Tourists are all under the jurisdiction of the US. your examples did not prove otherwise.

Howards words of who was excluded[aliens, indians, and others] was not added to the 14th...why? if these are Howards words, and he HELPED draft the 14th...why were his words left out?

His definition of who did not qualify as being under the jurisdiction of the US was not accepted in the final language of the 14th. You accept his definition[not in the 14th]...that's your right. Its just not the law.

Last edited by 1751texan; 06-14-2011 at 09:58 AM..
 
Old 06-14-2011, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
...Furthermore, if illegal aliens are completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” then why are they not required to serve as jurors, or in our military, or entitled to Congressional representation? Why is it not a violation of their civil rights to be denied tax-funded legal representation to defend their immigration cases, or denied a SSN, or the equal right to work? Why are they not afforded all of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution for all “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Of even greater importance is their allegiance to a foreign government, and the right of said government to intervene on their behalf. No, illegal aliens are not fully subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
But male illegal aliens are required to register with the Selective Service (a military draft) between the ages of 18 and 26. Legal Permanent Residents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but are nationals of another country that can intervene on their behalf, and aren't allowed to be on juries or have Congressional representation. They aren't allowed socially-funded legal representation in immigration courts either.

A child is not "alien" or "foreign" to the location they are born in. They are not bound by any allegiances of their parents, and without "jus soli" they would usually be born stateless. The long-standing interpretation of the courts in this matter are absolutely correct.
 
Old 06-14-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,285,252 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Don't bet on it. There is much interest in congress in changing the requirements for birthright citizenship. You find nothing offensive about an illegal alien giving birth in our country and the newborn gets instant citizenship? It has nothing to do with democracy. Most first world countries require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for a newborn to qualify. What is troubling is that we put so little value on our citizenship that any foreign lawbreaker can pop out a kid on our soil and "voila" they are a citizen and entitled to tap into our tax coffers for 18 years.
Wow chicagonut, thank you so much for putting this in the perspective i have been wondering about, now i see it in words.

Very extremely troublesome, when those in Power, simply put so little value on our Citizenship, and that because of their ignorant insight, make it so very easy for foreign lawbreakers, to have a child, being here illegally, and there you have it. How stupid are they!

Getting American Citizenship, should mean that those that want to do it legally, have pride, and those that do it illegally, clearly do it for one reason and one reason only.
 
Old 06-14-2011, 11:20 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia.

Only three nations have "bill of Rights" in their constitution...Japan, German, and India.

many don't have "Freedon of the press", Right to bear arms, no redress of grievences, no "innocent untill proven guilty"...ect; yet we want to follow their example?

Last edited by 1751texan; 06-14-2011 at 11:33 AM..
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