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.
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?
I see, so because we want to follow the requirements of birthright citizenship which reflects what Japan, Germany and India require that means we want to follow all the other things you mentioned?
A child in utero is in fact an illegall alien, if the mother is an illegal alien. The courts have ruled the child is a person, ergo an illegal alien, just like any child brought into the country illegally. They can't be a non-person until birth 'sometimes' just to fit someone's agenda.
What if the child was conceived and lived in utero in the United States the entire time? How about if the father is unknown (and perhaps a U.S. citzen)? If the child is immediately put up for adoption in the United States, is it able to gain citizenship?
If the baby is attempted to be aborted late-term, doesn't the State give it particular rights, and attempt to have juridiction over the mother?...
Do we show our birth certificate or have to demonstrate that our biological mother was in the country at a particular time of us being a fetus or conceived? The trouble with inventing court decisions is that it doesn't survive any scrutiny. I am a U.S. citizen by virtue of my birth within the United States, no matter whom my parents were or their citizenship status at the time.
What if the child was conceived and lived in utero in the United States the entire time? How about if the father is unknown (and perhaps a U.S. citzen)? If the child is immediately put up for adoption in the United States, is it able to gain citizenship?
If the baby is attempted to be aborted late-term, doesn't the State give it particular rights, and attempt to have juridiction over the mother?...
Do we show our birth certificate or have to demonstrate that our biological mother was in the country at a particular time of us being a fetus or conceived? The trouble with inventing court decisions is that it doesn't survive any scrutiny. I am a U.S. citizen by virtue of my birth within the United States, no matter whom my parents were or their citizenship status at the time.
For the answers to your questions why don't you find out what other countries do that do not grant birthright citizenship to babies born from illegal aliens in regards to all the scenarios you are painting? I am sure we can work out the details if birthright citizenship is only granted to babies born from at least one American parent.
As for your last sentence that needs to be changed ASAP. I wish just one of you who don't want it changed would give one good reason why not other than spouting the 14th Amendment in its present form. We can change anything in this country by law.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,429,775 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan
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.
It goes to show how little you know about what these orginization and their members can do.
You need to educate yourself on these orginization before you determine
what difference they can or can't make.
Why do you think that Amnesty or the DREAMact was stalled or never passed?
BTW, I'm also a member of, F.A.I.R., MinuteMen, and one more you left out
ALIPAC, and have been for many years.
It goes to show how little you know about what these orginization and their members can do. You need to educate yourself on these orginization before you determine what difference they can or can't make.
Why do you think that Amnesty or the DREAMact was stalled or never passed?
BTW, I'm also a member of, F.A.I.R., MinuteMen, and one more you left out
ALIPAC, and have been for many years.
No...I dont need to educate myself on these organizations. I'd rather spend my time fishing on the banks of the Guadelupe River than spend 1 second worring about the impact these organization have on anything.
My comment, as uneducated as is was...was a reality. Unless your organizations can write, pass, and ratify a constitutional amendment changing the 14th amendment...then they have no power. none. period.
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.
Yes, illegal aliens are required to register with Selective Service. However, illegal aliens are NOT eligible to serve in our military. Obviously, the government would like to know the identities of ALL males within a specific age group, who are living here and availing themselves of our benefits and services, in the event of a war on THIS soil. It makes perfect sense. However, if illegal aliens were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” they too could enlist in our military, and serve overseas. But, they aren’t, so they can’t.
As for Legal Permanent Residents, like illegal aliens, they are NOT citizens. Hence, they also do not qualify. Conversely, a Naturalized Citizen has sworn allegiance to this country, and is therefore, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Consequently, is afforded the same rights and privileges of those born in this country to U.S. citizens, with the exception of being eligible to serve as POTUS. Again, only citizens are fully subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as is clearly evident.
A child is the offspring of its parents. If the parents are foreign to a land, likewise is the child. How can Illegal + Illegal, or Non-Citizen + Non-Citizen equal Citizen? That’s as ridiculous as believing 2 dogs can produce a cat.
Why on earth would a child born in this country to non-citizens be “stateless” if not conferred U.S. citizenship? No, they should have the same citizenship status as their parents. Are their parents stateless?
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.
Hmm. . . According to the U.S. Constitution, being a citizen IS being under the jurisdiction thereof. So, how can one be under the jurisdiction thereof, if one is NOT a citizen? Furthermore, it would not have been necessary to include a “citizenship clause” in the 14th Amendment if one did not require the other.
You are grasping at straws. Howard’s clarification remains in the Congressional Record. It is what it is. After all, he is the author.
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.
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.
