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)
View Poll Results: What to do with anchor babies
Deport all the anchor babies, and strip them of their US citizenship 65 60.75%
I accept anchor babies as US citizens will full rights, but I think the law should be changed. 16 14.95%
Anchor babies are US citizens. Even if they leave the country with their deported parents, they may come back any time. 26 24.30%
Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:31 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Yeah none of that disagrees with me and none of that disputes what I said, which is accurate.

I just dislike the term "permanent residency" in any situation for obvious reasons.

(I'm going to give you some credit here and assume that you know you are speaking too broadly with your last line).
I'm going to assume you understand what is being discussed vs alluding to minutia and attempt to play semantics with words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:36 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You're the one claiming (actually it was wookie) that "within the jurisdiction" is the same as "subject to the jurisdiction" based on footnote 10 of Brennans opinion.
So you noticed mid-post that it was not me and still posted this, eh? Yeah, I'm not Wookie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:37 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I'm going to assume you understand what is being discussed vs alluding to minutia and attempt to play semantics with words.
I do. Changing domicile does not require petitioning government. That's not semantics, that's clearly overstating the case, "permanent residence" aside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:42 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You're the one claiming (actually it was wookie and muddledass (prana) but you come from their little group) that "within the jurisdiction" is the same as "subject to the jurisdiction" based on footnote 10 of Brennans opinion. I simply pointed out how, based on their ideology, then legality could be circumvented by illegal aliens.
I see you amended.

Still not sure what you mean by "then legality could be circumvented by illegal aliens."

You are saying that if they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of a given place, then they are necessarily lawful aliens in that place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:46 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
I see you amended.

Still not sure what you mean by "then legality could be circumvented by illegal aliens."

You are saying that if they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of a given place, then they are necessarily lawful aliens in that place?
I am saying they (illegal aliens) could attempt to claim that if Brennan was in some way stating that "within the jurisdiction" means "subject to the jurisdiction" for illegal aliens. It was a mere opinion on my part that they could do such a thing based on wookie and muddledasses statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:48 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I am saying they (illegal aliens) could attempt to claim that if Brennan was in some way stating that "within the jurisdiction" means "subject to the jurisdiction" for illegal aliens. It was a mere opinion on my part that they could do such a thing based on wookie and muddledasses statements.
OK. Well, I would go ahead and say that the hypothetical interpretation you're putting forward would require turning a pretty blind eye to how we treat the word "jurisdiction," regardless of how you look at Wookie's interpretation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:49 PM
 
19 posts, read 6,997 times
Reputation: 17
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction they are not illegal migrants and they cant be deported.

Subject to and within is identical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:50 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
OK. Well, I would go ahead and say that the hypothetical interpretation you're putting forward would require turning a pretty blind eye to how we treat the word "jurisdiction," regardless of how you look at Wookie's interpretation.
Please, make your case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:51 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill X View Post
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction they are not illegal migrants and they cant be deported.

Subject to and within is identical.
your arguing in circles.

No it's not. The Equal Protection Clause confirms that All "within the jurisdiction" are not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction". Why is it that all LPR/CPR, non-immigrants and illegal aliens can be deported at the behest of the Government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:56 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Before I move on, I just want to clarify - your belief is simply that Wong Kim Ark was incorrectly decided, right? I want to know where that disparity lies, but I've never heard someone take this line of argument by first stating the Wong Kim Ark controls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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