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, 09:54 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
? What about that context makes the footnote's language less applicable?
Brennan is stating that the Appellants (the State of Texas) are claiming that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" simply because they are here in violation of immigration law. Brennan is simply stating that they are "within the jurisdiction" just by being here and that the Appellants limiting claim isn't justified with prior precedence.

Now you show how they are magically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas and thus "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", and how this in some way grants birthright citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2011, 09:55 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Post 110

From Brennan Quote:
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
There is what Brennan was discussing when he brought up footnote 10. So how does "jurisdiction " in Plyler convey birthright citizenship?
Call me drunk, but I simply do not see the deductions you are making.

The statement that "within the jurisdiction" is the one in question here. The footnote highlights the relationship of the terminology used in EP and in the natural born citizen clause.

Thus, as we know they are "within the jurisdiction" we at least know that they are "subject to the jurisdiction of."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 09:56 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill X View Post
Wong Kim Ark has been giving "anchor babies" citizenship since before the term existed and it has been an issue for certain people for decades now. It is the status quo, if you were right it would be simple to take a case in front of a judge and argue that the status quo is wrong and yet it has never happened.

And yes, that is an appeal to authority as the other dude says. Its an appeal to every authority.
Wong Kim has done no such thing. So "status quo" trumps LAW? Who grants birthright citizenship? If you can answer this I will be amazed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_windwalker View Post
So, what happens to Anna Chapman and her crowd? The kids they had were deported along with them, even though they were born here, went to school here, and never were in Russia before. It's the parents, and in a couple of cases, only one parent, that were Russian spies. Still the kids were sent over there. I would say the precedent has already been set. In the country illegally, kids go back too.
Anna Chapman had the British citizenship she gained from her husband revoked, and she lost all ability to enter that country in the time after she was deported from the United States. But we don't operate the same way, any children that were U.S. citizens accompanying her, would have retained that citizenship. U.S. citizen children are theoretically able to re-enter the United States at any time, independent of their parent(s) deportation orders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:04 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Call me drunk, but I simply do not see the deductions you are making.

The statement that "within the jurisdiction" is the one in question here. The footnote highlights the relationship of the terminology used in EP and in the natural born citizen clause.

Thus, as we know they are "within the jurisdiction" we at least know that they are "subject to the jurisdiction of."
Except the Citizenship Clause is never brought up in any of Brennans argument. He clearly states this is a case of the Equal Protection Clause.
Quote:
Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the [p216] United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:08 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111
And so your sole point is that the footnote is dicta?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:13 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
And so your sole point is that the footnote is dicta?
pretty much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:17 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111
OK. I consider that pretty weak, as that it was interpreting a prior decision and doing it relatively well. But obviously this is less relevant than a controlling holding (and we can discuss the nonsense that Plyler was, if needed.)

However, I need to go to bed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:47 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
OK. I consider that pretty weak, as that it was interpreting a prior decision and doing it relatively well. But obviously this is less relevant than a controlling holding (and we can discuss the nonsense that Plyler was, if needed.)

However, I need to go to bed.
To Gray in Wong Kim Ark for which footnote 10 refers:
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." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
As footnote 10 defines:
Quote:
Id. at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 08:32 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Brennan is stating that the Appellants (the State of Texas) are claiming that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" simply because they are here in violation of immigration law. Brennan is simply stating that they are "within the jurisdiction" just by being here and that the Appellants limiting claim isn't justified with prior precedence.

Now you show how they are magically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas and thus "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", and how this in some way grants birthright citizenship.
Liquid, I wish you could go before the Supreme Court and argue your case on birthright citizenship.
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