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 06-29-2011, 09:43 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,304 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post


Liquid, I wish you could go before the Supreme Court and argue your case on birthright citizenship.
lol.

I'll try to respond during my lunch break or after work, LR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2011, 10:27 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,115 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post


Liquid, I wish you could go before the Supreme Court and argue your case on birthright citizenship.
Whether my interpretation/opinion would hold up is up to the judge(s) hearing the case, same goes for those that interpret Plyler vs Doe as somehow granting birthright citizenship.

Lets wait to see how Rock addresses my points, and his interpretation of the use of footnote 10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:13 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,104,934 times
Reputation: 2199
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Rather the "home country" of their parent(s)...

Where were you born (since you said you gained U.S. citizenship by Jus Sanguinis)?...
I am born here through lineage. My ancestors fought for independence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,015,841 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
I am born here through lineage. My ancestors fought for independence.
Then you are a U.S. citizen by Jus Soli, despite any parentage...

What does ancestors fighting for "independence" have to do with you?...

There are probably a few on this board that had ancestors fighting for secession, does that make them less of an American?...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 08:23 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,158,884 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Then you are a U.S. citizen by Jus Soli, despite any parentage...

What does ancestors fighting for "independence" have to do with you?...

There are probably a few on this board that had ancestors fighting for secession, does that make them less of an American?...
The point is that his parents were not illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,015,841 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
The point is that his parents were not illegal aliens.
Then he can state it in such a way, not to classify himself (just as someone announcing that they are "Sovereign" in self-determination) as gaining citizenship any differently. I'm accused of baiting and trolling, but just expressing a clarity of how someone gains U.S. citizenship by birth here. Our "start" in this country is all the same under Jus Soli.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:25 PM
 
9 posts, read 6,318 times
Reputation: 19
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?
The funny part about this is that Liquid Reigns is posting more evidence against his case. The Underlined portion is simply Brennan repeating Texas's argument. The bolded portion reflects Brennan's actual opinion and Brennan said exactly what we have been saying: that anyone physically within a state is subject to it's jurisdiction.

Quote:
These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennan as quoted by Liquid Reigns
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."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 08:17 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,115 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81 View Post
The funny part about this is that Liquid Reigns is posting more evidence against his case. The Underlined portion is simply Brennan repeating Texas's argument. The bolded portion reflects Brennan's actual opinion and Brennan said exactly what we have been saying: that anyone physically within a state is subject to it's jurisdiction.
Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, concluded that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause should be very broadly construed, the Court in Wong Kim Ark held that it simply means the same thing as “within the jurisdiction,” a phrase found in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Footnote 10's dictum hardly represents an investigation into the appropriate scope of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and it does not bind any subsequent court, nor does it confer citizenship upon children born here of illegal aliens.

Gray also defined "domiciled":
Quote:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:57 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,304 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
To Gray in Wong Kim Ark for which footnote 10 refers: As footnote 10 defines:
Footnote 10 is not merely "referring" to Wong Kim Ark. Footnote 10 is outlining the historical understanding of "jurisdiction" generally, specifically identifying it as geographical in nature. More importantly than anything, Brennan is spot on.

You harped so thoroughly on what Brennan was discussing as he made the footnote that I read the paragraph 10 times thinking you were seeing something I was not. But you weren't, you just thought it was of particular importance that the analysis of the phrase was not directly tied in to the reasoning of the decision. This is simply an improper way to think about dicta.

There was never and still does not remain a better description of the relative meanings of "within the jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction of" than exists in footnote 10 of Plyler. It came nearly 100 years after Wong Kim Ark. It does not contradict it. In all likelihood, it controls. It is extremely consistent with the usage of the term "jurisdiction" and gets to the obvious point - "within the jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction of" are almost always going to mean the same thing.

From a literal standpoint, the point is obvious. To say that someone is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of an entity is to say that they are outside of their jurisdictional reach. It is to say that the government has no jurisdiction over that person or entity or whatever. No elaboration should be needed to explain why that is not the case.

There is also something rather important here. The law has been interpreted in a very specific fashion. The Court knows this interpretation is consistent with Plyler and, at best, potentially inconsistent with Wong Kim Ark (but probably not FWIW). If you think this is a slam dunk in your favor, you're nuts. They'd never grant cert on this at this point, but either way. The Court is likely to A. look at the Founders' interpretation (this is more of a Scalia/Thomas sort of thing) and come out toward the English common law interpretation, or B. look to the recent history and interpretation, Plyler included, and come out toward the English common law interpretation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 12:03 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,115 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Footnote 10 is not merely "referring" to Wong Kim Ark. Footnote 10 is outlining the historical understanding of "jurisdiction" generally, specifically identifying it as geographical in nature. More importantly than anything, Brennan is spot on.

You harped so thoroughly on what Brennan was discussing as he made the footnote that I read the paragraph 10 times thinking you were seeing something I was not. But you weren't, you just thought it was of particular importance that the analysis of the phrase was not directly tied in to the reasoning of the decision. This is simply an improper way to think about dicta.

There was never and still does not remain a better description of the relative meanings of "within the jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction of" than exists in footnote 10 of Plyler. It came nearly 100 years after Wong Kim Ark. It does not contradict it. In all likelihood, it controls. It is extremely consistent with the usage of the term "jurisdiction" and gets to the obvious point - "within the jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction of" are almost always going to mean the same thing.

From a literal standpoint, the point is obvious. To say that someone is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of an entity is to say that they are outside of their jurisdictional reach. It is to say that the government has no jurisdiction over that person or entity or whatever. No elaboration should be needed to explain why that is not the case.

There is also something rather important here. The law has been interpreted in a very specific fashion. The Court knows this interpretation is consistent with Plyler and, at best, potentially inconsistent with Wong Kim Ark (but probably not FWIW). If you think this is a slam dunk in your favor, you're nuts. They'd never grant cert on this at this point, but either way. The Court is likely to A. look at the Founders' interpretation (this is more of a Scalia/Thomas sort of thing) and come out toward the English common law interpretation, or B. look to the recent history and interpretation, Plyler included, and come out toward the English common law interpretation.
1) I have never claimed my interpretation was a slam dunk. 2) Gray shows that Wong Kim Arks parents were, "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (due to being domiciled here with authorization) and therefor Wong Kim is "within the jurisdiction" of the State, allowing for the appeal.

This is a case of claiming citizenship by birth so Gray must show that Wong Kim's parents were in fact "subject to the jurisdiction" (Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.) and so by default also "within the jurisdiction", thus allowing Wong Kim the ability to appeal to the court for a ruling in allowing him to return. The second and third paragraph of the opinion states:
Quote:
It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
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