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 08-09-2011, 08:42 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,489 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Liguid reigns - thats some serious ownage you just dealt.
I loled. I mean, I don't agree with much of what you say here, but I can tell that you make sincere attempts to understand the arguments of others. Surely you can admit that you wouldn't really know a great legal argument from a mediocre one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2011, 10:33 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post



Brennan is the one who reverts back to Wong, to clarify that it is:

Judge Gray concluded:


I'm not sure how you think you can shape “subject to the jurisdiction” to somehow deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens. It is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. They can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported.
And it is Gray that refers to the Schooner Exchange in that very paragraph, for which one must further go back to in order to obtain the context of the wording.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huddlemasses
Allegiance of the parents is insignificant. What matters is the allegiance that all persons born in the United States owe the United States, at birth in return for the guarantee of sovereign protection.
Because one is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for civil and criminal law does not make one born to parents of such a US Citizen. One must hold allegiance, temporary or otherwise, in order to pass down that allegiance to their child. Gray states/implies so much (look to my previous comment above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
No, it's completely made up baloney.
And yet it is the exact wording from the actual cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
Well, he's just flat out wrong. Spectacularly.
What is it you three amigos like to exclaim..... "LOL"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryhmetime
I mean, he cite's Gray's comment on who immigrants "owe allegiance" to but then COMPLETELY IGNORES the actual ruling - and ignores that Gray went on to comment that the children of these people who are born on US soil are UNDOUBTEDLY "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
And you fail to read Gray, he states: 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
stop pretending you went to law school
Stop pretending you are anything but a 1L Student. I've been up front about my knowledge, I never claimed to be a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to have gone to law school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
I'm glad to see you back, apparently after drawing up enough courage to discuss law with people who actually know how to interpret it. You've been embarrassed on this before, whether you know it or not
Excuse me while I go LMFAO. I'm sorry I don't live on the internet like the 3 of you do, I actually have a life. Arguing (as this is not debating) with the likes of the 3 of you has become nothing more then a mere waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
I know that you feed off of the praise of people here who don't know anything at all about the law and are thus necessarily impressed when someone starts throwing out SCOTUS quotes. If that's enough for you, carry on.
Is that why? Really? It's not my vast superior knowledge over you that I don't attain the credit I deserve? You 3 are butt a joke, (the butt of the joke, that is). You keep believing what you profess, and when/if you ever do become a lawyer(s), I will be watching for your name recognition.

As I stated before, the Department of the State determines citizenship status, and right now with the Obama Administration and the Progressive Clinton as the Secretary of the State, they have interpreted BRC based on ascriptive ideology. It will change when a different administration takes over or a new Secretary of State interprets BRC differently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 10:40 AM
 
1,574 posts, read 789,250 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
And you fail to read Gray, he states: 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.
What difference does this make? In the part you quoted, he's talking about people BORN OUT OF THE US. Not the people born IN the US. Are you going to argue that anchors are not born inside the US? Because that would be a pretty novel argument, I'd have to admit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:37 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,489 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Stop pretending you are anything but a 1L Student. I've been up front about my knowledge, I never claimed to be a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to have gone to law school.
You have not been up front about your knowledge. Being up front would be prefacing every post with snippets like "my comprehension of what precedent is and how it binds courts is minimal if I am being generous."

I have not claimed to be anything but a 1L. I learned Plyler in Con Law, a 1L requirement. So yeah, stop pretending you know anything about law school, or the legal field as a whole, or law generally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Excuse me while I go LMFAO. I'm sorry I don't live on the internet like the 3 of you do, I actually have a life. Arguing (as this is not debating) with the likes of the 3 of you has become nothing more then a mere waste of time.
We can agree on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
As I stated before, the Department of the State determines citizenship status, and right now with the Obama Administration and the Progressive Clinton as the Secretary of the State, they have interpreted BRC based on ascriptive ideology. It will change when a different administration takes over or a new Secretary of State interprets BRC differently.
At which point it will be challenged in Court immediately and successfully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:54 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,489 times
Reputation: 111
BTW LR, give me a quick, succinct rundown of what you believe Footnote 19 in Plyler is saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:32 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
What difference does this make? In the part you quoted, he's talking about people BORN OUT OF THE US. Not the people born IN the US. Are you going to argue that anchors are not born inside the US? Because that would be a pretty novel argument, I'd have to admit.
The point was that "allegiance" was obtained by his parents to afford Wong Kim BRC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
You have not been up front about your knowledge. Being up front would be prefacing every post with snippets like "my comprehension of what precedent is and how it binds courts is minimal if I am being generous."
I need to do this simply to state my opinion/interpretation of said cases? Please cite the law requiring me to do so. Precedent requires that you use the context of the phrase you extrapolate from prior cases which are similar to the case being tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
I have not claimed to be anything but a 1L. I learned Plyler in Con Law, a 1L requirement. So yeah, stop pretending you know anything about law school, or the legal field as a whole, or law generally.
I guess with both my wife and brother-in-law being attorneys this then means I have no knowledge about anything regarding law, or the fact that my profession and credentials also require me to have an understanding of law and must simply have been a waste of my profession. Since you learned about Plyler in Con Law then you should realize it is only limited to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and does not bleed over into the BRC Clause. Your claiming the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are lacking of any context, as I stated, to obtain that context in Plyler, one must go back to the Schooner Exchange, which only makes those "sovereigns who enter the territory of another without consent of that other" subject to civil and criminal law of both the State in which they are and of Federal Laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
At which point it will be challenged in Court immediately and successfully.
One can not truly determine how SCOTUS would rule, you have your opinion of it, I have mine. As it stands right now, SCOTUS would have the leanings towards my interpretation vs yours. Why don't you make a name for yourself and challenge BRC, take it to SCOTUS and allow them to make a final ruling on it once and for all. We could then argue if SCOTUS was right or wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:38 PM
 
951 posts, read 616,793 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I guess with both my wife and brother-in-law being attorneys this then means I have no knowledge about anything regarding law, or the fact that my profession and credentials also require me to have an understanding of law and must simply have been a waste of my profession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
And you fail to read Gray, he states: 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
What difference does this make? In the part you quoted, he's talking about people BORN OUT OF THE US. Not the people born IN the US. Are you going to argue that anchors are not born inside the US? Because that would be a pretty novel argument, I'd have to admit.

lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:39 PM
 
951 posts, read 616,793 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
As I stated before, the Department of the State determines citizenship status,
False. A birth certificate is not what determines citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:53 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,489 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I guess with both my wife and brother-in-law being attorneys this then means I have no knowledge about anything regarding law, or the fact that my profession and credentials also require me to have an understanding of law and must simply have been a waste of my profession.
I mean, if you wanted to make it seem like you knew what you were talking about, you could like, I don't know, not say things like "You will learn about Plyler during 2L."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Since you learned about Plyler in Con Law then you should realize it is only limited to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and does not bleed over into the BRC Clause.
No, this is wrong. The primary holding of Plyler was EP-related, obviously, but when the Court sits there and interprets a phrase (explicitly so, even though in the Anchor Babies thread you went wayyy out of your way to make it seem unclear) that has bearing on other clauses, that is effectively a collateral holding and it controls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Your claiming the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are lacking of any context, as I stated, to obtain that context in Plyler, one must go back to the Schooner Exchange, which only makes those "sovereigns who enter the territory of another without consent of that other" subject to civil and criminal law of both the State in which they are and of Federal Laws.
They are not lacking in context. We went over Wong Kim Ark together, nice and step by step like. I haven't read Schooner, but I assume that when I do, as with Wong Kim Ark, I'll spend a whole bunch of time picking it apart, contrasting it with later opinions (which, you know, actually control), and then you'll spend 30 seconds, just like you did before, saying "well we must agree to disagree." Then if you really want some spicy parallels, you might even throw in an accusation that I am parroting external sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
One can not truly determine how SCOTUS would rule, you have your opinion of it, I have mine. As it stands right now, SCOTUS would have the leanings towards my interpretation vs yours. Why don't you make a name for yourself and challenge BRC, take it to SCOTUS and allow them to make a final ruling on it once and for all. We could then argue if SCOTUS was right or wrong.
My guess is that it's been challenged in lower courts. How about this - if anytime in the near future it comes before the Court, with the justices as they are, I'll make a wager. $1000 says my side wins. I'd even take some odds that it's 9-0, though you would need a miracle to do any better than a 5-4 loss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:54 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,489 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
BTW LR, give me a quick, succinct rundown of what you believe Footnote 19 in Plyler is saying.
Pls
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
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