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.
According to the U.S constitution these children are American citizens. Why do people hate innocent immigrant children so much?
The terminology used in the 14th Amendment is declaratory of the terms born citizen and naturalized citizen, providing the only two ways to US citizenship. It does not state that all persons born here are Citizens at birth, even though that's how many people interpret it. What it means is that to be a citizen the criteria is to either be born here subject to the jurisdiction of or to be naturalized and become subject to the jurisdiction of.
Quote:
As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.
This, from WKA, explains it best:
Quote:
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and, in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended [p693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race. Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,
Resident aliens are allowed to be here by our government and are therefor considered to be domiciled here, provided they are not working for their governments, i.e. consuls, foreign ministers, etc. Illegal aliens are not here with the authorization of our government and hence they can not become legally domiciled and are not considered as resident aliens. Bouve (1912), makes the argument as to why illegal alien children should be granted BRC:
Quote:
Does the fact that the parents belong to a class of aliens whose allegiance the United States does not desire and whose entrance into the United States is forbidden by law affect the political status of the child? Obviously not, unless the bare legal prohibition suffices to prevent the parents
from acquiring a residence or domicile — it is immaterial which — in this country. True, the parents never acquired a municipal status by virtue of or under the immigration law ; and they never acquired a lawful domicile in the sense that they were never entitled to enter for the purpose of establishing a home. But the fact remains that they entered this country and proceeded to reside here, until their arrest, in enjoyment of every benefit which the law of the United States confers on persons lawfully resident here, and under the same duty to carry out their correlative obligations. Their temporary allegiance to the United States was complete and gave rise to reciprocal protection on the part of the state, unaffected by the fact that in order to enjoy and exercise the rights and duties incident thereto they had violated the immigration law.
This is a recognition of WKA as denying certain classes of people, illegal aliens children, naturalization and/or being citizens at/by way of birth.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-22-2012 at 10:42 PM..
Spin, spin, spin. We don't hate the children that became instant citizens through their parent's unlawful behavior. We object to their parent's illegal presence here and their attempt to anchor themselves onto our country by giving birth and thereby being able to access our tax coffers to support them. We also object to the misinterpretation to the 14th amendment that allows this fiasco to continue.
They aren't "immigrant" children anyway if they were born here. First you call them citizens and then you call them immigrants?
I agree we all have our opinions but the same people who say that they don;t mind anchor babies are the ones foaming at the mouth whenever the issue of the DREAM act or these people getting in state college tuition comes up. Explain? What American would deny another Americans right to go to college? If anything making these kids go to college and get higher paying jobs is better than letting them starve to death
According to the U.S constitution these children are American citizens. Why do people hate innocent immigrant children so much?
We don't hate them. We just don't want foreign nationals crossing our borders and arguing that Americans must pay to feed their children. Why do you hate the American taxpayer so much?
Actually I don't think I have ever posted in favor of amnesty.
So you either lie or don't understand. Which?
My position is and has always been very simple. It should not have happened but it did. There is no way to reverse the bad behavior of all the adminstrations since Reagan. So we have to fix it from where we are.
That requires that we reduce the illegal population to a few hundred thousand.
Now if you have a way other than providing a meaningful spif I would be glad to hear what it is.
You argued in favor of the Dream act. The dream act is amnesty. At every turn you argue in favor of giving things to illegals on the grounds that we have done so before and should continue to do again because we couldn't possibly enforce our immigration laws. You don't reduce the illegal population by telling them that all they have to do to get $300 a month in free food is to give birth on American soil.
You may not understand the ramifications of what you write. The rest of us do.
I agree we all have our opinions but the same people who say that they don;t mind anchor babies are the ones foaming at the mouth whenever the issue of the DREAM act or these people getting in state college tuition comes up. Explain? What American would deny another Americans right to go to college? If anything making these kids go to college and get higher paying jobs is better than letting them starve to death
If you're going to accuse others of literally foaming at the mouth you might want to at least get your facts right first.
Dream kids aren't American citizens. They are foriegn nationals. They should be grateful we educate them at all, let alone provide them with no cost high school education at great expense to our own citizenry. They're also more than half Mexican, a country with the second highest rate of obesity in the world so they're hardly starving to death if we ask them to do the right thing and go back home where they belong.
Or Foreign Nationals crossing our borders and having Americans argue that their children will be American being born here...
Or something like that...
Sometimes "hate" is an appropriate word to use...
Hatred is the right word sometimes. What human being thinks it right to break into another person's house, give birth in their living room and then demand they support the resulting child?
An illegal that's who! And their supporters who offer nothing but insults when we dare point out how we dislike this sort of sociopathic behavior.
I agree we all have our opinions but the same people who say that they don;t mind anchor babies are the ones foaming at the mouth whenever the issue of the DREAM act or these people getting in state college tuition comes up. Explain? What American would deny another Americans right to go to college? If anything making these kids go to college and get higher paying jobs is better than letting them starve to death
Illegals have a right to go to college in their own countries. They do not have a right to come here and expect to be sent to college or to take financial aid from American students.
Illegals are NOT American citizens. The dream act is all about illegals, not American kids. Obviously the alternative to going to college is not starving to death -- no reason to be a drama queen.
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.
