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 02-16-2012, 11:17 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Sourcing the entire document, and saying one portion is "particularly" apt shows up in YOur comments above...

It isn't a matter of citizenship of the parents at all, as U.S. nationals could come from a domiciled territory to a state, give birth, and have a child with U.S. citizenship, where they lack it themselves. The same parents, with the same allegiances, giving birth in their territorial homeland, can have a child that may not be a U.S. citizen. Legal Residents, domiciled within the United States, may not have any allegiances here, but their child would be a U.S. citizen under that definition from YOu.

So what do YOu want to be provided to YOu as a U.S. citizen, that YOu do not want provided to those born here without U.S. citizen parents?...
You have done nothing more then re-iterate what I have already stated previously. Legal residents due owe allegiance here and can be drafted into or join the military, non-immigrants here on visas/VWP owe a temporary allegiance even though they can not join the military or be drafted without Congressional authorization. Illegal aliens can do none of the above nor can they be drafted or join the military; Congress can't even authorize them to join. SOFA agreements come into play - International Law and all.

Your question is broad in nature, define it better. You are attempting to place illegal aliens within the confines of those born here without U.S. citizen parents, i.e. US Nationals or legal immigrants.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2012, 11:44 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Further, following Mr. Howard's proposed language was read the Senate entered into a lengthy debate to clarify the statement when Sen Edgar Cowan, who would later vote against the amendment warned that such language would allow Chinese immigrants (the mexicans of their day) to overrun California to which Sen. John Conness of California stated:
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
From that very same Congress, Mr. Johnson states:
Quote:
If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 11:49 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,012,769 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You have done nothing more then re-iterate what I have already stated previously. Legal residents due owe allegiance here and can be drafted into or join the military, non-immigrants here on visas/VWP owe a temporary allegiance even though they can not join the military or be drafted without Congressional authorization. Illegal aliens can do none of the above nor can they be drafted or join the military; Congress can't even authorize them to join. SOFA agreements come into play - International Law and all.

Your question is broad in nature, define it better. You are attempting to place illegal aliens within the confines of those born here without U.S. citizen parents, i.e. US Nationals or legal immigrants.
Illegal aliens certainly can be drafted, but may not be able to serve. The Selective Service registration is mandatory for all males of a certain age in the United States, whether they are physically and mentally able, no matter their immigration status. It is expressed on this forum that an "Anchor Baby" should not have U.S. citizenship from being born here.

What exclusive abilities of being a U.S. citizen do YOu not want them to have?...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2012, 07:58 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Illegal aliens certainly can be drafted, but may not be able to serve. The Selective Service registration is mandatory for all males of a certain age in the United States, whether they are physically and mentally able, no matter their immigration status. It is expressed on this forum that an "Anchor Baby" should not have U.S. citizenship from being born here.
We have discussed the Selective Service requirement before, have you forgotten, they can not be drafted. Support bill to end birth-right citizenship!!
Quote:
Register with Selective Service

While they are required to register for Selective Service they are exempt from being drafted. It would take an Act of Congress to legalize them to allow them to be drafted.
and this further down the page
Quote:
We are discussing Illegal Aliens, not simply Aliens. Selective Service is nothing more than the means by which the United States maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Registration for Selective Service is also required for various federal programs and benefits, including student loans, job training, federal employment, and naturalization, to include providing the names of all registrants to the Joint Advertising Marketing Research & Studies program.

The only way for an Illegal Alien to be drafted is by first and Act of Congress granting a legal status, since by joining the US Military one must swear an oath to defend the US Constitution. In order to do that, one must be "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States, not merely "within the United States".
and
Quote:
The choices the draft dodger has is to either leave the nation or enroll into some other portion of selective service outside of combat. The issue with illegal aliens being drafted, or for that matter joining the military, is the fact that they hold no allegiance to the USA. They have not renounced allegiance to their country of Nationality. thus, Congress would have to allow some sort of legalization for them to renounce foreign allegiance.
(SOFA Agreements now come into play)

the next page
Quote:
Registration in Selective Service equates to simply: Quote:
To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, they are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance they will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1252 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
This is why they are required to register with Selective Service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
What exclusive abilities of being a U.S. citizen do YOu not want them to have?...
"Exclusive abilities"? They simply are not born as US Citizens, they are not entitled to anything.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 02-17-2012 at 08:15 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2012, 08:23 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,062,067 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
From that very same Congress, Mr. Johnson states:
If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
It would be so nice if you people would debate honestly, and produce citations within the context in which they were written.

The above quote was the result of determining the citizenship of Native Americans while living on Indian lands were not to be considered citizens since depending on what day it was were not under the jurisdiction of the United States since Indians living on their own land were considered to comprise their own sovereign nation. Furthermore, the language was also intended to insure that the ambassadors, and agents of foreign nations and their children i.e., persons not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now if you would like to argue that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction, feel free to explain that to the thousands of illegal aliens serving time, or awaiting execution for various crimes committed under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Take your time.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2012, 08:53 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
It would be so nice if you people would debate honestly, and produce citations within the context in which they were written.

The above quote was the result of determining the citizenship of Native Americans while living on Indian lands were not to be considered citizens since depending on what day it was were not under the jurisdiction of the United States since Indians living on their own land were considered to comprise their own sovereign nation. Furthermore, the language was also intended to insure that the ambassadors, and agents of foreign nations and their children i.e., persons not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now if you would like to argue that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction, feel free to explain that to the thousands of illegal aliens serving time, or awaiting execution for various crimes committed under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Take your time.
You need to learn the difference between jurisdiction and allegience. Everyone in our country is subject to obeying our laws and the consequences of breaking them but that doesn't equate to allegience. Also, illegal foreigners are not under any other jurisdiction of our country accept the above. Therefore, neither are their offspring born on our soil.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2012, 10:25 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
It would be so nice if you people would debate honestly, and produce citations within the context in which they were written.

The above quote was the result of determining the citizenship of Native Americans while living on Indian lands were not to be considered citizens since depending on what day it was were not under the jurisdiction of the United States since Indians living on their own land were considered to comprise their own sovereign nation. Furthermore, the language was also intended to insure that the ambassadors, and agents of foreign nations and their children i.e., persons not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now if you would like to argue that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction, feel free to explain that to the thousands of illegal aliens serving time, or awaiting execution for various crimes committed under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Take your time.
Take my time?

Context in regards to indians? Are you sure Senator Johnson wasn't intending to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

I see, you believe "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is formal only, i.e. only subject to law. I would suggest reading the Schooner Exchange in understanding the distinction.
Quote:
Should one sovereign enter the territory of another without the consent of that other, expressed or implied, it would present a question which does not appear to be perfectly settled -- a decision of which is not necessary to any conclusion to which the Court may come in the cause under consideration. If he did not thereby expose himself to the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereign whose dominions he had entered, it would seem to be because all sovereigns impliedly engage not to avail themselves of a power over their equal which a romantic confidence in their magnanimity has placed in their hands.
from WKA in discussing the Exchange
Quote:
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied;
I would also suggest reading Calvin's Case to understand allegiance as required, which would then help you to understand the definition as defined by Senator Johnson in discussing the BRC Clause of the 14th Amendment. More from WKA
Quote:
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.
Aliens in amity, means aliens there with the consent of the King (members of other nations in alliance with the King of England), i.e. WKA's parents being here under Treaty (between China and the USA - The Treaty of Tien-tsin). Which is also why Gray states the following
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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States 144 U.S. 47, 61, 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149 U.S. 698, 724; Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1893), 158 U.S. 538, 547; Wong Wing v. United States (1896), 163 U.S. 228, 238.
This line form you takes the cake: It would be so nice if you people would debate honestly, and produce citations within the context in which they were written.

Now if you would like to argue that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction, feel free to explain that to the thousands of illegal aliens serving time, or awaiting execution for various crimes committed under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Wasn't there an issue not long ago about a Mexican being put to death that didn't get to talk to his Consul and due to this they tried to stop his death? So the requirement is they get help from their nations Consul (as long as they ask for it immediately) which they are members of their society and their nationality makes them responsible for, i.e. allegiance. Their government is their to help them when they get into trouble here. You really should learn to understand how law works and what "complete jurisdiction" over a person is instead of thinking that only formal jurisdiction is all it takes.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 02-17-2012 at 10:48 AM..
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.


 
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