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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2012, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,549,980 times
Reputation: 2360

Advertisements

I found this to be a very interesting read and how the 14th Amendment is and can be misinterpreted, especially for the benefit of illegals. It's more about what isn't said than what is said. The amendment definitely needs to be amended to be more specific. Government refuses to understand the true intent of the 14th Amendment and court rulings handed down as to what constitutes an American citizen.

Quote:
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

This link was inbedded in the above link.

Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Quote:
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, .................The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Advocates of illegal aliens claim that being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is formal in meaning: only subject to United States law. Thus, simply being within the boundaries of the USA makes one subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Where they fail in understanding is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes being under its political jurisdiction as well. They will use Plyler v Doe to lay claim that footnote 10 strengthens their position, when in reality it does no such thing.

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Spring, 1999
22 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 465
LOSING CONTROL OF AMERICA'S FUTURE - THE CENSUS, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND
ILLEGAL ALIENS
Charles Wood - Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, 1995-97, 1985, 1979-82; Special Assistant, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice, 1986-89. The author would like to thank former colleagues at the Office of Legal Policy for many helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...Where they fail in understanding is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes being under its political jurisdiction as well...
Explain "political jurisdiction" in terms of how illegal aliens lack it, compared to how both Legal Permanent Residents and U.S. Nationals (clearly it isn't a factor of U.S. citizenship) would have it. Are YOu linking it to an ability to vote and/or political representation of the individual? Note that this is not advocacy for any group of people, merely an attempt to have YOu elaborate YOur concept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Explain "political jurisdiction" in terms of how illegal aliens lack it, compared to how both Legal Permanent Residents and U.S. Nationals (clearly it isn't a factor of U.S. citizenship) would have it. Are YOu linking it to an ability to vote and/or political representation of the individual? Note that this is not advocacy for any group of people, merely an attempt to have YOu elaborate YOur concept.
My Concept?
Even Justice Gray recognizes absolute and complete jurisdiction: The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. Therefor, allegiance is assumed were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Gray further goes onto to state: that a man's political status, his country, patria, and his "nationality, that is, natural allegiance,".

A child is born under the allegiance as granted the parent, under temporary allegiance (as in the case of WKA parents, here by way of Treaty; or those here on visas legally) a child born here would be assumed to be born under US allegiance and protection due to the temporary allegiance as owed by the parents (from WKA; from Calvin's Case - aliens in amity), thus the child becomes a natural born citizen. The child has the right to accept both nationalities, the US and that of the parents. A child born here under an illegal alien has no temporary allegiance handed down (Bouve 1912) from the USA, only that of the parents natural allegiance due to their nationality. These children are not born within the protection or the allegiance of the USA.

Here is a good link to understand "Political Jurisdiction". http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
Particularly starting at page 10 Section 3 Line 33 and continuing through page 15.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 02-15-2012 at 05:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...Here is a good link to understand "Political Jurisdiction". http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
Particularly starting at page 10 Section 3 Line 33 and continuing through page 15.
Are YOu sure YOu want to go with that? I dallied in the earlier sections, with the Biblical quotations about being citizens of Heaven, not of nations of Earth. As Christian as my beliefs are, I don't want religion, even my own, mixed up in government.

And of course YOu saw the "WARNING" on their forms page: "...Anyone may obtain and read materials through this website and by doing so they [sic] mandatorily become Members of our fellowship..."? Did YOu feel YOu became a "Member" of their fellowship (and forum)? They don't have any such claim over me.

If YOu are going to use such sources, there is more material than we could ever hope to go over, but let's keep the conversation going...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 09:41 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Are YOu sure YOu want to go with that? I dallied in the earlier sections, with the Biblical quotations about being citizens of Heaven, not of nations of Earth. As Christian as my beliefs are, I don't want religion, even my own, mixed up in government.

And of course YOu saw the "WARNING" on their forms page: "...Anyone may obtain and read materials through this website and by doing so they [sic] mandatorily become Members of our fellowship..."? Did YOu feel YOu became a "Member" of their fellowship (and forum)? They don't have any such claim over me.

If YOu are going to use such sources, there is more material than we could ever hope to go over, but let's keep the conversation going...
I don't think you looked up the correct pdf I linked to, because there is no "biblical quotations" in it. You are attempting to use the SEDM website which hosts this pdf to denounce it? Really? So you have no argument against the info in the pdf, only that it is hosted by the SEDM. Again, I simply stated this was a good link to understand "political jurisdiction", nothing more.

Typical.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 02-16-2012 at 09:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I don't think you looked up the correct pdf I linked to, because there is no "biblical quotations" in it. You are attempting to use the SEDM website which hosts this pdf to denounce it? Really? So you have no argument against the info in the pdf, only that it is hosted by the SEDM. Again, I simply stated this was a good link to understand "political jurisdiction", nothing more.

Typical.
No, I even saved and printed out the entire PDF when YOu sourced it. The Biblical quotations start on Section 8, Page 19 of 58: "Effects of Religious Beliefs on Domicile and Citizenship". There is more than just the PDF being hosted by the "Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry": They are copyrighted as the author of the "Political Jurisdiction" PDF YOu sourced at the bottom of each page.

It is some interesting reading within the PDF itself, and more on the website. The linked famguardian.org website has the same domain registration and hosting, being renewed on the same dates. Both websites appear to have a focus on avoiding being taxed by the government, and discarding notions of any U.S. citizenship for that purpose and others (such as also avoiding a military draft: "only U.S. citizens can be drafted and you aren't one, but even if you are, you can revoke that citizenship to escape it!").

I have more questions than answers about "Political Jurisdiction" since reading the PDF YOu sourced, especially how it pertains to illegal aliens...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 09:50 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I have more questions than answers about "Political Jurisdiction" since reading the PDF YOu sourced, especially how it pertains to illegal aliens...
Illegal aliens are not under "political jurisdiction", thus they fall outside most guidelines and Constitutional protections. It is only "policy" as to children born of illegal aliens receiving BRC.

I limited my link to only Section 3 staring at page 10 and going through Section 6 ending at page 15. The rest I can care less about.

The SEDM is who Wesley Snipes used for his tax evasion. Their "christian views" are simply theirs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,009,391 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...I limited my link to only Section 3 staring at page 10 and going through Section 6 ending at page 15. The rest I can care less about...
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?...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:35 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,046,755 times
Reputation: 14878
The OP is barking up a long settled wrong tree.

Quote:
Quote:
Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
Let me read this back to you,

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,

The sentence does not read: foreigners, aliens [OR THOSE] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. The foreigners and aliens are adjectives qualifying those members of "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

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.
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