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.
If the word "citizen" can clearly be used in such a reference (as the lower definitions show it can), or a further outlined bullet definition made, why is it not? Why use that particular wording? 8 USC § 1401 (a) does not refer to parentage at all, but classifies how both you and I gained our U.S. citizenship.
Why was the qualifying clause used in "AND subject to the jurisdiction"? I gained my unquestionable citizenship because my parents were citizens. You still didn't anwer my question in regards to your personal opinion of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Why was the qualifying clause used in "AND subject to the jurisdiction"? I gained my unquestionable citizenship because my parents were citizens. You still didn't anwer my question in regards to your personal opinion of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Nativists interpret those words in a completely different way than any court ever has. The current consensus is that "subject to the jurisdiction" applies to anyone present in the United States unless they are not subject to the laws of the United States like a foreign diplomat that is immune from prosecution. A foreign national is most definitely subject to the jurisdiction of both federal and state laws while they are in the United States, which is why they can be convicted and imprisoned for any crimes that they may commit while in the US.
The notion that an illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are physically in the United States is just nativist malarkey. They cannot point to a single law or court case that supports their opinion.
Nativists interpret those words in a completely different way than any court ever has. The current consensus is that "subject to the jurisdiction" applies to anyone present in the United States unless they are not subject to the laws of the United States like a foreign diplomat that is immune from prosecution. A foreign national is most definitely subject to the jurisdiction of both federal and state laws while they are in the United States, which is why they can be convicted and imprisoned for any crimes that they may commit while in the US.
The notion that an illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are physically in the United States is just nativist malarkey. They cannot point to a single law or court case that supports their opinion.
Nativists? Different than the court ever has? Consensus? And here DoS makes the policy based on interpretation.
Even foreign diplomats can be held accountable for certain violations while in the US.
What do you mean nativists can't point to a single law or court case that supports their opinion? I have pointed to WKA and held my position.
how can your malarkey even be considered when you can't even get your claims correct?
Nativists? Different than the court ever has? Consensus? And here DoS makes the policy based on interpretation.
Even foreign diplomats can be held accountable for certain violations while in the US.
What do you mean nativists can't point to a single law or court case that supports their opinion? I have pointed to WKA and held my position.
how can your malarkey even be considered when you can't even get your claims correct?
You just keep posting the same lies over and over. Please post a link to a single court case in which it was decided that children born in the United States do not receive birthright citizenship based on your interpretation of what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
Anyone in our country is subject to obeying our laws. "AND" subject to the jurisdiction isn't about our laws but allegiance to our country. Illegal immigrants hold allegiance to their own countries and so would their offspring at birth.
You just keep posting the same lies over and over. Please post a link to a single court case in which it was decided that children born in the United States do not receive birthright citizenship based on your interpretation of what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
Lies? Dude, please provide a case which was decided that children born to illegals receive BRC. My interpretation is, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you know, just like it says in the 14th Amendment and 8USC1401(a). Your wording refers more to the EP Clause in which it is interpreted to be "within the jurisdiction". Please tell me you are attempting to use Plyler vs Doe as proof of all this.
Anyone in our country is subject to obeying our laws. "AND" subject to the jurisdiction isn't about our laws but allegiance to our country. Illegal immigrants hold allegiance to their own countries and so would their offspring at birth.
Can you post a link from a court that agrees with you?
I understand what your opinion is, but any claim that your opinion matches up with current law is nothing but a lie.
Lies? Dude, please provide a case which was decided that children born to illegals receive BRC. My interpretation is, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you know, just like it says in the 14th Amendment and 8USC1401(a). Your wording refers more to the EP Clause in which is interpreted to be within the jurisdiction. Please tell me you are attempting to use Plyler vs Doe as proof of all this.
So you finally admit that children born in the US currently receive birthright citizenship and you are only stating your opinion?
So you finally admit that children born in the US are considered citizens and you are only stating your opinion?
And you came up with this how?
I have stated clearly that children born here of illegals would be US Nationals, not US Citizens. WKA no matter how you interpret it doesn't come to the conclusion that children born of illegals are automatic citizens. It is but your interpretation and that of DoS at this time that claims they become citizens. That policy is easily changed in a new administration.
I have stated clearly that children born here of illegals would be US Nationals, not US Citizens. WKA no matter how you interpret it doesn't come to the conclusion that children born of illegals are automatic citizens.
But your opinion does not match up with the current application of the court decision that you state. You keep being intentionally deceptive when you state that children born in the US are not citizens automatically at birth.
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.
