41% Think a Child Born in the U.S. to an Illegal Immigrant Should Be a Citizen (marines, deportation)
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.
Regarding an "alien in amity," this is a reference to any alien who is not a member of the second class mentioned above; a foreign army in hostile occupation (i.e. an "alien in hostility"). Calvin's Case even discusses the circumstance of an alien in amity who was engaged in treasonous activity against the crown, and even they were considered a natural subject.
Note that domicile is rather clearly dismissed as a requirement for children to be natural-born subjects/citizens. Even a presence on national soil that is "but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject." (Emphasis added).
The presence of illegal immigrants on US soil is neither momentary nor uncertain. And their children born here are natural-born US citizens.
Amity, in 1608, was friendship between 2 nations, i.e. treaties, agreements, etc. Aliens in amity were subjects of other nations that entered into another's dominion based on any agreements between the 2 nations, thus the one entering owed a temporary allegiance and vice-versa.
The presence of illegals isn't considered momentary nor uncertain? They can be deported when found (EWI's and VO's), how is that not uncertain? They can be caught and deported the same day they enter (EWI's), some do make it years before being caught. They can't legally adjust status (EWI's) without the AG's consent and numerous other requirements, namely having been here at least 10 years, and proving that if deported it would place an exceptional and extreme hardship on a LPR/citizen spouse, child or parent and be one of only 4000 yearly to attain it. VO's on the other hand can apply for AoS at any time, however there is no guarantee they will receive it.
As to domicile, the states do not recognize residency status of illegal aliens, neither do the feds.
To quote you: Trying to anachronistically portray modern day "illegal immigrants" as some theoretically intended exception to common law created when there was no such thing is a dicey proposition at best.
It appears to fall down to the interpretation you have of the ratio vs mine, so until a case arises, or DoS changes policy once again, that states otherwise, I will continue to argue my interpretation, as I am sure you will yours.
Amity, in 1608, was friendship between 2 nations, i.e. treaties, agreements, etc. Aliens in amity were subjects of other nations that entered into another's dominion based on any agreements between the 2 nations, thus the one entering owed a temporary allegiance and vice-versa.
You are equivocating. Amity in 1608, like amity in 2012, means different things based on context. An "alien in amity" on the other hand has a single meaning. No agreements were necessary. In fact, in almost no cases did any such agreements even exist. All that was necessary was that the individual not be a member of an invading army; i.e. not be an "alien in hostility."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
The presence of illegals isn't considered momentary nor uncertain?
Nope. Most intend to stay. And it is intention that defines legal domicile. It does not depend on some hypothetical possibility of future deportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
As to domicile, the states do not recognize residency status of illegal aliens, neither do the feds.
Your equivocation is becoming painful. The law does not care. Domicile has nothing to do with legal residency at all, only actual residency and the intention that establishes subjection to a particular jurisdiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
It appears to fall down to the interpretation you have of the ratio vs mine.
Oh... not at all. It is not even close to a situation in which we can agree to disagree. My "interpretation" is directly supported by Supreme Court precedent and more than a half millennium of Anglo-American common law. Your "interpretation" is nothing more than audacious special pleading. It has in its support no legal precedent, and is directly contradicted by every relevant legal authority since Blackstone.
There is no genuine legal ambiguity on this issue. There is only political dissatisfaction.
No need for uncivil personal attacks. Regardless of how birthright citizenship is being interpreted my questions and opinions were about the stupidity of it. I wish just one of you who think it is just ducky to make instant citizens out of babies born on our soil from illegal trespassers would explain why you think so. Not one of you have had the fortitude to answer that question.
Because it is the same way that you and I gained our U.S. citizenship. It didn't matter who our parents were, or if they were citizens. If the definition was any different, don't you think 8 USC § 1401 (a) would have included the word "citizen" (for the parents) at that key location, like they did for the definitions below it?
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.
