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 11-17-2014, 03:02 PM
 
62,781 posts, read 27,957,182 times
Reputation: 7940

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Birth Right Citizens is a Constitutional issue. You require virtually complete agreement to pull one off. We have no where near full agreement.
The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of foreign parents. We know that for a fact because it's in the Congressional Record. Plain as day, in the Congressional debates from the time, the 14th Amendment's author (also the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time) clearly stated that those born owing allegiance to anybody else were never intended to be U.S. citizens.

Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100304...about/history/

Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:15 PM
 
62,781 posts, read 27,957,182 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
No it is not. More Alice in Wonderland. There is no place near the consensus required to change the Constitution
The Constitution doesn't have to be changed. The federal government just needs to recognize and abide by the actual intent of the 14th Amendment, which is established in the Congressional Record: Those born owing allegiance to anyone else are not birthright U.S. citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:18 PM
 
62,781 posts, read 27,957,182 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
As for changing birthright citizenship all that needs to be done is to have the SC re-visit the 14th as to the writer's intent and clarify it once and for all.
Bingo!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:24 PM
 
31,909 posts, read 14,699,387 times
Reputation: 8510
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of foreign parents. We know that for a fact because it's in the Congressional Record. Plain as day, in the Congressional debates from the time, the 14th Amendment's author (also the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time) clearly stated that those born owing allegiance to anybody else were never intended to be U.S. citizens.

Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100304...about/history/

Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
A bill was introduced to change birthright citizenship to where at least on parent has to be a citizen or legal alien of this country in order for their offspring to qualify for it. It was crafted by Rep. Steve King of Iowa back in 2012 but never made it out of committee and of course the usual suspects won't support it. It was HR140. I tried to contact him to see what is going on with this bill but I am not an Iowa resident so it can't be done through his website. I hope eventually this bill moves forward as it is much needed in view of the fact of the mockery that has been made of our citizenship via illegal immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:29 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,190,448 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The Constitution doesn't have to be changed. The federal government just needs to recognize and abide by the actual intent of the 14th Amendment, which is established in the Congressional Record: Those born owing allegiance to anyone else are not birthright U.S. citizens.
The language is


"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The only ones not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats and invading soldiers. Everyone else is.

The language is quite clear and unequivocal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:32 PM
 
62,781 posts, read 27,957,182 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The language is


"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The only ones not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats and invading soldiers. Everyone else is.

The language is quite clear and unequivocal.
You have to read the Congressional Record. The intent of that language is quite clear:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

That's exactly why Native Americans born in the U.S. weren't citizens. In fact, such persons weren't granted birthright U.S. citizenship until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:42 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,190,448 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You have to read the Congressional Record. The intent of that language is quite clear:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

That's exactly why Native Americans born in the U.S. weren't citizens. In fact, such persons weren't granted birthright U.S. citizenship until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
That would say that a kid born to two American Citizens one of whom has dual citizenship would not be a citizen. And note that you sometimes cannot give up dual citizenship...in some countries it is forever.

The Indian bit is one of those classical places where racist Americans played with the Constitution - Same class as interning the Nisei. We notoriously will misread the Constitution when it is expedient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 03:56 PM
 
62,781 posts, read 27,957,182 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
That would say that a kid born to two American Citizens one of whom has dual citizenship would not be a citizen. And note that you sometimes cannot give up dual citizenship...in some countries it is forever.
And the problem with that is? The kid can naturalize. The parents can apply for the kid's U.S. citizenship.

Quote:
The Indian bit is one of those classical places where racist Americans played with the Constitution
No, it isn't. It's a case where the original intent of the 14th Amendment was actually observed and practiced. And racist? Hardly. This was nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified, giving birthright U.S. citizenship to Black former slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:40 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,190,448 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
And the problem with that is? The kid can naturalize. The parents can apply for the kid's U.S. citizenship.

No, it isn't. It's a case where the original intent of the 14th Amendment was actually observed and practiced. And racist? Hardly. This was nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified, giving birthright U.S. citizenship to Black former slaves.
Well it would get rid of Ted Cruz and virtually all children of naturalized citizens. I guess you could also eliminate all those born outside of the US because they too have a foreign government entanglement.

The Indian thing has been racist since the founding of the country. Nothing new about that. Racism to the American Indian was long established American dogma.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:49 PM
 
31,909 posts, read 14,699,387 times
Reputation: 8510
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You have to read the Congressional Record. The intent of that language is quite clear:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

That's exactly why Native Americans born in the U.S. weren't citizens. In fact, such persons weren't granted birthright U.S. citizenship until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Yes, and the qualifier IS "and" subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. If their parents aren't here legally then they are subject to the jurisdiction of their own homelands not the U.S. It is ludicrous to claim that their kids born on our soil are though because the parents had no right to be here in the first place. Therefore, their kids are subject to their parent's homeland. Ok, done with this as it is off topic and has been beaten to death in here already.
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