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, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
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.
I don't believe that many of us disagree with a child of at least 1 legal citizen, being granted citizenship. The issue is with the children of illegals being granted birthright citizenship. The 14th was never meant to grant such status.
Children of naturalized citizens. If the parents are naturalized what's the big deal with the child becoming a citizen at birth?
Children born outside of the USA. You mean like the children of our soldiers serving over seas, our diplomats, or folks who work abroad? I never heard anyone complain about that status either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:06 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I don't believe that many of us disagree with a child of at least 1 legal citizen, being granted citizenship. The issue is with the children of illegals being granted birthright citizenship. The 14th was never meant to grant such status.
Children of naturalized citizens. If the parents are naturalized what's the big deal with the child becoming a citizen at birth?
Children born outside of the USA. You mean like the children of our soldiers serving over seas, our diplomats, or folks who work abroad? I never heard anyone complain about that status either.
I am simply pointing out the fallout of trying to reinterpret the 14th. There relly is no quesition that illegal aliens are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That is why we can deport them and arrest them for violation our laws.

If however we wish to get into this mode that says any kid born in the US to parents with any foreign government ties are not "completely subject to US jurisdiction" because some other country may claim it as well we open Pandora's Box. There are innumerable ways in which foreign government my claim jurisdiction of a person residing outside the country. I have a friend who is a long term American citizen who never goes home to Greece because Greece insists he owes national service even though he left there while a kid. They will claim jurisdiction if he ever gets into Greek territory.

Many countries may claim jurisdiction over a kid born there to legally present parents. So that country has some version of "jurisdiction" over him whether he accepts it or not. So if we wish to accept the definition put forth above we are going to have a lot of people with screwed up right to citizenship.

Personally this is one of the wonderland issues. It has no real hope of ever taking place but remains close to the heart of some of the right wing because they wish it so bad. That is the right wing syndrome I think...We wish the illegal alien thing to go away. But it won't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:07 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Well it would get rid of Ted Cruz and virtually all children of naturalized citizens.
Not those who've renounced their former citizenships when they naturalized, as they're supposed to do:
Quote:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America | USCIS

Quote:
I guess you could also eliminate all those born outside of the US because they too have a foreign government entanglement.
They can naturalize. Their parents can apply for their U.S. citizenship.

Quote:
The Indian thing has been racist since the founding of the country.
It wasn't about racism. It was because they were citizens/members of their own sovereign nations. According to the 14th Amendment, that precluded their acquisition of birthright U.S. citizenship. Hence, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified, was required to grant U.S.-born Native Americans birthright U.S. citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:10 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I don't believe that many of us disagree with a child of at least 1 legal citizen, being granted citizenship. The issue is with the children of illegals being granted birthright citizenship. The 14th was never meant to grant such status.
Children of naturalized citizens. If the parents are naturalized what's the big deal with the child becoming a citizen at birth?
Children born outside of the USA. You mean like the children of our soldiers serving over seas, our diplomats, or folks who work abroad? I never heard anyone complain about that status either.
Like tinman said.

Too; it was NOT just the American Indians who got shafted back in the day: us "Irish" suffered and so did many other people born in the US who'd NOW be Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:13 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
I am simply pointing out the fallout of trying to reinterpret the 14th.
It doesn't need to be reinterpreted. It just needs to be recognized and abided by as originally intended. Those owing allegiance to anyone else at birth do not qualify for birthright U.S. citizenship. That included Native Americans for nearly 60 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified because they were members/citizens of their own sovereign nations.

The historical evidence is quite clear. There's the Congressional Record. And the fact that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was required to grant Native Americans birthright U.S. citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:30 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Here's more evidence... Decisions made by U.S. Secretaries of State shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified that those born in the U.S. to foreign citizen fathers were not U.S. citizens at birth:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both cases cited in this digest:
A Digest of the International Law of the United States: Taken from Documents ... - Google Books

Neither was about race. They were about the U.S.-born children being subject to a foreign power at birth, and therefore not U.S. citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 04:54 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

Revised Statutes of the United States, Passed at the First Session of the ... - United States
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 05:46 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

Revised Statutes of the United States, Passed at the First Session of the ... - United States
The issue is and has been well settled for many years...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

And it was worse case. Thanks to the Chinese Exclusion Act Wong Kim Ark's parents could not be US citizens. So not only not US citizens but not eligible to be.

What more could you ask? And yet you RW continue. Weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 05:56 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Here's more evidence... Decisions made by U.S. Secretaries of State shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified that those born in the U.S. to foreign citizen fathers were not U.S. citizens at birth:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both cases cited in this digest:
A Digest of the International Law of the United States: Taken from Documents ... - Google Books

Neither was about race. They were about the U.S.-born children being subject to a foreign power at birth, and therefore not U.S. citizens.
That's weird. I say that because birthright in the US can go through either US citizen parent. That'd be like some American woman visiting Germany, having sex with a local, get preggers then come back to US to have her kid and her baby NOT being a US citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 05:56 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The issue is and has been well settled for many years...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
No. The Court very specifically stated that their decision was based on the facts of the case, specifically...

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. Their permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
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