Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-21-2015, 10:43 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,612 posts, read 44,365,850 times
Reputation: 13552

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Sure it would. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants babies of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it denies them that. Read the article. It's simply been a "practice" to do so.
That is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2015, 10:55 AM
 
26,543 posts, read 14,354,381 times
Reputation: 7401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
No, illegal aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction ....
an article on this from 2010, when steve king tried to pass an identical bill:

Birthright citizenship: Subject to the jurisdiction | The Economist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 10:55 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,612 posts, read 44,365,850 times
Reputation: 13552
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Pretty sure you'd need a constitutional amendment. not just a bill.
Nope. The disqualifier is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The 14th Amendment was only intended to bestow citizenship on U.S.-born individuals who did not owe allegiance to any other sovereign/country:

1) The 14th Amendment and it's original intent:

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

2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, which 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

3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship:

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

4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:

WKA decision:

"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 living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.

For political reasons, the 14th Amendment has been bastardized since then, but such bastardization was never an actual Constitutional Amendment.

5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 I just posted.

I realize that's a lot of historical information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14 Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "policy" (not the Constitution or the law) very recently changed.

Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-21-2015 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 12:50 PM
 
62,552 posts, read 28,756,220 times
Reputation: 18410
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
an article on this from 2010, when steve king tried to pass an identical bill:

Birthright citizenship: Subject to the jurisdiction | The Economist
Sorry, but the article is just plain wrong in all of its assertions. Written by an economist? Hmm, no agenda there, right? I suggest you read post #43 above for a good clarification on this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 01:49 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,906,251 times
Reputation: 7313
Packard Fan, The chickens can be counted, as this would never get a Senate vote , and of course, there is an additional stopgap in the Oval Office. This is just an itty bitty Congressman putting on a show for those dumb enough not to read through his intentions. There are tons of similar bills on many issues; Marsha Blackburn had over 3 dozen end ACA bills, same scenario, she has done NOTHING for her region. Like this buffoon, she just puts on shows. They fall for it (Blackburn), too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:48 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 10,382,910 times
Reputation: 2881
I would love to see an end put to automatic citizenship simply for being born here. It would shut down unscrupulous businesses like this....Centro de Maternidad para la Mujer | El Paso, TX
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:50 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,636,100 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD View Post
Guess what? There is no such race as "illegal alien". In the past ICE has deported illegals back to 189 different countries. 189 different countries covers every race, religion and ethnicity.

Most countries in this world do NOT grant citizenship to a child if the parents are in the country illegally. Nor do they put up with tourists who come here only to birth an American child. Why should we continue to allow this nonsense?

Being against illegal immigration is not "hatred". Every country in the world has immigration laws. Are you saying that every country in the world is filled with "hatred"?

Do you realize that it's the taxpayers who pick up the tab every time an illegal gives birth here? Not only that but said child is eligible for all sorts of government programs, thus the whole family benefits.

There is a saying "Charity starts at home". It means we take care of our own first and foremost. If there is anything left over, of course help others. We have plenty of poor Americans who need help and are not getting all that they need.
Illegal South American immigrants have been a part of America's economy and culture since you were a child, and there was never hatred towards them (until a black president got elected and did immigration reform.)
US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants

"Nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for secession have sprouted in all 50 states, and gun sales soared."
How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion - Forbes

The above white Americans calling for secession and buying guns are "racists", and people like those racists are in this forum section attacking South Americans. And the fact is there are much bigger threats to America's jobs and economy than immigrants, like the outsourcing of high paying American jobs to Asia.

But these racists are not concerned about America's job base being moved to Asia, they are more concerned about hating black presidents and hating South Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 03:03 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,636,100 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
So you think that it is only non-whites here illegally and giving birth on our soil? What does race have to do with not wanting a mockery made of our citizenship by illegal immigration and birth tourism? This is not a Republican vs Democrat issues. It's an American issue. Hatred has nothing to do this issue nor does it have anything to do with having a half black president or hating those from south of our border. Apparently you don't know that those south of our border enjoy the highest numbers of legal immigration into our country? Our president is obligated to respect and enforce our immigration laws. He's not doing so. If he were completely white I would feel the same way as would most Americans. Bush (the white guy) tried this amnesty fiasco and he was stopped also.
Watch Obama's last basketball shot, watch him hit the punching bag, and watch him dance. Are you gonna tell me Obama is not black?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXh_jBgkXI


And telling a 1/2 black American he is not black is "hatred." Look at Obama's wife she is black, do you know how much of an insult it is to tell a man like Obama or Redd Foxx that they are not black? (Its cruelty and hatred.)

And the rest of your post is inspired by the same hatred that would tell men like Redd Foxx that they are not black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,130 posts, read 3,057,132 times
Reputation: 2472
Just out of curiosity, would you be okay with ending birthright citizenship for children born to two parents who are in the US legally (let's say, for example, to study at an American university) but are not citizens or permanent residents? This bill would strip citizenship for them as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 03:41 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,612 posts, read 44,365,850 times
Reputation: 13552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers View Post
Just out of curiosity, would you be okay with ending birthright citizenship for children born to two parents who are in the US legally (let's say, for example, to study at an American university) but are not citizens or permanent residents? This bill would strip citizenship for them as well.
A student visa isn't permanent, so yes. The family would have to return to their country of origin after their student visas expire, or attempt to immigrate and naturalize, if they wish, child and all.

The temporary student visa precludes a permanent domicile (SCOTUS WKA ruling) in the U.S. The foreign students' legal domicile is the country listed on their passports.

Illegal presence in the country also precludes a permanent domicile in the U.S.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top