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 05-17-2015, 08:27 AM
 
Location: St Louis, MO
4,677 posts, read 4,589,615 times
Reputation: 2966

Advertisements

This ONLY makes sense though if applied retroactively.

Convert everyone to non-voting legal permanent resident status until they can prove that they have a fully naturalized ancestor who did not gain citizenship by jus soli or by jus sanguinis from jus soli ancestors. If you cannot produce naturalization papers, you and your descendants stay non-citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2015, 09:17 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,278,864 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
This ONLY makes sense though if applied retroactively.

Convert everyone to non-voting legal permanent resident status until they can prove that they have a fully naturalized ancestor who did not gain citizenship by jus soli or by jus sanguinis from jus soli ancestors. If you cannot produce naturalization papers, you and your descendants stay non-citizens.
I'm missing something here. If talking about cutting off birthright to any US born kid under 18 years old from the year the "end birthright" law was enacted, I'm Ok with that. Doing a "Dominican Republic" thing here in the US stripping citizenship from people BORN here 30 or or 40 years back from 2 illegal alien parents I don't agree with that at all. Tho the parents; if still illegal, they'd have to leave and taken their minor age kids with them back home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 10:59 AM
 
31,471 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8350
This bears repeating.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 01:33 PM
 
Location: St Louis, MO
4,677 posts, read 4,589,615 times
Reputation: 2966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
I'm missing something here. If talking about cutting off birthright to any US born kid under 18 years old from the year the "end birthright" law was enacted, I'm Ok with that. Doing a "Dominican Republic" thing here in the US stripping citizenship from people BORN here 30 or or 40 years back from 2 illegal alien parents I don't agree with that at all. Tho the parents; if still illegal, they'd have to leave and taken their minor age kids with them back home.
I mean that if all 63 of your great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents, and parents received their citizenship by being born in this country and none of them earned their citizenship through naturalization, then you are not a citizen no matter how old you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 01:51 PM
 
31,471 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8350
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
I mean that if all 63 of your great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents, and parents received their citizenship by being born in this country and none of them earned their citizenship through naturalization, then you are not a citizen no matter how old you are.
WTH are you talking about? If a naturalized citizen gives birth on our soil there is nothing in the Constitution that denies their offspring birthright citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 01:51 PM
 
11,484 posts, read 5,504,092 times
Reputation: 9859
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
I mean that if all 63 of your great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents, and parents received their citizenship by being born in this country and none of them earned their citizenship through naturalization, then you are not a citizen no matter how old you are.
^This is utterly ridiculous
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 02:15 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,278,864 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
I mean that if all 63 of your great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents, and parents received their citizenship by being born in this country and none of them earned their citizenship through naturalization, then you are not a citizen no matter how old you are.
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you're serious; that'd probably cut off almost all American "Indians" too since most of them have some after "1492" blood in their families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 03:09 PM
 
8,063 posts, read 3,620,550 times
Reputation: 2449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
This bears repeating.

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

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.
/////////////////////////////////
What a great well thought out post. I have ready some have called Conservatives and disrespected their names. I hope (Casper) thinks it ok to turn this into a trash thread. I could think of some not so Respectful names for Ms. Clinton. (Deserved of Not)

Back on topic. Yes the 14 Amendment was designed for the circumstance after 4 years of war,(The civil War) and Reconstruction. Many forget the Amendment was intended to bring the United States back together as one Union.

However many have abused the 14th and we do need a clear cut defined interpretation to deport the masses of Illegals crossing our boarders.
Guess what Europe (the new home of Socialism) does not even want them. As a result of this we should deduct any promised aid to those countries who endorse Illegal Immigration.

There was a story that official Argentine Radio / Mexico / Guatemala /Brazil and few other SA countries were and are promoting breaking US Law and Immigration practices.
That is unethical on all levels. One clearway to stop this is hit them in the add package (Back Charge, Good luck with collecting)
Restore the 14 Amendment to its original purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 03:16 PM
 
31,471 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8350
I repeat again neither Rubio or Cruz were anchor babies but I wouldn't vote for either of them regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8988
Repealing the 14th amendment has other ramifications. See clause 4.
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
Similar Threads
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