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 05-18-2015, 06:45 PM
 
2,439 posts, read 1,034,654 times
Reputation: 1355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
What you should have highlighted instead of "jurisdiction" is the word "and" subject to...... instead. I already posted a lengthy explanation under this topic of what "and" subject to the jurisdiction meant/means. Desiring that children of illegal aliens not be deemed birthright citizens has nothing to do with bigotry. It is an incentive for them to come here and it is costing us dearly in tax dollars. Not to mention that it makes a mockery out of our citizenship that foreigners can just jump our borders or fly in here to have a so-called U.S. citizen. Fighting for this change IS a great use of our tax revenues when you factor in what it is costing us by the status quo of this ridiculous "practice" that isn't even backed by our Constitution in the first place.
Who cares if it does? Just saying "bigot, bigot blah blah bigot" all the time is no reasonable, effective way to craft a national policy. And most of the people who say this crap are white liberals who wouldn't live in a neighborhood full of Latin American immigrants if you paid them good money to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2015, 07:02 PM
 
31,488 posts, read 14,573,470 times
Reputation: 8354
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou View Post
Who cares if it does? Just saying "bigot, bigot blah blah bigot" all the time is no reasonable, effective way to craft a national policy. And most of the people who say this crap are white liberals who wouldn't live in a neighborhood full of Latin American immigrants if you paid them good money to.
Well, that would a part of our citizenry that want to keep the status quo but there are others who have relatives here illegally that gave birth on our soil and I am sure the anchor babies would oppose legislation to correct this fiasco. Another faction would be those who think the U.S. stole Mexican land and therefore want to invade our country with their kind. What better way than to populate our country via birthright citizenship for the kids of those here illegally?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 02:39 PM
 
31,488 posts, read 14,573,470 times
Reputation: 8354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
WASHINGTON -- Democrats in Congress frequently accuse the GOP of attacking immigrants, and on Wednesday, House Republicans gave them more fodder by holding a hearing on whether the U.S. should continue the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to all children born here.

House Republicans Go After Birthright Citizenship

What's the big deal about cancelling birthright? More and more countries are putting a stop to that unless at least 1 parent is a citizen of that country, it's def time for the US to do the same thing.

The lies and spin by the Democrats in this article made me want to puke!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2016, 05:19 AM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,771,221 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
People are aware that birthright citizenship is Constitutionally guaranteed. Congress can't change that.
You seem to not understand the origin and intent of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause 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 foreign citizen parents whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law and do not have a legal permanent domicile in the U.S. were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to try to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point in the future, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth.

When immigrant parents naturalize and renounce citizenship/allegiance to any other country when they take the naturalization oath, their minor children naturalize, as well. Until then, neither foreign parents nor their children are U.S. citizens, regardless of where they're born.

The only exception to that is the US-born children of legally present permanent resident non-citizens, as indicated in the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

FWIW, the US-born children to illegal aliens who were born in Mexico are Mexican citizens (or Chinese, Russian, etc., as applicable) , and the 14th Amendment never intended such persons to have birthright US citizenship. Anchor babies were never supposed to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. It has merely been a practice.
Exactly. I just explained why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD View Post
No, it is YOU who is confused. I explained it all to you in another post. Here we go again

Urban Dictionary: anchor baby


Why would someone who is here legally and has a green card need to have a child to anchor them here?
They wouldn't. Though, the US-born children of legally present permanent residents (e.g., those who have a green card) ARE birthright US citizens (per WKA ruling), while illegal aliens' babies are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Please point out the part that says the birthright to Citizenship excludes someone here illegally. I seem to have missed it, since the 14th says nothing of the sort.
You need to go to the source to understand the origin and the intent. All laid out plain as day, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause 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 foreign citizen parents whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law and do not have a legal permanent domicile in the U.S. were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to try to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point in the future, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth.

When immigrant parents naturalize and renounce citizenship/allegiance to any other country when they take the naturalization oath, their minor children naturalize, as well. Until then, neither foreign parents nor their children are U.S. citizens, regardless of where they're born.

The only exception to that is the US-born children of legally present permanent resident non-citizens, as indicated in the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

FWIW, the US-born children to illegal aliens who were born in Mexico are Mexican citizens (or Chinese, Russian, etc., as applicable) , and the 14th Amendment never intended such persons to have birthright US citizenship. Anchor babies were never supposed to happen.
It is truly shocking how ignorant many people are. It's ridiculously easy for political expediency manipulators to get them to believe things that simply aren't true.

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 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.
Exactly correct on ALL points!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
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.
Actually, it's interesting to note that even though Native Americans were born in the US, they weren't granted birthright US citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, LONG after both the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Why did they not have birthright US citizenship until AFTER that particular law was passed? Because even though they were born within the US, they were born citizens of a foreign sovereignty: any one or several of the Indian Nations, and therefore were not birthright US citizens.

Congress Granted Citizenship to All Native Americans Born in the U.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
My parents came here legally and I was born in the US? What citizenship should I hold in your opinion?
Am I a American citizen or not?
If you were born while your parents were legally present permanent residents (green card holders) or they naturalized while you were still a minor, you're a US citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
So what do you say to the son or daughter of Benjamin Franklin who was born in the USA? You are illegal?
All US residents were mass naturalized when the US declared independence. Those born in the US subsequently to naturalized US citizen parents are US citizens, of course.

Come on, people. Please don't be stupid about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
US Constitution, Amendment 14:

Apparently all the great Constitutional scholars who've posted on this thread and in the Republican Party somehow missed this.
You don't know of which you speak. Plenty of posts containing accurate historical facts contradict your assertion.

Last edited by Yac; 07-12-2016 at 06:03 AM.. Reason: 9 (!!!!) posts in a row merged. Please learn to multi quote
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2016, 10:47 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
So what do you say to the son or daughter of Benjamin Franklin who was born in the USA? You are illegal?
Are all black Americans illegal too? They were brought here against their will by slavery.
Please DON'T go all "Dominican Republic" here on us. That country's yanking citizenship for some of its people going back to 1929. I'm def against illegal immigration and against amnesty; but what the DR's doing is going too far back cause many of the people getting the axe WERE citizens under DR laws when they were born. Too; you don't wanna go there cause a LOT of US citizens; mostly "Hispanic", could wind up getting bounced if we went back to 1929.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2016, 10:54 AM
 
8,063 posts, read 3,621,800 times
Reputation: 2449
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
All US residents were mass naturalized when the US declared independence. Those born in the US subsequently to naturalized US citizen parents are US citizens, of course.

Come on, people. Please don't be stupid about this.
I agree and it is not complicated either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 02:57 AM
 
Location: Union County, North Carolina
5,140 posts, read 6,348,145 times
Reputation: 4301
I'm all for throwing out illegals like John McCain and Ted Cruz. Back to Panama and Canada - where they belong!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 06:41 AM
 
31,488 posts, read 14,573,470 times
Reputation: 8354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmissary View Post
I'm all for throwing out illegals like John McCain and Ted Cruz. Back to Panama and Canada - where they belong!

They aren't here illegally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 10:38 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmissary View Post
I'm all for throwing out illegals like John McCain and Ted Cruz. Back to Panama and Canada - where they belong!
Please don't go there cause many people WILL throw Obama in there, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:29 AM
 
8,063 posts, read 3,621,800 times
Reputation: 2449
Default Go by the Stanard.

The Standard is One parent is required to be American. This has been sung many times here on this forum , but illegals think because they are here they are Americans.


We split the issue so many times it really need to be grounded.

  • If your visa is Expired or one does not here your deported.
  • If your work permit and vista is expired your deported.
  • If one has failed to take action after many year of ignoring the US Standard. Your Deported.
To pay for it?


Use the Rico Act to recover expenses and back bill those Governments or reduce aid packages.
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