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)
 
Old 05-20-2017, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,010,136 times
Reputation: 2377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it hasn't.

Why, under currently existing federal nationality law, does an exception need to be made to include US-born children of members of US Native American tribes?
The question has been answered several times. While you might not agree with the answer, as an American-subjugated kanaka maoli (i.e. "Native Hawaiian"), I will answer it the same way no matter how many times it is asked.

Feel free to provide an alternative answer to your question, which I may or may not agree with. And, while you're at it, point out the alleged errors in the DOJ's "Immigration Court Practice Manual."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2017, 06:05 AM
 
62,616 posts, read 27,855,764 times
Reputation: 7910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
The question has been answered several times.
No, it hasn't.

If *everyone* born in the US were automatically US citizens, the specific exception made in subsection (b) of CURRENT US Nationality Law would neither be necessary nor included.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2017, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,010,136 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it hasn't.

If *everyone* born in the US were automatically US citizens, the specific exception made in subsection (b) of CURRENT US Nationality Law would neither be necessary nor included.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
You're merely regurgitating 8 U.S.C § 1401(a) and § 1401(b) and failing to acknowledge my valid and correct answer to your question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

And finally,

6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Remember the "historical facts" above that you've previously posted, along with your misinterpretation of the law? Apparently, you aren't familiar with Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831) in which the U.S. Supreme Court characterized American Indian tribes and nations as "domestic dependent nations." Here's one excerpt…
The Cherokee Nation is not a foreign state in the sense in which the terms "foreign state" is used in the Constitution of the United States.
And, another…
The Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore an unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our Government. It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases; meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their Great Father.
Thus, your "subject to a foreign power" argument concerning U.S.-born members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" is not particularly "informed" and it fails to hold water.

Care to try arguing that "domestic dependent nations" are "foreign powers" or "foreign states?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2017, 01:35 AM
 
62,616 posts, read 27,855,764 times
Reputation: 7910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
You're merely regurgitating 8 U.S.C § 1401(a) and § 1401(b) and failing to acknowledge my valid and correct answer to your question.


Remember the "historical facts" above that you've previously posted, along with your misinterpretation of the law? Apparently, you aren't familiar with Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831) in which the U.S. Supreme Court characterized American Indian tribes and nations as "domestic dependent nations." Here's one excerpt…
The Cherokee Nation is not a foreign state in the sense in which the terms "foreign state" is used in the Constitution of the United States.
And, another…
The Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore an unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our Government. It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases; meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their Great Father.
Thus, your "subject to a foreign power" argument concerning U.S.-born members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" is not particularly "informed" and it fails to hold water.
You are completely incorrect. All your blather means nothing. Since members of Native US tribes have been subject to US jurisdiction since 1885, even on their own lands which therefore were NOT "independent nations" though they were and many still are subjects/citizens of a foreign sovereign (their respective Tribes), why did it take until 1924 to grant them birthright US citizenship? Why didn't the 14th Amendment grant them birthright US citizenship? And why is there still a specific exception made only for them in current Nationality Law?

Regarding US jurisdiction:

Quote:
"In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act to address the resolution of cases in which a crime involving two Native American parties occurs in Indian country. This Act established federal jurisdiction over seven crimes committed in these instances. The original seven covered by the Act include murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. Subsequent amendments to the Act have added seven more offenses: kidnapping, incest, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, and felonious sexual molestation of a minor. Although the intent of the Act is to permit federal punishment of major crimes by Indians against other Native Americans, the Major Crimes Act applies even in offenses committed by Indians against individuals of another ethnicity."
Discusses local/state jurisdiction, as well.

https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/may/indian-...er-act-of-2010

So, they were born in the US, subject to US criminal jurisdiction, but were not covered by the 14th Amendment until a specific legal exception was made for them in 1924, which still exists as the only exception to this day.

To clarify: They were subject to US criminal jurisdiction since 1885. They were not subject to US nationality jurisdiction until 1924 when a specific legal exception was made for them. There has been no such legal exception made for the children of illegal alien parents. Illegal alien parents are also subject to US criminal jurisdiction, as the Native Americans are/were. There has been no SCOTUS ruling that illegal aliens' "anchor babies" have birthright US citizenship.

Legally, illegal aliens' anchor babies are NOT US citizens. Only "policy" has made them so.

Last edited by InformedConsent; 05-22-2017 at 01:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2017, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,010,136 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You are completely incorrect. All your blather means nothing. Since members of Native US tribes have been subject to US jurisdiction since 1885, even on their own lands which therefore were NOT "independent nations" though they were and many still are subjects/citizens of a foreign sovereign (their respective Tribes), why did it take until 1924 to grant them birthright US citizenship? Why didn't the 14th Amendment grant them birthright US citizenship? And why is there still a specific exception made only for them in current Nationality Law?
It's not my "blather" -- it's the so-called "blather" of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in the second of the "Marshall Trilogy" of cases pertaining to American Indians.

Surely you realize that "slaves," "Indians," and other "nonwhites" were implicitly excluded from citizenship when the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Thus, the simple, somewhat disingenuous answer to all of your questions is "racism."

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Regarding US jurisdiction:



Discusses local/state jurisdiction, as well.

https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/may/indian-...er-act-of-2010

So, they were born in the US, subject to US criminal jurisdiction, but were not covered by the 14th Amendment until a specific legal exception was made for them in 1924, which still exists as the only exception to this day.

To clarify: They were subject to US criminal jurisdiction since 1885. They were not subject to US nationality jurisdiction until 1924 when a specific legal exception was made for them. There has been no such legal exception made for the children of illegal alien parents. Illegal alien parents are also subject to US criminal jurisdiction, as the Native Americans are/were. There has been no SCOTUS ruling that illegal aliens' "anchor babies" have birthright US citizenship.
It's pointless to continue citing a somewhat irrelevant article by a "legal instructor" at the FBI Academy who's not a judge or even a noted legal scholar.

"Nationality jurisdiction?" It doesn't exist as a valid legal concept under current U.S. law. Try "territorial jurisdiction" instead.

As for a SCOTUS ruling on the U.S.-born offspring of "unauthorized migrants," it's not really necessary because 8 U.S.C § 1401(a) grants them U.S. citizenship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Legally, illegal aliens' anchor babies are NOT US citizens. Only "policy" has made them so.
Not only "policy," but the prevailing interpretation of 14th Amendment, 8 U.S.C § 1401(a), and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in similar cases have declared that so-called "anchor babies" are U.S. citizens. It is what it is until the U.S. Constitution is amended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2017, 09:02 PM
 
62,616 posts, read 27,855,764 times
Reputation: 7910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
It's not my "blather" -- it's the so-called "blather" of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in the second of the "Marshall Trilogy" of cases pertaining to American Indians.

Surely you realize that "slaves," "Indians," and other "nonwhites" were implicitly excluded from citizenship when the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Thus, the simple, somewhat disingenuous answer to all of your questions is "racism."

It's pointless to continue citing a somewhat irrelevant article by a "legal instructor" at the FBI Academy who's not a judge or even a noted legal scholar.
Disprove the Major Crimes Act of 1885.

Bottom line: Native Americans were subject to US criminal jurisdiction, but were NOT birthright US citizens until 1924. Why? Why didn't the 14th Amendment grant them birthright citizenship?

14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 08:48 AM
 
3,002 posts, read 1,974,435 times
Reputation: 3350
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


This has been argued so many times the 14th amendment is clear if a woman sticks her rear end though the fence at the border and her kid lands on the American side her baby is an American. Until 14th amendment is changed it will continue to be the number one reason illegal immigration happens. Most come here with a tourist visa have their kid then overstay their visa never return that is the most common method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,010,136 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Disprove the Major Crimes Act of 1885.
What's to "disprove?" That the U.S. Government didn't care if Indians committed major crimes (i.e. "murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny") against other Indians on the reservation prior to its passage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Bottom line: Native Americans were subject to US criminal jurisdiction, but were NOT birthright US citizens until 1924. Why? Why didn't the 14th Amendment grant them birthright citizenship?

14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Apparently, you "can't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to American Indians under the U.S. Constitution. Here's the text of Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment…
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
And, the text of Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution…
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
"Indians not taxed" doesn't necessarily mean that all Indians were not taxed. Now, think about the "taxed Indians" for a little bit and whether or not their offspring had "birthright citizenship"…
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 12:07 PM
 
62,616 posts, read 27,855,764 times
Reputation: 7910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
What's to "disprove?" That the U.S. Government didn't care if Indians committed major crimes (i.e. "murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny") against other Indians on the reservation prior to its passage?


Apparently, you "can't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to American Indians under the U.S. Constitution. Here's the text of Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment…
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
And, the text of Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution…
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
"Indians not taxed" doesn't necessarily mean that all Indians were not taxed. Now, think about the "taxed Indians" for a little bit and whether or not their offspring had "birthright citizenship"
You STILL have failed to explain WHY, as persons born in the US and subject to US jurisdiction, Indians weren't covered by the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

A separate legal exception had to be made for them in 1924, and still exists in current law to this day:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

If *everyone* born in the US were automatically US citizens, as you mistakenly believe, the specific exception made in subsection (b) of CURRENT US Nationality Law would neither be necessary nor included.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2017, 01:21 PM
 
62,616 posts, read 27,855,764 times
Reputation: 7910
The answer can be found in Elk v. Wilkins (1884). SCOTUS ruled that Indians born in tribal allegiance were *not* "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A legal exception was made for them in 1924 via the Indian Citizenship Act.

No such legal exception has ever been made for the US-born children of illegal aliens, who are born in foreign allegiance (their parents' nationality). Anchor babies are NOT 14th Amendment US citizens. They're illegal aliens, just like their parents.
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