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 05-29-2017, 09:42 PM
 
345 posts, read 150,061 times
Reputation: 301

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post

And, the Indians "lost" a little more recently than 500 years ago, considering that some "informed" folks here consider Indian tribes to be "foreign powers." Here's a link to a brief history of some of the "Indian Wars"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Hey, thanks for that good wikipedia link. No doubt I'll learn something.

I do like your point on foreign invaders, though. Keep in mind that the Navajo and Apache are from a third wave of immigration into North America, so they obviously are foreign invaders.

For that matter 'native' Japanese are not indigenous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2017, 01:13 AM
 
Location: Houston
1,032 posts, read 350,706 times
Reputation: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
That's a pretty zany interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Care to offer any statutes and cases that back it up?


The U.S. Constitution says otherwise.
The Supreme Court ruled on it, which was their INTERPRETATION of what they felt that the Const. meant. Different SCOTUSEs are constantly reevaluating and reinterpreting. Their rulings don't stay static forever, although they would give some precedence to an existing ruling. If given to a conservative majority, perhaps the anchor law could change?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 07:18 AM
 
62,581 posts, read 27,844,122 times
Reputation: 7905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corerius View Post
Hey, thanks for that good wikipedia link. No doubt I'll learn something.

I do like your point on foreign invaders, though. Keep in mind that the Navajo and Apache are from a third wave of immigration into North America, so they obviously are foreign invaders.

For that matter 'native' Japanese are not indigenous.
Actually, the US never had an indigenous population. All migrated here from elsewhere.

The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology

Illegal aliens are foreign invaders. They can be held and deported from the US for nothing other than their illegal presence in the US. Foreign invaders' children are not US citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,008,855 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope. Illegal aliens are foreign invaders. That's why they can be detained and deported for nothing other than being illegally present in this country.
History shows that some "foreign invaders" and their descendants never leave. A little over 170 years ago, the U.S. military invaded the Mexican territory of Alta California and never left. When a foreign military force invades and occupies U.S. territory -- those are "foreign invaders." Mere "unauthorized migrants" don't rise to the level of an occupying military force and are no more "foreign invaders" than you or I. However, I agree that "unauthorized migrants" can be detained and deported if they are found to be "illegally" present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope
Time to revisit the issue. Maybe Justices who actually honor their oath to uphold the Constitution will prevail.
Unless there's something new, like legislation that explicitly outlaws "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of "unauthorized migrants," there's little need for SCOTUS to revisit the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 04:36 PM
 
4,673 posts, read 3,255,004 times
Reputation: 2813
I wish they would just float the idea of stripping citizenship for those under 21, just float it in an official capacity. I salivate at what would happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 04:52 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 363,230 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
I wish they would just float the idea of stripping citizenship for those under 21, just float it in an official capacity. I salivate at what would happen.
Complete and utter nuclear breakdown
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 06:51 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,308,580 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
History shows that some "foreign invaders" and their descendants never leave. A little over 170 years ago, the U.S. military invaded the Mexican territory of Alta California and never left. When a foreign military force invades and occupies U.S. territory -- those are "foreign invaders." Mere "unauthorized migrants" don't rise to the level of an occupying military force and are no more "foreign invaders" than you or I. However, I agree that "unauthorized migrants" can be detained and deported if they are found to be "illegally" present.


Unless there's something new, like legislation that explicitly outlaws "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of "unauthorized migrants," there's little need for SCOTUS to revisit the issue.
Spain did that it what's now Mexico, I'm sure different Indian tribes did that kind of stuff to each other as well. What you're talking about is WAR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,008,855 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corerius View Post
Hey, thanks for that good wikipedia link. No doubt I'll learn something.

I do like your point on foreign invaders, though. Keep in mind that the Navajo and Apache are from a third wave of immigration into North America, so they obviously are foreign invaders.

For that matter 'native' Japanese are not indigenous.
No mention was made of "indigenous" or "native," just the cut-off year of 1492. Unfortunately, many folks in this particular forum like to deny the aboriginal peoples of the Americas their indigeneity, despite a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress that affirms it and apologizes for some of the past policies of the Federal Government…
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-...lution/14/text

For aboriginal peoples of a particular locale, all subsequent arrivals are "foreign invaders."

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, the US never had an indigenous population. All migrated here from elsewhere.

The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology

Illegal aliens are foreign invaders. They can be held and deported from the US for nothing other than their illegal presence in the US. Foreign invaders' children are not US citizens.
Apparently, you've forgotten about 8 U.S. Code § 1401(b) (which grants U.S. citizenship to "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe"…) and Elk v. Wilkins (which discusses "native Indians" and refers to them as "the aboriginal inhabitants of the country")...

And, don't forget about the "Native Hawaiians" who the U.S. Government considers to be the "indigenous" people of the 50th state.
https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/s...sjres19enr.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,008,855 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Spain did that it what's now Mexico, I'm sure different Indian tribes did that kind of stuff to each other as well. What you're talking about is WAR.
Based on the hyperbole of "InformedConsent" (and several others), it appears that some folks are at WAR with so-called "illegal aliens."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 07:44 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,308,580 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Based on the hyperbole of "InformedConsent" (and several others), it appears that some folks are at WAR with so-called "illegal aliens."
This I'll say: IF those losers take up arms against the US, things WILL get real ugly real fast for illegal aliens and their fans.
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