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 05-09-2017, 05:20 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
It can't get any clearer than this...

"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."

What are you hoping for? That somehow "All Persons" means all persons except those of Hispanic ancestry - or of parents who are of Islamic religion?

How can anyone born in the US not be subject to it's jurisdiction from the first breath and instance?
Those born in the US to parents who are foreign citizens only are simply not subject to US nationality law jurisdiction, unless a specific legal exception has been made. I've given the two examples of how that was handled in the case of US-born members of US Native American tribes:

1) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

2) Current federal nationality law which makes a specific legal exception for US-born members of US Native American tribes. If 'everyone' born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

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

Under current law, both cases refer to a person born in the US, BUT an exception had to be specifically legally made to grant US-born members of US Native American tribes US citizenship at birth because they were born citizens of a foreign sovereign - their sovereign Indian Nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 5,999,925 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. No Amendment needed. Just follow federal nationality law. NOT everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen at birth.

How do we know? It's already been explained to you...

If 'everyone' born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

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

Both cases refer to a person born in the US, but an exception had to be specifically legally made to grant US-born members of US Native American tribes US citizenship at birth.
Incorrect. You've forgotten that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, most members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" were born on lands that were outside the territorial confines of the United States. As the U.S. Government took the lands of its indigenous peoples, it usually dealt with them on a "nation-to-nation" basis. For some, "tribal sovereignty and citizenship" were preferable to U.S. citizenship. However, by the time the "Indian Citizenship Act" was passed in 1924, approximately two-thirds of the American Indian population already had U.S. citizenship.
INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. IV, Laws
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:32 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 361,254 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
Yes, sure it is. It almost literally drips off of almost every sentence written by so many people on the right.
No, those who want illegals gone want them ALL gone, red and yellow black and white
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:36 PM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,790,293 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
It can't get any clearer than this...

"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."

What are you hoping for? That somehow "All Persons" means all persons except those of Hispanic ancestry - or of parents who are of Islamic religion?

How can anyone born in the US not be subject to it's jurisdiction from the first breath and instance? Surely they are subject to every US law the minute they arrive - as those on the right claim all illegal aliens are: "They broke the lay by entering the country."

The only people I know of who are not subject to US laws when in the US are diplomats. So, I guess we'd better go round up the thousands of children born to diplomats and kick them out of the country. Pronto!

This is surely a losing proposition and a waste of court time.
You're not comprehending what "subject to the jurisdiction" means
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:40 PM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,790,293 times
Reputation: 3919
I don't care if you're Honduran, Chinese, Russian, Irish, or Mexican.

You have to go
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,189 posts, read 14,062,995 times
Reputation: 18141
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme View Post
You're not comprehending what "subject to the jurisdiction" means
I think that is the problem. Not understanding the language and also the history behind the 14th Amendment and the wording. And then, there is the liberal brainwashing that goes on.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Coming here to drop anchors to suck the teat of public assistance needs to stop. How can anyone think that was a "meant to be"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:52 PM
 
5,970 posts, read 2,790,293 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
I think that is the problem. Not understanding the language and also the history behind the 14th Amendment and the wording. And then, there is the liberal brainwashing that goes on.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Coming here to drop anchors to suck the teat of public assistance needs to stop. How can anyone think that was a "meant to be"?
Ignorance and stupidity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 05:56 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
It can't get any clearer than this...

"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."

What are you hoping for? That somehow "All Persons" means all persons except those of Hispanic ancestry - or of parents who are of Islamic religion?

How can anyone born in the US not be subject to it's jurisdiction from the first breath and instance? Surely they are subject to every US law the minute they arrive - as those on the right claim all illegal aliens are: "They broke the lay by entering the country."

The only people I know of who are not subject to US laws when in the US are diplomats. So, I guess we'd better go round up the thousands of children born to diplomats and kick them out of the country. Pronto!

This is surely a losing proposition and a waste of court time.
Hispanic ain't a race and, Muslim ain't a race either. I want ALL illegal aliens out. Period.

Too; it's dead WRONG that US born kids of illegal aliens get birthright but, diplomats here LEGALLY don't get the same "right".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 06:42 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Incorrect. You've forgotten that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, most members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" were born on lands that were outside the territorial confines of the United States. As the U.S. Government took the lands of its indigenous peoples, it usually dealt with them on a "nation-to-nation" basis. For some, "tribal sovereignty and citizenship" were preferable to U.S. citizenship. However, by the time the "Indian Citizenship Act" was passed in 1924, approximately two-thirds of the American Indian population already had U.S. citizenship.
INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. IV, Laws
You clearly didn't think it through. By 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was finally passed giving US-born members of Native American tribes birthright US citizenship, it was no longer true that most members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" were born on lands that were outside the territorial confines of the United States.

For example, the federal government has had legal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian lands within the US since 1885:

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2017, 09:07 PM
 
7,530 posts, read 4,022,885 times
Reputation: 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme View Post
This needs to happen to have a decision once and for all. Any anchors born to illegals will not be american citizens, but they will be citizens of their illegal parents' home country
And not pay taxes to the U.S. for the rest of their lives no matter where they live? Surely you jest.

Why you will never see birthright citizenship law change:

"The United States is the only industrialized country in the world to tax the income of its citizens based on nationality rather than residency." Why Americans Abroad Are Giving Up Their Citizenship

After figuring out the costly mistake, they can give up their citizenship:

How Much Does It Cost to Expatriate From America?
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