U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 05-10-2017, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,001,356 times
Reputation: 2377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
No, they all tie together, regardless of how some try to separate them. Both original meaning and understanding are tied to intent as I explained earlier, though they take different ways to get to this point Its really a simple concept.

Note, even for those who try to separate originalism into truly distinct parts (which I disagree with as it all goes back to intent), intent being a "small" part wouldn't negate intent being a significant and major part the concept for particular cases.
There's no question that "original intent," "original understanding," and "original meaning" all tie together. However, it's a progression from a somewhat unrefined older theory ("original intent") to a more refined newer theory ("original meaning"). As long as all originalists subscribe to the same tenets (i.e. the "fixation thesis" and the "constraint principle"), there is enough room in the originalist family for a little diversity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2017, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,989 posts, read 1,577,222 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Those born to illegal aliens are subject to the same jurisdiction as their illegal alien parents, and that IS NOT the USA.

Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives : Publications : The Federalist Society

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

In Under 5 Minutes, Mark Levin Debunks Anchor Baby Law - www.independentsentinel.com

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | immigration resources reference issues

This is as critical as enforcing e-verify and fining employers heavily, since in the absence of a job, they just have 4 kids (a magic number for some reason) and such the teat of public assistance. The whole family gets Section 8 housing for one anchor baby and the array of welfare entitlements for that anchor, this includes the cost of the birth, not just raising and educating it. Critical that we clarify this and it is more than clear that these anchor babies are not citizens. Also, they aren't anchors and are to return with their illegal aliens parents with the right to return as an adult. This leaving them behind just insures the public assistance money comes in as if you leave the US, your welfare benefits end.
Yeah..except it only matters what the SCOTUS says...as it is constitutional. All those work-arounds...clever sidesteps...profound and erudite arguments...are just so much hot air.

A Constitutional Amendment is the only way..and good luck with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2017, 10:22 PM
 
62,405 posts, read 27,771,221 times
Reputation: 7867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
I'm guessing both of the "moms" here weren't US citizens either?
Exactly. When neither parent is a US citizen, neither is their US-born child. The only exceptions are the children of legal permanent residents via the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and Native Americans via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2017, 10:32 PM
 
62,405 posts, read 27,771,221 times
Reputation: 7867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
I mentioned it two times already in previous posts.
Here's all you need to know... The only current exception to the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for US-born children of foreign nationals/citizens under federal law is made for the children of US Native American tribes, as specifically listed under subsection (b) of the current law:

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 05-10-2017, 10:37 PM
 
62,405 posts, read 27,771,221 times
Reputation: 7867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Nice try. Unfortunately, while those "determinations" by former U.S. Secretaries of State are interesting as historical footnotes, they are entirely unconvincing for adherents of originalism and textualism.
Contrary to your "opinion" , they are indeed adherents to the origination of the 14th Amendment, both as being decisions made shortly after ratification AND specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2017, 03:03 AM
 
5,971 posts, read 2,791,931 times
Reputation: 3921
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Exactly. When neither parent is a US citizen, neither is their US-born child. The only exceptions are the children of legal permanent residents via the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and Native Americans via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
This. 1000000000%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2017, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 6,001,356 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Here's all you need to know... The only current exception to the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for US-born children of foreign nationals/citizens under federal law is made for the children of US Native American tribes, as specifically listed under subsection (b) of the current law:

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
Trust me, if you want to eliminate "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of "unauthorized migrants," I'll need to know more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Contrary to your "opinion" , they are indeed adherents to the origination of the 14th Amendment, both as being decisions made shortly after ratification AND specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.
Be thankful that I'm dismissing the "determinations" of former U.S. Secretaries of State and the State Department pertaining to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and "birthright citizenship." Here's what the State Department says in its current "Foreign Affairs Manual" (7 FAM 1111(d) (2014))…
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
And, if you wish to see which way the Supreme Court would lean in the absence of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that specifically eliminates "birthright citizenship" for the offspring of "unauthorized migrants," the dicta in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), is somewhat telling…
[G]iven the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.
Thus, no matter how much one keeps beating the "subject to the jurisdiction 'dead horse,'" it's probably not going to gallop. However, if it does manage to gallop by some miracle, it just might head off in the wrong direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2017, 01:05 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 361,599 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Will not happen, you cannot make laws that are retroactive, not even a right leaning SC would not be so stupid to uphold such an unconstitutional law.
Other countries have, why not us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2017, 01:31 PM
 
7,535 posts, read 4,024,473 times
Reputation: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlily87 View Post
Other countries have, why not us?
Because:

"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

If the "anchor" babies make something of their lives, the IRS will track and collect no matter where they live.

You know some one should go to the boarder of Mexico and put a sign up, rather than the wall ...

btw: imagine a retroactive law and how much money would be lost. i don't think i can count that high ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2017, 01:37 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 361,599 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Because:

"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

If the "anchor" babies make something of their lives, the IRS will track and collect no matter where they live.

You know some one should go to the boarder of Mexico and put a sign up, rather than the wall ...

btw: imagine a retroactive law and how much money would be lost. i don't think i can count that high ...
No, the IRS likely won't track them down and collect. I've known many Americans who moved abroad, never filed taxes thinking that they didn't have to and had zero implications unless they wanted to come back and immigrate a spouse.
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