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.
LOL, if they apply they get detained and deported, seems like your suggestion has a Yuuuug flaw in it. Are you saying you would support a pathway for illegals here?
As they should be. They violated our immigration laws. They should be held accountable as they are in every other country.
I support the pathway that already exists. Meaning return to nation of origin and apply for a VISA. Wait until approved then enter the country.
No, they don't. None of them make an exception for the children of illegal aliens, also known as foreign invaders.
Particularly not WKA. Gray explicitly limited the effect of the ruling:
"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 single question.
Illegal aliens aren't domiciled in the US. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Their domicile is their home country which would issue their passport, were they to have one.
Apparently, you've overlooked all of the SCOTUS cases that reaffirm Wong Kim Ark and expand upon it (e.g. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), etc.). For instance, Perkins v. Elg killed the "permanent domicile" argument and eliminated the distinction between "legal aliens" and "illegal aliens" pertaining to "birthright citizenship." Moreover, almost every argument that one can come up with to deny "birthright citizenship" to the offspring of "unauthorized migrants" has been dealt with either directly or indirectly by SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And 9th Circuit? Don't make us all laugh.
The day the 9th Circuit Court actually upholds the Constitution, as they've actually sworn to do, the Founders will collectively roll in their graves.
SCOTUS had ample opportunity to take on Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943) after the 9th Circuit gave it the "bum's rush." However, SCOTUS denied cert because of a little principle known as stare decisis.
No, it just shows exactly what illegal aliens are: foreign invaders who can be captured and deported.
The children of foreign invaders do not have birthright citizenship. Legally, 'anchor babies' shouldn't even exist.
Technically, folks that are not direct descendants of people who inhabited North America prior to 1492 are the descendants of "foreign invaders." "Birthright citizenship" is a concept that these "foreign invaders" brought with them from Europe and promulgated to give their offspring a connection to the land that they would not possess otherwise. Based on your "logic," if the children of "foreign invaders do not have birthright citizenship," there are at least 240 million "illegal aliens" running around "who can be captured and deported." Fortunately, some folks have offered them "amnesty"… Native Americans Make an Amnesty Offer to 240M Illegals - Legal Reader
Technically, folks that are not direct descendants of people who inhabited North America prior to 1492 are the descendants of "foreign invaders." "Birthright citizenship" is a concept that these "foreign invaders" brought with them from Europe and promulgated to give their offspring a connection to the land that they would not possess otherwise. Based on your "logic," if the children of "foreign invaders do not have birthright citizenship," there are at least 240 million "illegal aliens" running around "who can be captured and deported." Fortunately, some folks have offered them "amnesty"… Native Americans Make an Amnesty Offer to 240M Illegals - Legal Reader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corerius
So you are saying that the Sioux are the first people to inhabit the Dakotas? The Navajo are the original people in the Four Corners area?
I'm thinking they should give it back.
As a side note, I gotta ask. What's with the stupid icons at the end of every post?
Jonah shot himself in the foot with that ^^^.
Tho IF we're gonna go there: the SAME can be said about ALL of LatAm, Canada, Haiti and so on. But it doesn't mean a thing in 2017 since the Indians lost 500 years ago. Period.
So you are saying that the Sioux are the first people to inhabit the Dakotas? The Navajo are the original people in the Four Corners area?
I'm thinking they should give it back.
As a side note, I gotta ask. What's with the stupid icons at the end of every post?
I guess that some folks are unfamiliar with the use of "emoticons." Since this forum provides them, many folks make use of them, instead of using stuff like a ("/shrug," "/wink," "/joke," etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Jonah shot himself in the foot with that ^^^.
Tho IF we're gonna go there: the SAME can be said about ALL of LatAm, Canada, Haiti and so on. But it doesn't mean a thing in 2017 since the Indians lost 500 years ago. Period.
Hopefully, folks realize that the use of "wink emoticon" often implies that someone is joking. /roll eyes
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
I guess that some folks are unfamiliar with the use of "emoticons." Since this forum provides them, many folks make use of them, instead of using stuff like a ("/shrug," "/wink," "/joke," etc.).
Hopefully, folks realize that the use of "wink emoticon" often implies that someone is joking. /roll eyes
Unless talking history: it doesn't matter. Too; many times when the American Indian tribes had their donnybrooks, the losing side was murdered in cold blood. Tho other times at least the younger women and smaller kids of either sex were "saved" from being killed and, added to the winning tribe.
^^^Kinda like what daesh/ISIS's doing in the Middle East in 2017 to ITS enemies, even other Muslim Arabs.
Unless talking history: it doesn't matter. Too; many times when the American Indian tribes had their donnybrooks, the losing side was murdered in cold blood. Tho other times at least the younger women and smaller kids of either sex were "saved" from being killed and, added to the winning tribe.
^^^Kinda like what daesh/ISIS's doing in the Middle East in 2017 to ITS enemies, even other Muslim Arabs.
In the United States, history and law are intertwined; and, thanks to the principle of stare decisis, it matters. As for Daesh or ("ISIS"), it attempts to justify its actions using sharia (or "Islamic law"), which is also intertwined with history.
Apparently, you've overlooked all of the SCOTUS cases that reaffirm Wong Kim Ark and expand upon it (e.g. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), etc.). For instance, Perkins v. Elg killed the "permanent domicile" argument and eliminated the distinction between "legal aliens" and "illegal aliens" pertaining to "birthright citizenship."
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.
Quote:
SCOTUS had ample opportunity to take on Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943) after the 9th Circuit gave it the "bum's rush." However, SCOTUS denied cert because of a little principle known as stare decisis.
Time to revisit the issue. Maybe Justices who actually honor their oath to uphold the Constitution will prevail.
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.
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.
