ICE stepping up raids: birth tourism, 7-11 employees (suspected, American, USA)
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.
Yea cause the owners are brown - want to see some Anglo big wig owners arrested . The big doctor. With all his overstayed illegals - interns and nurses - big technology corps. CAble companies - farmers - Mr T’s family - hmm Then we talking
"Yea cause the owners are brown"
EVERY posts by some ALWAYS bring up the "race" card.
7-11's raided in relative backwater Ft Myers, FL yesterday as well.
Trump's cleaning house.
I wonder if ICE, and Border Patrol are happy to be allowed to do their job, and enforce the laws of the land, or unhappy about the added workload they're dealing with?
The 14th Amendment doesn't make "anchor babies" US citizens. Here's how we know...
Historical facts for you:
1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
Wong Kim Ark 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 parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
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:
I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14 Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.
Sure it does - - "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.
Read my recent post about how that excluded US-born members of Native American Tribes until a Federal law made a specific exception for them in 1924. That one little phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excludes anyone born a citizen of a foreign sovereignty. That included US-born members of Native American Tribes until 1924, and there's STILL a legal exception made for them in current US Nationality law.
Therein lies the rub. Since people here illegally have still have citizenship in their own country, and do not have permission to reside in ours, are they under our jurisdiction? If the answer is yes then why aren't diplomats' children born here automatically granted US citizenship? And why ignore the context in which the amendment was written, for freed slaves who were born here and had never been subject to the jurisdiction of another country?? We've been over this a zillion times in this forum, so much so that every thread debating it gets shut down. I'll just say we need a SCOTUS ruling to settle the matter once and for all.
You mean like how the context of the second amendment was written? Convenient that in that one suddenly "Militia" and an occupying force now means every Bubba who wants to blow stuff up.
Agreed. What's disgusting is continuing to allow illegal immigrants to work for less, thus cutting the wages of Americans and LEGAL immigrants.
I agree with you here. In European nations, you cannot hire someone who doesn't have a national ID card unless they have a work visa. Of course someone could hire someone of the books to say clean their house or work in their yard, or whatever. But in the US the government doesn't properly enforce the laws making employers verify the legal status of their employees.
True, which is what migrant work visas are for. There aren't enough Americans willing to pick crops for minimum wage, so they have special visas for Central Americans to work the fields for a couple months then they go home. Legal, win win
Not according to Trump voters...............
Who feel that those jobs belong to them.
Americans without advanced degrees don't have that many job options if they want to work.
True, which is what migrant work visas are for. There aren't enough Americans willing to pick crops for minimum wage, so they have special visas for Central Americans to work the fields for a couple months then they go home. Legal, win win
That sounds like a win for the companies, not the workers so much.
It seems people have forgotten that if your business relies that heavily on workers willing to work for much less money, maybe its the business model that is to blame!! Its not really a successful business if you have to rely on damn near slave labor in order to be profitable! LOL
Afraid to go after Fannie Mae or Microsoft (visa-violations), they go after Seven-Eleven to get Juan and Hose.
For the most part large corporations do not hire illegal aliens. There must have been a lot of evidence that 7-11 hires illegal alien in order for ICE to target them.
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.
