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 02-11-2010, 09:02 AM
 
Location: ...at a 3AM epiphany
2,206 posts, read 2,138,154 times
Reputation: 453

Advertisements

CAPS - American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship

I found this of particular interest:
Quote:

“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.”

Then by definition—and one would think common sense—legal tourists here to enjoy Disneyland and illegal immigrants who broke into the country clearly do not fall under this blanket of allegiance-owing jurisdiction. Accordingly, their giving birth on American soil does not make their children citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,252,279 times
Reputation: 2520
Go tell that to the supreme court then. I think pot should be legal...life isn't fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slig View Post
Go tell that to the supreme court then. I think pot should be legal...life isn't fair.
Well they cant just simple look to the the SC to rewrite the meaning of the 14th mendment...because that would be "legislating form the bench" and Activist Judges are not looked upon as Ameican.

No, this will take a Constitutional amendment to the 14th to..."Any person born on US soil and whos parents are in the US illegally, are no longer considered citizens"

and simple congressional legeslation will not suffice, because it would be challanged before the SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,252,279 times
Reputation: 2520
^
I was referring to the court's interpretation of the ammendment...yeah, I suppose you could that route as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 12:42 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard from Michigan (July 10, 1805 – April 2, 1871)

As a Senator, Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,622,458 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Well they cant just simple look to the the SC to rewrite the meaning of the 14th mendment...because that would be "legislating form the bench" and Activist Judges are not looked upon as Ameican.

No, this will take a Constitutional amendment to the 14th to..."Any person born on US soil and whos parents are in the US illegally, are no longer considered citizens"

and simple congressional legeslation will not suffice, because it would be challanged before the SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slig View Post
^
I was referring to the court's interpretation of the ammendment...yeah, I suppose you could that route as well.
It is just a matter of time (soon) when the 14th is reinterpreted (sp) to specifically exclude Anchor Babies. Precedent has already been set with the US born children of foreign diplomats not being US citizens-------and, their parents were here legally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 01:01 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,026,086 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard from Michigan (July 10, 1805 – April 2, 1871)

As a Senator, Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Sounds straight forward enough to me!
Reading comprehension must not be a strong point for a lot of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 02:30 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
Sounds straight forward enough to me!
Reading comprehension must not be a strong point for a lot of people.
Is that clause, debated but not added, or do you want the 14th ammended to add that clause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 03:04 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
It is just a matter of time (soon) when the 14th is reinterpreted (sp) to specifically exclude Anchor Babies. Precedent has already been set with the US born children of foreign diplomats not being US citizens-------and, their parents were here legally.
Im going to disagree, the precedent is being set now, with citizenship being granted now. That is setting precedent.


GAO Illegal Aliens- Extent of Walfare Benifits Recieved on Behalf of U.S. Citizen Children

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)

The act also requires us to report on the extent to which means-tested public benefits are provided to illegal aliens for the use of eligible
individuals. This is most likely to occur when an illegal alien parent noteligible for aid receives benefits on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. A child born in the United States to an illegal alien obtains U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of the parent’s immigration status and, as any other citizen in need, may receive welfare and other benefits. When such a child receives assistance, the aid also helps support the child’s family, raising concerns about the use of public assistance by those illegally in the United States.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,026,086 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Is that clause, debated but not added, or do you want the 14th ammended to add that clause?
I guess since so many people have trouble understanding what the intent of the amendment was, then YES, this bit should be added.
Children born to foreign parents should NOT be automatic US citizens at birth!
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
Similar Threads
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