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.
Originally Posted by chicagonut This line alone "AND subject to" is pretty clear since illegals are not subject to our full jurisdiction.
"Ahhh... but there you are completely wrong. Everybody who is here, even just a Dutch tourist passing through, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Certainly you don't imagine that somebody from Amsterdam could come to the States and light up a massive splieff in a Dallas Police Station and argue he is immune from arrest because, as an alien, he is not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
I mean seriously... if you don't consider illegal aliens to be under the jurisdiction of the US... how would you propose we deport them?
The meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction of" was well defined and understood at the time, as evidenced by the comprehensive discussion by the Supreme Court in the decision in Wong Kim Ark. Here's what they said:"
Ah, but it is you who is wrong. Illegal aliens are only subject to our jurisdiction when a crime has been committed on our soil. Their allegiance is to their homeland, not ours.
Yes, it the meaning of the phrase well defined by the writer's of the amendment. The Supreme Court allowed that one case to change the original intention of it and they were wrong in doing so. So it was they who changed the original intent of our Constitution. It is they you should direct your patriotic concerns with not those of us who want it interpreted the way the writer's intended it to be if you are really serious about honoring our Constitution.
Originally Posted by chicagonut One of the writers of the amendment was implicent about children born from aliens not being citizens of this country by birth.
"If you mean Bingham, so what? He had nothing to do with the citizenship clause. If you mean Howard, you are misreading his words quite badly. He actually believed the same thing described in the Wong Kim Ark decision".
I do mean Senator Howard. If I am misreading his words then please point out how I am doing that.
Originally Posted by chicagonut The Supreme Court really screwed up on this one and we have become so PC that they don't want to address it. Now we have a couple more judges who are very liberal so it is going to be an uphill battle to get it changed.
"Again... your problem is not with judges. The Supreme Court doesn't propose Amendments to the Constitution. Congress does".
I know how the process works and there has been such a bill pending in congress. I believe if ever brought up for a vote it would pass. However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court would have to ratify it and that is where we would run into a problem with ethnocentric, liberal judges such as Soto.
Ah, but it is you who is wrong. Illegal aliens are only subject to our jurisdiction when a crime has been committed on our soil. Their allegiance is to their homeland, not ours.
Ignoring that jurisdiction and allegiance are two different things, was I mistaken when I assumed that you considered the crossing of the border a "crime?"
I mean... if you don't consider that a crime, what is your complaint again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Yes, it the meaning of the phrase well defined by the writer's of the amendment. The Supreme Court allowed that one case to change the original intention of it and they were wrong in doing so.
Please... show us the basis for this rather fascinating assertion. The Wong Kim Ark decision makes its own case in what today would be about 40 single spaced pages. Its a very highly regarded case, and has been cited approvingly in hundreds of subsequent courts. It is, by definition, "good law."
Now, I'm not asking for 40 pages. But could you actually assemble a genuine argument that the Supreme Court was wrong?
'Cause I gotta tell you... as decisions go it's very tightly reasoned. The hurdle is high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
So it was they who changed the original intent of our Constitution. It is they you should direct your patriotic concerns with not those of us who want it interpreted the way the writer's intended it to be if you are really serious about honoring our Constitution.
I am simply fascinated at your continued inability to grasp the process by which we amend the Constitution.
If I were you, I would start with Article 5 of the Constitution itself. It's a quick read, and not very difficult to understand.
Originally Posted by chicagonut The Supreme Court really screwed up on this one and we have become so PC that they don't want to address it. Now we have a couple more judges who are very liberal so it is going to be an uphill battle to get it changed.
"Again... your problem is not with judges. The Supreme Court doesn't propose Amendments to the Constitution. Congress does".
I know how the process works and there has been such a bill pending in congress. I believe if ever brought up for a vote it would pass. However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court would have to ratify it and that is where we would run into a problem with ethnocentric, liberal judges such as Soto.
sotomayer is one judge
there are stil 8 others
who can mess thinsg up for sotomayer
anchor babys time is ending
soon they wil be countd as ilegal aliens
along wit there parenst
I do mean Senator Howard. If I am misreading his words then please point out how I am doing that.
Happy to.
Here's the quotation in question, the operative sentence highlighted:
Quote:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Let's break it down:
This will not, of course include persons born in the United States who are...
A) foreigners,
B) aliens,
C) 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 persons.
The first thing to notice here is that he does not exclude "children of foreigners" or "children of aliens." He is labeling the children themselves as "foreigners" or "aliens." That is a problem for you. Since he never says that "the children of foreigners are foreigners," or that "the children of aliens are aliens," he has not excluded the children of aliens/foreigners with this statement.
Even worse, if we are to accept your interpretation of the statement, then he has left us no better off than if he had said nothing at all. He has not defined the "jurisdiction" requirement at all, but only multiplied the ambiguity of the phrase by replacing one undefined term with two others.
That hardly "settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States" now does it?
But of course, there is another way to read his statement, and it turns out to be the only way to read it that both makes linguistic sense and "settles the great question."
Look at the breakdown again. How many different classes of person is he excluding in the clauses A, B & C? It cannot be three, since foreigners and aliens are exact synonyms merely divided by a comma.
Oh... and look? Clause C is also divided from the prior clause merely by a comma. There is no conjunction ("and" or "or") that would give any reason to think it is additive to rather than synonymous with clauses A & B.
Clause C is without any serious possibility of argument the synonym of (and hence the definition of) "foreigners" and "aliens." He is explaining to you there in perfect 19th century spoken prose exactly what constitutes "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens."
They are those "persons born in the United States ... who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."
That is the definition he offers here. That is how he "settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
And "every other class of persons" includes, by exclusion, the children of foreigners/aliens.
However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court would have to ratify it and that is where we would run into a problem with ethnocentric, liberal judges such as Soto.
No.
The Supreme Court plays exactly no role whatsoever in the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.
Ignoring that jurisdiction and allegiance are two different things, was I mistaken when I assumed that you considered the crossing of the border a "crime?"
I mean... if you don't consider that a crime, what is your complaint again?
Please... show us the basis for this rather fascinating assertion. The Wong Kim Ark decision makes its own case in what today would be about 40 single spaced pages. Its a very highly regarded case, and has been cited approvingly in hundreds of subsequent courts. It is, by definition, "good law."
Now, I'm not asking for 40 pages. But could you actually assemble a genuine argument that the Supreme Court was wrong?
'Cause I gotta tell you... as decisions go it's very tightly reasoned. The hurdle is high.
I am simply fascinated at your continued inability to grasp the process by which we amend the Constitution.
If I were you, I would start with Article 5 of the Constitution itself. It's a quick read, and not very difficult to understand.
What are you talking about? Crossing our border illegally is against the law. Now I know it isn't considered to be a crime in the true sense of the word but it is still against the law and one is subject to detainment and deportation if caught.
What you fail to grasp is that an amendment to the Constitution would not be necessary. It can be re-interpreted by the Supreme Court without changing any of the wording to be what it was intended to be.
What are you talking about? Crossing our border illegally is against the law. Now I know it isn't considered to be a crime in the true sense of the word but it is still against the law and one is subject to detainment and deportation if caught.
What you fail to grasp is that an amendment to the Constitution would not be necessary. It can be re-interpreted by the Supreme Court without changing any of the wording to be what it was intended to be.
gettin caugt here a second time ilegaly is a crime
an that dont count any other crime
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.
