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 05-28-2010, 06:20 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,155,041 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Happy to.

Here's the quotation in question, the operative sentence highlighted:

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.
Oh boy, you are really off the wall with this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:22 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,155,041 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertJackson1980 View Post
gettin caugt here a second time ilegaly is a crime
an that dont count any other crime
You are correct. If deported and enter again illegally and you are caught it is a felony. A good many illegals fit that bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Oh boy, you are really off the wall with this one.
And yet you have no response.

I'm cool with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
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.
Hence... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
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.
Sadly, you are mistaken.

You cannot change the Constitution (as you propose here) without one.

I note that you have made no effort to make a case for an error in Wong Kim Ark.

My suspicion is that you cannot do so.

What's yours?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:41 PM
 
364 posts, read 184,558 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Hence... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thanks for playing. Try again.


Sadly, you are mistaken.

You cannot change the Constitution (as you propose here) without one.

I note that you have made no effort to make a case for an error in Wong Kim Ark.

My suspicion is that you cannot do so.

What's yours?
i dont know the nuts an bolts of tha law but
tha courts interpert thinsg all tha time
anchor babys losin there usa citzenship is comin
precdent has ben set with diplomat kids havin no borthright here in the usa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 08:14 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,155,041 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Hence... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thanks for playing. Try again.


Sadly, you are mistaken.

You cannot change the Constitution (as you propose here) without one.

I note that you have made no effort to make a case for an error in Wong Kim Ark.

My suspicion is that you cannot do so.

What's yours?
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment "gives Congress the right to delegate how the amendments are applied. All Congress has to do is delegate that it's not to be applied in this fashion."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 08:35 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,155,041 times
Reputation: 2130
Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCS1401, provides that:
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.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 08:58 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,027,117 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post

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.
We already went over this and you accused me of putting words into what I said. I did what you just did.
And you still don't get it.
"Person born" IS the infant... who IS a foreigner or alien AT birth because his/her parents ARE NOT LEGALLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
You even acknowledge that the children themselves are labeled as FOREIGNERS.
WHY does it make sense to give these children American citizenship? And please spare me the Constitution line of PC crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment "gives Congress the right to delegate how the amendments are applied. All Congress has to do is delegate that it's not to be applied in this fashion."
Not how amendments are ratified. You actually have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
We already went over this and you accused me of putting words into what I said. I did what you just did.
Not even close.

You actually faked the quotation and inserted words. I have offered the only interpretation that can make any sense whatsoever of the statement without doing violence to it.

You on the other hand changed the quotation itself. And that's just dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulan
And you still don't get it.
"Person born" IS the infant... who IS a foreigner or alien AT birth because his/her parents ARE NOT LEGALLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
Now you're just making stuff up. The statement never mentions anybody illegally in the country. It mentions people who are here legally, but are in the families of diplomats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulan
You even acknowledge that the children themselves are labeled as FOREIGNERS.
Yes they are. But not because they are the children of illegal immigrants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tulan
WHY does it make sense to give these children American citizenship?
Because that's what our Constitution says, and it is the law of the land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulan
And please spare me the Constitution line of PC crap.
I cannot spare you from the truth. That's not up to me. Deal with it.
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