U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 01-19-2013, 07:55 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Bingham was not discussing anything about Ambassadors and other representatives of foreign governments.
but the other congress critters were. And courts agreed that subject to jurisdiction simply meant subject to our laws.

news: Bingham was NOT the sole author of the 14th Amendment. He was one of many who wrote the Amendment, and was one of many who voiced an opinion. As we can see from teh debates, his "opinion" was a minority.

Quote:
Here is another instance of Bingham of discussing natural born citizenship:

During a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

news: Bingham was NOT the sole author of the 14th Amendment. He was one of many who wrote the Amendment, and was one of many who voiced an opinion. As we can see from teh debates, his "opinion" was a minority.

Quote:
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
His OPINION. Not that of the other congress critters, and not of the US Supreme Court, who found in Wong Kim ARk, that parent's citizenship means nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2013, 07:57 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
So why do think people have to take a Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. when they go through the naturalization process to become U.S. citizens?
That's the formality of becoming a citizen. which is why those born here do not take that oath ( i believe that we should, but that's another discussion)

Such oaths are not binding. As we have seen there are those who take the the OATH and shown that they have no allegiance to the US (Dr. Orly Taitz being one).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:00 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Lynch is a circuit court case, not Supreme Court, and has virtually no weight of precedent in matters of the constitution, especially since Perkins v. Elg was a SCOTUS case almost 90 years later. Lynch v Clarke was written so bad that it was overturned by the New York legislature.
Lynch v Clarke, came before Wong Kim Ark which is now the precedent. Wong Kim Ark was born of Chinese Immigrants (who were not naturalized because by law they couldn't), but found to be a CITIZEN because of his birth on US Soil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:06 PM
 
39,180 posts, read 20,284,678 times
Reputation: 12712
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelYell14 View Post
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...ship-bill.html

Man I hope this goes through and is signed. I doubt it,I mean we have Reid and Obama who both hate America and want it turned into Mexico so....
For Obama the goal is globalism. We all know Obama lived in other poor countries and he believes that Americans are rich (even the middle class) so he wants to tax all Americans and redistribute our money to other poor countries. One step to doing that is to dissolve American sovereignty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:09 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
You know what I find ironic? These very people who are having a heart attack over changing/re-clarifying birthright citizenship are the very ones demanding that our immigration laws need to be changed to accomodate illegal immigrants. Oh, the hypocricy. I am done with this topic.
funny I don't see anyone in this thread posting their views on Illegal Immigrantion. The issue is birthright citizenship and how it works, and should it be changed.

As for me, I say arrest all illegal immigrants, have them pay a fine, ship them back to their country and bar them from entry for 10 years at minimum before they can seek legal re-entry or decide to move to this country to become full fledged legal citizens.

As for their children, they are afforded US Citizenship, however they cannot serve as a means for their parents to earn citizenship or stay in this country. Unless they are seeking political asylum, have a very good reason to be in this country (persecution, victim of a serious crime, returning to their country will mean their deaths, etc), the children should return with their parents to their country of origin, but when they reach the age of majority (18), they are free to return to the US and take advantage of what their US Citizenship affords them. The only exception would be that if the children has relatives living in the States as full fledged citizens themselves, they have the option of staying with those relatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:11 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
For Obama the goal is globalism.
so you are a mind reader?

Quote:
We all know Obama lived in other poor countries and he believes that Americans are rich (even the middle class) so he wants to tax all Americans and redistribute our money to other poor countries.
Since when was America a 'poor country". And when he lived in Indonesia, his father was considered to be affluent, even attending a private school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:21 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,775,397 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Plyler v Doe = the justices stated that the 14th Amendment applied to everyone including illegal immigrants.
You mean the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the entirety of the 14th. Plyler v Doe was an EPC case not a full 14th case.

Since you brought up Plyler v Doe, funny how footnote 10 refers to Bouve who in 1912 was advocating granting BRC to children born of illegals here. Why was he doing that if Wong Kim Ark granted BRC to "everyone" born on US soil?

Lets look at the "Precedent" as set in WKA (note the Ratio Descendi
Quote:
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
II. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
III. [T]herefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
IV. [T]he Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.
V. [T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
VI. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that 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, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals
VII. There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
VIII. So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
IX. Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
X. The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
XI. Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
XII. [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.
really doesn't matter when compared to the precedent of the case): Precedent
Quote:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;"
The only thing that can be determined from WKA is that children born to aliens while domiciled and residing within the US are born natural citizens.

It is the DoS that has interpreted "policy" to include children born of illegals on US soil, they should acquire US Citizenship at birth. This is the Obama policy and can be changed with a different administration, no USC amendment is needed.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-19-2013 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:24 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,338,934 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You mean the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the entirety of the 14th. Plyler v Doe was an EPC case not a full 14th case.
Sorry, my mistake. Should have said the EPC, and you are right. Forgot that the 14th Amendment also addressed issues with Congress, who can serve congress and other issues. The point though is that the EPC covers subject to jurisdiction and who is a citizen of the US and that SCOTUS applied that portion of the 14th Amendment to illegal immigrants as being covered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:28 PM
 
1,597 posts, read 976,690 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Are you attempting to cite Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)?
Nope, and you know better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,775,397 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I'm acting stupid? Did you not write;



Who is the lawbreaker, the unborn child or the illegal immigrant parent who gives birth to that child? Who is being granted citizenship, the parent or the child? If the parent is the law breaker and the parent isn't being given citizenship who is left but the freaking child?



Again, that is a legitimate question, and one worthy of debate but that isn't the argument that you and others have been putting forward. The Constitution clearly grants citizenship to the child of an legal or ill-legal immigrant. If we as a nation find that to be onerous then we should agree to amend the Constitution to reflect that agreement, but the passage of a simple bill by the Congress will not rectify what rights the Constitution clearly grants.



Quite often the child is granted citizenship in the country of their parent and the United States. And while the U.S. doesn't not recognize dual citizenship it is a moot point regarding what other countries recognize.



Never is a long time, but your point is again a legitimate issue for public debate, but it is a separate discussion.
Actually th US does recognize dual citizenship.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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