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.
Not at all. Another complete failure by you to understand a word of what you are reading. Now... since you never bothered to actually make an argument, instead you simply offered quotations and offered not even the pretense of explanation, I won't bother to make your arguments for you.
But if you manage to make one yourself, I'll be happy to eviscerate it again.
The Supreme Court has told us exactly what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
The Supreme Court has told us explicitly that the children of aliens born on US soil are natural born citizens with only two exceptions.
I pointed only to the fact that you were not being truthful regarding what the footnote said, and what Bouve was being referenced regarding. And you are being further disingenuous when you set up a straw man regarding my opinion on Bouve's "authority." Please... argue with what I am actually saying rather than the voices in your head.
There in lies the problem, I made a factual statement that a child born to an EWI, while in detention for said EWI, that child is not born a US Citizen since they have never resided within the US. Anything else you have attempted to argue has nothing to do with my statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Nonsense. The analogy offered cuts immediately to the quick of your frantic equivocation.
Equivocate all you wish, LR. You are still light years away from finding a SCOTUS confirmation regarding the Bouve reference that you so desperately want to pretend carries legal weight.
SMFH. Policy today is what may allow a child born to an deportee in holding giving birth to the child. It always has been policy. I have yet to equivocate.
And yet you somehow think that footnote 22 in Plyler carries some legal weight since you continually reference it.
I found this last night. This is from the congressional record pertaining to the debates of the 14th Amendment.
Aside from the fact that you cut and pasted a snippet of the debate from a birther website and didn't read the debate in toto so as to glean the context of your citation... Through out the history of debate over citizenship and naturalization the term "natural born" and "citizen at birth" have been freely exchanged. As result there are only two forms of citizenship, natural born/citizen at birth and citizenship through naturalization.
Quoting John Bingham (remember him)]
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[17]
I then refer you to an opinion by Attorney General Edward Bates, issued in 1862, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well-settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; ... and lastly to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and state tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities for its support.[22]
So what does Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford state on behalf of the First Circuit New York Court of Chancery in 1844:
The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Citizens are citizens. They all have the same rights, whether they are born in America or naturalized. There is only one little, tiny, difference. You have to be born in the USA to be inaugurated as President (and by implication) and Vice-President. Otherwise, there is no difference (unless you live in Arizona where you have to carry citizenship papers with you in case you meet up with a Law Enforcement Officer).
Last edited by mensaguy; 05-23-2013 at 01:57 PM..
Reason: I forgot to wear my tin foil hat while typing.
For example in Mexico's constitution Chapter 2, Article 30, paragraph 2, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory.
Because they were born in this country. Just like you.
There in lies the problem, I made a factual statement that a child born to an EWI, while in detention for said EWI, that child is not born a US Citizen since they have never resided within the US. Anything else you have attempted to argue has nothing to do with my statement.
And as has been demonstrated by multiple other participants in this thread, you are wrong.
That you dishonestly tried to defend the error by claiming a SCOTUS footnote said something that it did not say is merely the despicable icing on your disreputable cake.
You have done nothing else for the last several posts.
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.
Hardly, but you are the "history" dud.
