Newborn babies obtaining citizenship when born in the U.S. despite neither of parents are citizens!!! (military, visas)

[Attus Black]

Originally Posted by Arus

I already did, several times

Illegals do not owe any allegiance to the US, they fall "within the jurisdiction" of the US and have no political ties, thus they are not completely subject to our jurisdiction. As you state, they are subject to civil, criminal and immigration laws, nothing more. The Schooner Exchange as referenced by Gray.

An illegal alien is NEITHER an ambassador or a person of an invading army, so OUR laws apply to them, in their ENTIRETY unless specifically excluded.

I agree, they are subject to civil, criminal and immigration law simply by being within our jurisdiction.

No they cannot.

YES, they can.

several politicians have tried and failed to get bills and resolutions passed to "change" the meaning of birthright citizenship. they have failed because they cannot get around the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:

Several politicians have failed simply because they cant get it to the floor, most fail in committee, based on which political party is in power at the time. This is basic politics. Even Harry Reid was for this back in the 1980's.

birthright citizenship is CODIFIED into our US Constitution. Specifically in the 14th Amendment. Congress cannot change the words to an AMENDMENT and its meaning without passing another AMENDMENT.

No, citizenship is codified in the 14th amendment, not birth right citizenship.

What part of this do you not understand?

youve gotta be a 10 year old kid to talk the way you do. why dont you try being civil? You simply dont understand what you dont want to, I cant change your mindset, I simply dont agree with you.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Arus

they cannot get around the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

Let's look at the wording of the 14th Amendment to see what's really going on:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitutional proof right there that "within the jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction" are two completely different concepts.

One can be "within a jurisdiction" but not "subject to its jurisdiction." For example, foreign tourists are within the jurisdiction of the U.S., but they do not pay U.S. federal income tax on income earned during the time they are present in the U.S.

In direct contrast, U.S. citizens both in the U.S. and abroad are "subject to the U.S.'s jurisdiction" and must pay the applicable federal income tax on all sources of income both domestic AND foreign even while residing in a foreign country.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Attus Black

Are you still butt hurt? You better check yourself, this is a discussion not an argument.

the only people who are butt hurt are those that wish to take the away the fundamental right of citizenship to children born to immigrants (here illegally or not). they don't like that the fact that the US has enjoyed this form of freedom and right. they wish to limit its scope.

the only people who wish this, have shown to be racists

I previously gave the quote form Gray that says the parents established a permanent domicile and residence. If you don't understand that illegals can not do so and that they are not recognized by the state or the State, then they can not establish a permanent domicile nor a residence. They may be residing here, but they are not recognized as resident in the state or the State.

and as stated in Wong Kim ark, which you have ignored:

Citing Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830)

"The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens."

....

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

and As Senator Jacob Howard explained during the drafting of the 14th Amendment concerning the phrase "subject to jurisdiction", the main proposer of the Amendment:

[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.

Ooops. Inglis made this same distinction that Senator Jacob Howard did, 36 years prior to Jacob. Ooops. the US Supreme Court used Inglis as support for their definition of citizen by birth, in Wong Kim Ark.

So any differing opinion from yours, you label a racist?

talk about failing to comprehend.

You offer no proof of these so called "scholars" that you agree with. what are their names? where are their dissertations? What is their research? Why not support your reasons why you agree with them.

However, whenever anyone trots out "experts" agree with me line (in reference to the 14th Amendment) I usually see the claims from racists. AKA, people who have long tried to redefined the 14th Amendment to deny certain individuals that they are citizens.

so my comment:
You could be agreeing with scholars who are racists who deny that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship at birth despite its exact wording in the first sentence of the Amendment.

I dont know what scholars you agree with.

Those scholars merely claim that it will not take an amending of the 14th to deny status to children born of illegals, it will only take an act from congress or a change to the FAM.

Source? evidence? funny how my basic legal course and the 4th Grade History class I took, says that the only way to change the US Constitution is to Amend it.

do you know why these politicians try to pass bills ? (actually they aren't trying, they are using the platform to incite political uneasiness. these politicians KNOW that their bills will never pass).

They do so, because they KNOW they can't get an Amendment through and the required 2/3rds vote to ratify.

[Attus Black]

Lets use this phrase from WKA

Originally Posted by Arus

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
3 Pet. 164.

This one phrase dismisses your entire argument.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by IBMMuseum

But illegal alien males are required to register for the Selective Service, the same as citizen and Legal Permanent Resident males...

Yup they are:

Selective Service System: Registration Information

Are undocumented immigrant males required to register?

Yes. All undocumented immigrant males, other than those admitted on nonimmigrant visas, must register, whether or not they have a green card.

[Attus Black]

Originally Posted by Arus

the only people who are butt hurt are those that wish to take the away the fundamental right of citizenship to children born to immigrants (here illegally or not). they don't like that the fact that the US has enjoyed this form of freedom and right. they wish to limit its scope.

By the very definition, a right can be limiting.

the only people who wish this, have shown to be racists

racists?LMFAO

and as stated in Wong Kim ark, which you have ignored:

Citing Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830)

Ive ignored. Wow, Ive used your own quote of WKA against you look to my previous comment. LMFAO

and As Senator Jacob Howard explained during the drafting of the 14th Amendment concerning the phrase "subject to jurisdiction", the main proposer of the Amendment:

Ooops. Inglis made this same distinction that Senator Jacob Howard did, 36 years prior to Jacob. Ooops. the US Supreme Court used Inglis as support for their definition of citizen by birth, in Wong Kim Ark.

and it looks like Ingliss makes light of the parents establishing residence here and owing a temporary allegiance, something that illegals can not do.

talk about failing to comprehend.

Its my fault you cant put together a coherent phrase?

You offer no proof of these so called "scholars" that you agree with. what are their names? where are their dissertations? What is their research? Why not support your reasons why you agree with them.

Have I not supported my reasons in agreement with them, Im pretty sure I used them to counter your claims.

However, whenever anyone trots out "experts" agree with me line (in reference to the 14th Amendment) I usually see the claims from racists. AKA, people who have long tried to redefined the 14th Amendment to deny certain individuals that they are citizens.

So all you can do is attempt to dismiss things because you have no coherent argument so you exclaim racism, typical.

so my comment:
You could be agreeing with scholars who are racists who deny that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship at birth despite its exact wording in the first sentence of the Amendment.

I dont know what scholars you agree with.

There are many out there, theyre not hard to find. John Eastman for one.

Source? evidence? funny how my basic legal course and the 4th Grade History class I took, says that the only way to change the US Constitution is to Amend it.

Make up your mind, you claim to need an amendment, yet you admit to congressional exclusion.

do you know why these politicians try to pass bills ? (actually they aren't trying, they are using the platform to incite political uneasiness. these politicians KNOW that their bills will never pass).

politics 101. Sorry, Im in the advanced class.

They do so, because they KNOW they can't get an Amendment through and the required 2/3rds vote to ratify.

they dont need an amendment, congress can exclude them, DoS can deny them.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Arus

Yup they are:

Selective Service System: Registration Information

From that link:

"The exceptions to this rule are very few and include: nonimmigrant aliens on student, visitor, tourist, or diplomatic visas"

Such persons are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

[Attus Black]

Originally Posted by Arus

Yup they are:

Selective Service System: Registration Information

Do you know why they must register? If they are legalized for whatever reason. As illegals they can not join nor be conscripted into the US military.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Attus Black

Lets use this phrase from WKAThis one phrase dismisses your entire argument.

in what fantasy land does that statement dismiss my entire argument?

Again, the law is quite clear, but you seem to have trouble in understanding it.

Fletes-Mora v. Rogers, 160 F. Supp. 215 (D. Cal. 1958)

Our law has long recognized an alien's obligation of "temporary allegiance" to a country while he is within its territory. The term "temporary allegiance" refers to the alien's duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country. Carlisle v. United States, 1872, 16 Wall. 147, 154-155, 83 U.S. 147, 154-155, 21 L.Ed. 426; Eisler v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 170 F.2d 273, 279 certiorari granted 1948, 335 U.S. 857, 69 S.Ct. 130, 93 L.Ed. 404, ordered off docket, 1949, 338 U.S. 189, 69 S.Ct. 1453, 93 L.Ed. 1897; Leonhard v. Eley, 10 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 409; see: United States v. Tomoya Kawakita, D.C.S.D.Cal.1950, 96 F.Supp. 824, 826-827, affirmed on other grounds, 9 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 506; 1952, 343 U.S. 717, 72 S.Ct. 950, 96 L.Ed. 1249; 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 228; 5 id. 471; 2 id. 84.

Aliens as defined by the US can include: resident/nonresident, immigrant/nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented ("illegal").

As the ruling in Fletes continues:

Mr. Justice Field, writing for an unanimous Court in Carlisle v. United States, supra, explained the obligation of "temporary allegiance" in these words: "The claimants were residents in the United States * * *. [T]hey were, therefore, bound to obey all the laws of the country, not immediately relating to citizenship, during their sojourn in it * *. `All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.'

They have a duty to obey all laws. Not that they have to.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Attus Black

Do you know why they must register? If they are legalized for whatever reason.

Really? Please show us where it says this.

As illegals they can not join nor be conscripted into the US military.

Because its one of those "specifically excluded" items that undocumented aliens can't do.


and undocumented aliens are protected by the US Constitution;

Illegal Aliens are able to receive due process:
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Therefore, it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.

Illegal Aliens are also covered under the Equal Protection Clause:
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

Illegal Aliens and Constitutional Rights – Do Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights?

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.