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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:49 PM
 
1,290 posts, read 202,631 times
Reputation: 670

Advertisements

If anybody wants to know more about “public charge”
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resource...nadmissibility


The primary immigration law today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the INA, or the Act), as amended.

Section 212(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)): “Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible[…] In determining whether an alien is excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-(I) age;  (II) health; (III) family status; (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and (V) education and skills . . . .”

8 U.S.C. § 1601 (PDF)(1): “Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.”

8 U.S.C. § 1601 (PDF)(2)(A): “It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that – aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.”

8 U.S.C. § 1601 (PDF) (2)(B): It is also the immigration policy of the United States that “the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:13 PM
 
12,672 posts, read 3,966,121 times
Reputation: 3834
I don't even want any immigration or employment and education visas for those who aren't a public charge. They're still taking away from Americans an opportunity could go to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:15 PM
 
48,742 posts, read 45,813,397 times
Reputation: 15498
It's good for immigrants not to be dependent on welfare. There is one thing I think about. The vast majority of the welfare dependent, particularly the generational dependent, are born and raised right here in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:29 PM
 
1,290 posts, read 202,631 times
Reputation: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
It's good for immigrants not to be dependent on welfare. There is one thing I think about. The vast majority of the welfare dependent, particularly the generational dependent, are born and raised right here in the USA.
Well, probably because most (if not all) public assistances require citizenship or permanent residence (aka green card) to qualify. Since most US citizens are US-born (as opposed to naturalization), i'd say it is safe to say that most public assistance receipients are US-born
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:43 AM
 
66,896 posts, read 30,632,736 times
Reputation: 8744
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Those 5 were American citizens most likely. Founding Fathers came up with an immaculate, eternal, impeccable document, I've heard that from Rush himself.
Just stop, right there. The 14th Amendment was never intended to convey birthright citizenship to the US-born children of illegal aliens. How do we know that? Plenty of historical and legal evidence. Given the following, there is no cause whatsoever to grant the children of alien parents US citizenship, unless they are US citizens or LPRs.

1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:

Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100304...about/history/

Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.

2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false

3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both cases cited in this digest:
https://books.google.com/books?id=47...page&q&f=false

4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:

Wong Kim Ark ruling:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.

5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

And, finally...

6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.Just a short list
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:45 AM
 
66,896 posts, read 30,632,736 times
Reputation: 8744
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
You do not get it. A pregnant woman crossing Rio Grande will give birth to an American citizen.
Legally, that is incorrect. Read my prior post. It's time that Trump enforce the actual 14th Amendment, NOT the recently bastardized version, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:10 AM
 
9,602 posts, read 4,914,337 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
Then we are no longer America - if we change who we are and have stood for, the last 200 years we need to change our name. MrT wants to run it like a business, then take the sign off the building and change it. Maybe to - the Trumpenian United States or Trumpmerika, Republic of Zetrump . We can’t be what we are not just because some can’t play well with others
Emotional malarkey. Public benefits for citizens, let alone immigrants, is a relatively recent development in U.S. history. Immigrants supported themselves or were helped by family, friends, religious institutions, private aid groups, political parties, etc.. Not government Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, public housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:14 AM
 
6,429 posts, read 5,501,273 times
Reputation: 8914
Well done, Mr. President. If I'd been on the fence about voting for him again in 2020 (and I'm not on the fence) this alone would have won me over.

Last edited by Mrs. Skeffington; Today at 07:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:38 PM
 
39,430 posts, read 20,549,653 times
Reputation: 12871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Believe me I have tried to understand as I have some liberal relatives I have had political discussions with. There is no common sense, logic or reasoning with them. They are ruled by emotions instead of their brains.
The only way they will is if they become unable to work and doors slam in their face when they apply for help while the illegals who never paid in to the system get gov't subsidies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
714 posts, read 607,907 times
Reputation: 357
Wouldn’t it make more sense to go after the entitlements rather than the people?
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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