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 08-24-2019, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Columbia MO
1,755 posts, read 1,887,090 times
Reputation: 2095

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That "plain language" excluded US-born indigenous people until 1924 when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act. Why were they excluded until then? Though born in the US, they were actually subject to a foreign sovereign - their respective Tribal Nations.

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
Is playing “fantasy law” anything like fantasy football?

Out here where real lawyers practice real law, birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, it’s the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2019, 12:35 PM
 
37,708 posts, read 16,678,586 times
Reputation: 10214
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
Is playing “fantasy law” anything like fantasy football?

Out here where real lawyers practice real law, birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, it’s the Constitution.
Then they are stupid lawyers if they ignoring the "qualifying" clause of "and" subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". This explains it all.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 01:21 PM
 
67,100 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8797
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
Is playing “fantasy law” anything like fantasy football?

Out here where real lawyers practice real law, birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, it’s the Constitution.
Read it and weep. Gray limited the effect of the ruling: "the single question."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
10,205 posts, read 6,748,218 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. WKA 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.
Uh, no. Pyler vs. Doe (1982) has reaffirmed that, and it's been the practice of the law and policy for pretty much over a century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 05:05 PM
 
67,100 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8797
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Uh, no. Pyler vs. Doe (1982) has reaffirmed that, and it's been the practice of the law and policy for pretty much over a century.
Nope. Pyler v. Doe ruled that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people in any ordinary sense of the term and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections, and as such struck down the TX law prohibiting illegal aliens from enrolling in TX public schools. Note that it was a very narrow ruling in that it did not similarly grant illegal aliens the ability to enroll in state or federal public assistance programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:50 AM
 
4,257 posts, read 2,524,932 times
Reputation: 1963
I know many here honestly dont understand the 14th amendment, and its intent in the era it was written.
But, the Kim case later was important. But you need to read what the writer of the Amendment intended, and the fact that illegals werent term used back then..It was for freed slaves, primarily.
You can slander, call Trump names, etc, but the fact remains, the SCOTUS did not address illegals, and the framing of the 14th amendment two key pieces needed to be a US Citizen.
Reading comprehension is key. If you dont know, ask. Stop being anti American and honestly read and understand what it meant at the time and how it is used today. SCOTUS/CONGRESS and the STATES need to appeal it or revise it.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opin...84WkdRokunKK-E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:06 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
9,286 posts, read 8,089,070 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
I know many here honestly dont understand the 14th amendment, and its intent in the era it was written.
But, the Kim case later was important. But you need to read what the writer of the Amendment intended, and the fact that illegals werent term used back then..It was for freed slaves, primarily.
You can slander, call Trump names, etc, but the fact remains, the SCOTUS did not address illegals, and the framing of the 14th amendment two key pieces needed to be a US Citizen.
Reading comprehension is key. If you dont know, ask. Stop being anti American and honestly read and understand what it meant at the time and how it is used today. SCOTUS/CONGRESS and the STATES need to appeal it or revise it.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opin...84WkdRokunKK-E


Careful there. You'll be giving ammunition (pardon the pun) to the folks who want to argue the 2A only refers/applies to flintlocks and cannons....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:08 AM
 
1,933 posts, read 1,351,210 times
Reputation: 2147
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope. Pyler v. Doe ruled that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people in any ordinary sense of the term and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections, and as such struck down the TX law prohibiting illegal aliens from enrolling in TX public schools. Note that it was a very narrow ruling in that it did not similarly grant illegal aliens the ability to enroll in state or federal public assistance programs.



But all I've read here the past 3 years is that illegal immigrants are the new welfare queens? Say it ain't so!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Florida
21,808 posts, read 11,256,903 times
Reputation: 7969
Illegals are subjects of another country and their offspring are not to be included with birthright citizenship .. it was misinterpreted for many many years. It should be corrected now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:27 AM
 
5,223 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Then they are stupid lawyers if they ignoring the "qualifying" clause of "and" subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". This explains it all.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
But they are smart lawyers if acknowledge the qualifying clause of "and . . . subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" if they also they recognize that (excepting, at the time, diplomats and those born on Indian tribal lands where US law did not apply) anyone born in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction. The whole "owing allegiance" argument is idiotic because it would mean that a child born in the US of an American citizen and a foreigner (or, for that matter, an American citizen and an American dual-citizen) would not qualify for citizenship.

I have read the debates between the drafters of the 14th Amendment and I know exactly what they said - and what they did not. None of them ever said visitors and illegal immigrants were excepted. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Indeed, Sen. Conness noted that the 14th Amendment sought "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States." (emphasis mine). Senator Trumbull likewise confirmed it and pointed out that anyone who is birthed "if they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens".

And when the drafting Senators raised their concerns requesting carve-outs in the Amendment to exclude foreigners and aliens, Senator Conness disagreed with any further changes, pointing out that "[w]e are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to the same rights and equal protection before the law". As a result, no further changes were made to create such carve-outs.

In fact, the example that Senator Trumbull gave to show that the Native Americans would not be granted citizenship is helpful to define "subject to the jurisdiction" in context. He argued - and the other Senators agreed - that they are not subject to US jurisdiction because we "[cannot] sue a Navajo in Court" and because "we [the US] make treaties with them" to control them rather than simply pass laws to which they must abide. He defined "jurisdiction" as "subject to our laws," expressly explained there there was no "jurisdiction" in "areas where we do not pretend to exercise our criminal and civil laws" and reasoned, by example, that "if they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed."

Senator Howard, who you have quoted in the past, distinguished Native Americans (who had at the time "National independence" on land that is not part of the US, but owned by their tribe) from anyone living in territory controlled by the US where laws were enforced by pointing out that the Native Americans would not be "subject to jurisdiction" and defining "jurisdiction" as "coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive or the judicial department."

Senator Hendricks likewise explained that anyone "bound by our law" is subject to US jurisdiction in the context of the 14th Amendment.

In contrast to Native Americans who were not subject to US law at the time, illegal aliens can be sued in Court and are subject to Federal and State statutes (e.g., the government does not need to make a treaty with illegal aliens present in the US). Put differently, today's illegal immigrants are "subject to US jurisdiction" as it was understood at the time. If you read the extensive debate on this topic, to a man every Senator agreed that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant that the US could exercise legal (civil and criminal) jurisdiction over them. Illegal aliens are subject to that very same jurisdiction today. That is why their children are granted birthright citizenship by virtue of the Constitution and, concomitantly, why a Constitutional amendment is the only means of bringing that practice to an end.

Last edited by TEPLimey; Today at 08:25 AM..
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