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 Today, 10:01 AM
 
13,198 posts, read 4,046,107 times
Reputation: 3946

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
American Indians who were not born on autonomous Native American land were entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, just like legal and illegal immigrants.

As an aside, if your belief that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" in the 14th Amendment meant "a person with full allegiance, not someone born with allegiance to another nation" was accurate (it isn't), then Fred Trump, whose German-born mother was not a US citizen, and his progeny are not US citizens.
The supreme court ruling has made native born children of legal residents citizens. We're talking about illegal aliens who are in way less of a position to be citizens than American Indians who were not considered citizens under the 14th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 10:07 AM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
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.
This is where you're wrong. US law has applied on Indian tribal lands since 1885. They were in the US, and subject to US criminal law and federal courts, but didn't have birthright citizenship until specifically granted an exception by a Legislative Act in 1924. Prior to that, they were born in the US, but were not birthright US citizens. Why not? They were subject to a foreign sovereign: their respective tribes/nations. That's why the 1924 exception had to be made for them, and actually still exists in current US Nationality Law to this day.

Info on this from the FBI:
Quote:
"In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act to address the resolution of cases in which a crime involving two Native American parties occurs in Indian country. This Act established federal jurisdiction over seven crimes committed in these instances. The original seven covered by the Act include murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. Subsequent amendments to the Act have added seven more offenses: kidnapping, incest, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, and felonious sexual molestation of a minor. Although the intent of the Act is to permit federal punishment of major crimes by Indians against other Native Americans, the Major Crimes Act applies even in offenses committed by Indians against individuals of another ethnicity."
Discusses local/state jurisdiction, as well.

https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/may/indian-...er-act-of-2010
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:12 AM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Says you and Steve King but SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark disagree:
Actually, Justice Gray in the WKA decision spells it out quite clearly, and specifically limited the effect of the 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. That includes rental property owners. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:16 AM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The supreme court ruling has made native born children of legal residents citizens. We're talking about illegal aliens who are in way less of a position to be citizens than American Indians who were not considered citizens under the 14th.
But the Supreme Court also held in Plyer v. Doe, (457 U.S. 202 [1982]), that "no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

As a background, in US v. Wong Kim Ark, in discussing what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, the Court opined that "[i]t is impossible . . . to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" The Court further confirmed that "jurisdiction" is a measure of the application of the State's laws and "it refers simply to its power over persons and things within its particular limits."

As the drafters of the 14th Amendment expressly acknowledged, Native Americans on autonomous Native American land were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US because they were not subject to US law or US taxes. They noted, "we [cannot] sue a Navajo in Court" and that "we [the US] make treaties with them" rather than simply pass laws to which they must abide. Put differently, Native American land was independent from the Federal and State control. The Native Americans residing there were beyond the reach of US courts and application of US law, thus making them fall outside of the jurisdiction of the US.

Illegal immigrants, regardless of their immigration status, can be sued civilly and criminally prosecuted in US courts. They are subject to US laws (hence the government's ability to apply immigration law and deport them). They are not residing in land independent from the Federal and State control. They are thus "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

So, again, in what way are illegal immigrants less subject to State and Federal criminal and civil power over their persons compared to legal immigrants?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:16 AM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Proponents of the argument that illegal immigrants (as opposed to legal immigrants) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US for 14th Amendment purposes are well-advised to read the majority opinion in Plyer v. Doe., where the Supreme Court held that "no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Apparently you didn't read it all. The majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe states 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, 10:18 AM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Exactly! What excludes them from our birthright citizenship is the qualifying clause of "and" subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. I anyone born on our soil were an automatic citizen that qualifying clause would never have been written in there.
Correct. Even current US Nationality Law clearly spells out the difference. Specifically, read 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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:22 AM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Apparently you didn't read it all. The majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe states 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.
I will ask again: Given that the drafters and the Supreme Court have all opined that "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment refers to the application of US civil and criminal laws by a United States court, explain how an illegal immigrant is less "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US than a legal immigrant or citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:22 AM
 
13,198 posts, read 4,046,107 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Apparently you didn't read it all. The majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe states 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.
Exactly, Plyer v Doe ruling had nothing to do with citizenship for illegal aliens and neither did US v. WKA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:26 AM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
American Indians who were not born on autonomous Native American land were entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, just like legal and illegal immigrants.
Nope. That wasn't granted until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. As US-born children of foreign national parents (their respective tribes/nations), they were not 14th Amendment birthright citizens regardless of where in the US they were born.

Again, read CURRENT US Nationality Law that specifically cites the legal exception made for them which still exists to this day. Specifically, read 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

Quote:
As an aside, if your belief that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" in the 14th Amendment meant "a person with full allegiance, not someone born with allegiance to another nation" was accurate (it isn't), then Fred Trump, whose German-born mother was not a US citizen, and his progeny are not US citizens.
Trump's mother naturalized as a US citizen before Trump was born. Please stop spreading misinformation. It's why no one believes anything you post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:28 AM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Exactly, Plyer v Doe ruling had nothing to do with citizenship for illegal aliens and neither did US v. WKA.
While United States v. Kim Wong Ark did not expressly address the offspring of illegal immigrants, that case did confirm a number of things:

First, it eliminates the ridiculous "'jurisdiction' means 'allegiance to the United States'" argument, because the Plaintiff's parents were not US citizens and they had no allegiance to the United States. Indeed, they were "Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China" and moved back to China shortly after the Plaintiff's birth. So, if Ark was a citizen despite his parents' lack of citizenship, then obviously the citizenship of one's parents is not a factor when analyzing the application of the 14th Amendment.

Second, it undermines the corollary claim that "only citizens can give birth to citizens."

Third, it requires that anyone arguing that illegal immigrants cannot sire a baby with 14th Amendment citizenship rights demonstrate than illegal immigrants somehow are less under US jurisdiction that legal non-citizens who are merely "sojourners" as the Plaintiff's parents were - something that I have yet to see anyone plausibly do. Put differently, that case confirmed green card holders and legal visitors can give birth to children with 14th Amendment citizenship. I do not see how either of those categories of people are more "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US than illegal immigrants and the Supreme Court in Plyer appears to agree on that point.

Fourth, it eliminates any claim that the 14th Amendment is only supposed to apply to slaves.

Fifth, in discussing what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, the Court opines that "[i]t is impossible . . . to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" The Court further confirmed that "jurisdiction" is a measure of the application of the State's laws. Moreover, the Court flatly held that "Jurisdiction . . as applied to the State, it refers simply to its power over persons and things within its particular limits."

So no, ultimately, US v. Wong Kim Ark did not expressly resolve this question expressly. However, it does definitively cut off a number of arguments being advanced by you here.
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