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 Today, 12:43 PM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Two points: First, there is nothing in WKA indicating that a child with non-domiciled parents are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Yes, there is. Gray 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."

Quote:
Second, illegal aliens most certainly can have domicile in the US. See Plyer v. Doe, U.S. 202, 227 n.22 (1982)("And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State."); see also Garcia v. Angulo, 644 A.2d 498, 50610 (Md. 1994) (Chasanow & Bell, J.J., concurring) (collecting cases); Caballero v. Martinez, 897 A.2d 1026, 103233 (N.J. 2006) (collecting cases); Das v. Das, 603 A.2d 139, 142 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1992) (collecting cases).
The requirement is permanent domicile. An illegal alien cannot have a permanent domicile in the US as they aren't supposed to be here. They are subject to deportation at any time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:51 PM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not true, at all. Let's recap:

Mr. TRUMBULL: The Senator from Ohio says they ought to be. 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. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

To repeat... It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
If you read the Congressional record, you will see that all of the participants considered Native Americans on Native American lands to be "outside of the jurisdiction of the United States" because you could not sue them, prosecute them, or pass US laws that govern them. All other non-diplomatic foreigners present in the US? They were entitled to birthright citizenship.

Mongols, gypsies, Chinese, etc., you name it. If they were present in the US, they could bestow birthright citizenship on their children. How do we know? Because the Senators who passed the Amendment expressly said so.

The point was later highlighted in Wong Kim Ark, where the Court drew a distinction between those living as part of "the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States," on one hand, and "children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, on the other."

The WKA court reached this conclusion by pointing out that "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has always been about whether one is subject to US law and capable of being sued or prosecuted in US courts. All this nonsense about "partial allegiance" is a distraction and is nowhere to be found in the text of the 14th Amendment itself, which instead purely focuses on "jurisdiction".

Last edited by TEPLimey; Today at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:59 PM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, there is. Gray 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."
Justice Gray stating that his ruling applies to the question at bar does not mean that his reasoning and findins cannot be applied to other slightly different situations, nor does it rule out application of the 14th Amendment in non-parental domiciled situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The requirement is permanent domicile. An illegal alien cannot have a permanent domicile in the US as they aren't supposed to be here. They are subject to deportation at any time.
First, there is no such thing as "permanent" domicile. Domicile in and of itself requires an intention to stay indefinitely, even if ultimately that intent is not realized. Second, being subject to deportation at any time does not prohibit one from having a domicile in the US, since the Supreme Court in Plyer made crystal-clear by holding that "illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State."

Indeed, the treatise on which the Supreme Court relied in Plyer lays bare that "[a]n alien, who, whether entering in violation of the Immigration acts, or . . . in the manner provided by law, takes up his residence here with intent to remain has done all that is necessary for the acquisition of a domicile."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:15 PM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
If you read the Congressional record, you will see that all of the participants considered Native Americans on Native American lands to be "outside of the jurisdiction of the United States" because you could not sue them, prosecute them, or pass US laws that govern them. All other non-diplomatic foreigners present in the US? They were entitled to birthright citizenship.
Actually, as I've already posted, they were subject to US laws and the US justice system since 1885. However, that did not grant them birthright citizenship because they owed allegiance either wholly or partially to a foreign government (their respective Indian Nations), as Trumbull described did NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. This remained true until 1924, when Congress made a legal exception for them: Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Quote:
Mongols, gypsies, Chinese, etc., you name it. If they were present in the US, they could bestow birthright citizenship on their children. How do we know? Because the Senators who passed the Amendment expressly said so.
Actually, the Senators were objecting to that, which is why Trumbull quite clearly explained otherwise.

Quote:
The point was later highlighted in Wong Kim Ark, where the Court drew a distinction between those living as part of "the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States," on one hand, and "children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, on the other."

The WKA court reached this conclusion by pointing out that "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."
That's exactly my point. Illegal aliens' US-born children are born subjects/citizens of a foreign government, and therefore, as the WKA court pointed out: "are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

I'll refer you again to the evidence I posted, specifically the Secretaries of State rulings subsequent to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. US-born children of foreign parents were not 14th Amendment birthright US citizens. They only became US citizens if their parents naturalized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:33 PM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, as I've already posted, they were subject to US laws and the US justice system since 1885. However, that did not grant them birthright citizenship because they owed allegiance either wholly or partially to a foreign government (their respective Indian Nations), as Trumbull described did NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. This remained true until 1924, when Congress made a legal exception for them: Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Actually, the Senators were objecting to that, which is why Trumbull quite clearly explained otherwise.

That's exactly my point. Illegal aliens' US-born children are born subjects/citizens of a foreign government, and therefore, as the WKA court pointed out: "are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

I'll refer you again to the evidence I posted, specifically the Secretaries of State rulings subsequent to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. US-born children of foreign parents were not 14th Amendment birthright US citizens. They only became US citizens if their parents naturalized.
Once again: how are the children of illegal aliens less "born in the United States, and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'" within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than children born of legal aliens or, for that matter, duel-citizen parents or with only one citizen parent?

After all, if this absurd (and completely absent from the 14th Amendment) "allegiance" requirement flows from your parents, then presumably a child who has only one citizen parent (or a dual citizen parent) presumably owe allegiance "either wholly or partially" to a foreign government. So how can they become birthright citizens?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:43 PM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Once again: how are the children of illegal aliens less "born in the United States, and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'" within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than children born of legal aliens or, for that matter, duel-citizen parents or with only one citizen parent?
With no US citizen parent, they're born subjects/citizens of a foreign nation, exactly as the WKA ruling described when excluding them from 14th Amendment citizenship. The WKA ruling, however, did change one thing: it conferred birthright citizenship on the US-born children of what is now known as Lawful (Legal) Permanent Residents.
Quote:
Lawful permanent residents (LPRs), also known as “green card” holders, are non-citizens who are lawfully authorized to live permanently within the United States
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...nent-residents
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:47 PM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
With no US citizen parent, they're born subjects/citizens of a foreign nation, exactly as the WKA ruling described when excluding them from 14th Amendment citizenship. The WKA ruling, however, did change one thing: it conferred birthright citizenship on the US-born children of what is now known as Lawful (Legal) Permanent Residents.
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...nent-residents
How can that be, though? If the "allegiance" test as you describe it is to be applied, then birthright citizenship cannot be conferred on US-born children of anyone but two naturalized or natural-born citizens. Otherwise they will have "allegiance," either wholly or partially, to a foreign government flowing from a parent (or, gasp, both parents!) that precludes birthright citizenship.

I wonder what would happen to a US-born child of a US citizen married to a US citizen, but was artificially inseminated by a foreigner. Would that child also have "allegiance" to the foreign land precluding his birthright citizenship? Gee, this "allegiance" test (incidentally, which is found nowhere in the 14th Amendment) you say applies seems to have a lot of potential problems...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:57 PM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
How can that be, though? If the "allegiance" test as you describe it is to be applied, then birthright citizenship cannot be conferred on US-born children of anyone but two naturalized or natural-born citizens.
That was true until the WKA ruling, which extended 14th Amendment US birthright citizenship to the US-born children of what is now known as Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). Many criticize it as a faulty ruling. Nonetheless, it stands as is including the limitations clearly stated by Gray. "The single question."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,161 posts, read 16,265,614 times
Reputation: 12785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
"We're looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. ... It's frankly ridiculous," Trump told reporters outside the White House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...hip/ar-AAG7LHl

I so agree with him, however I don't think he can do that on his own. It needs to be brought up before the Supreme Court as birthright citizenship was never intended for babies born from illegal aliens on our soil.
It was. It's quite clear on that.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
There's really nothing for Trump to look into. If he wants it changed, it will require an amendment to the Constitution. In that sense he can look into it by applying pressure on the Republican party to amend the Constitution. We all know the chances of that happening, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:09 PM
 
67,114 posts, read 30,748,742 times
Reputation: 8799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It was. It's quite clear on that.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
There's really nothing for Trump to look into. If he wants it changed, it will require an amendment to the Constitution. In that sense he can look into it by applying pressure on the Republican party to amend the Constitution. We all know the chances of that happening, however.
Wrong. This has been discussed in detail.

Quick quiz... Ponder this... CURRENT US Nationality Law... 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
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