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, 02:18 PM
 
5,235 posts, read 1,602,787 times
Reputation: 3046

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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."
You are the one claiming that an "allegiance" test has to be applied to illegal aliens in the US when it comes to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. I want to know whether you believe it likewise disqualifies children of a citizen parent and a dual-citizen or foreign parent and, if not, why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 02:23 PM
 
1,113 posts, read 556,731 times
Reputation: 2004
Ah yes, ending birthright citizenship, which is Constitutionally guaranteed to anyone born on US soil. This is basically just a white nationalist wet dream - they've been talking about this on places like Stormfront for decades now. It's not going to happen unless there's a Constitutional amendment, period. Nor should it, the only reason that so many people want to end it now is because its no longer Europeans benefiting from our historically permissive immigration system.

This country will continue to be a great nation regardless of who the majority group of people is. Ending birthright citizenship isn't going to fix any issues we have and will simply create new ones. All of this bellyaching is just that, a bunch of bellyaching from people who want to socially engineer the country based on ethnicity and generally don't want the nation to continue to become more diverse as it has done in the last 50-60 years.

They are welcome to feel that way if they want, but there's nowhere near the level of support to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this long held tenet of this country. Ain't happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,161 posts, read 16,265,614 times
Reputation: 12785
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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
Incorrect.

It's quite clear. Native Americans are not necessarily subject to US jurisdiction. Subsection (b) is not redundant. It clarifies that while not all Native Americans are necessarily subject to US jurisdiction, the jurisdiction requirement shall not apply to Native Americans who are not subject to US jurisdiction unless US citizenship would for example prevent them from owning property under the relevant tribal law.

Tribal sovereignty only applies to members of the tribe within tribal lands. An illegal alien who gave birth on a reservation who was a member of the tribe the jurisdiction would not apply as they are a member of said tribe. If they were not a member of the tribe then they would be subject to US jurisdiction and thus satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:29 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,356 posts, read 34,293,974 times
Reputation: 14501
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor View Post
Why not just eliminate “citizenship” altogether?

Aren't we all sovereign individuals?
Don't get me started!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:32 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,356 posts, read 34,293,974 times
Reputation: 14501
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
So what happens to everyone else? Are we not US citizens anymore?
You are a person, well before you consent to citizenship.
Were you misled to assume that the servant government could impose citizen subjects AT BIRTH upon sovereign people?
You might profit by reading the law, available in any county courthouse law library.


Who is sovereign?
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
No one endowed with sovereign rights and liberties can be a PERSON "born a subject citizen" obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.

But if you didn't know better, you might mistakenly assume you were "born a subject citizen."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Brawndo-Thirst-Mutilator-Nation
16,652 posts, read 16,794,677 times
Reputation: 12690
Executive-Order............and the next POTUS will just change it back to status-quo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:44 PM
Status: "Trump Derangement Syndrome is sad, pathetic, ugly, and real!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: New York
1,553 posts, read 305,821 times
Reputation: 1165
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Is it coming before or after he finishes the wall, buys denmark, shuts down the mexican border and has cheaper and better health care for all?

Because I think some of the things above have a higher priority for most....



Can you cite where he intends to buy Denmark?


I'm all for ending birthright citizenship for those who are not here legally. THAT is pretty high up on most regular peoples lists, but certainly not for the TDS crowd. They pretty much hate everything he does, even if they like it.




Can you name three things you like about Trump?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:48 PM
 
13,201 posts, read 4,046,107 times
Reputation: 3947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
Executive-Order............and the next POTUS will just change it back to status-quo.
The left will certainly challenge it in court and then we'll have a SCOTUS decision on it is the idea. Sort of like how leftist created gay marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:59 PM
 
37,719 posts, read 16,678,586 times
Reputation: 10218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch View Post
Ah yes, ending birthright citizenship, which is Constitutionally guaranteed to anyone born on US soil. This is basically just a white nationalist wet dream - they've been talking about this on places like Stormfront for decades now. It's not going to happen unless there's a Constitutional amendment, period. Nor should it, the only reason that so many people want to end it now is because its no longer Europeans benefiting from our historically permissive immigration system.

This country will continue to be a great nation regardless of who the majority group of people is. Ending birthright citizenship isn't going to fix any issues we have and will simply create new ones. All of this bellyaching is just that, a bunch of bellyaching from people who want to socially engineer the country based on ethnicity and generally don't want the nation to continue to become more diverse as it has done in the last 50-60 years.

They are welcome to feel that way if they want, but there's nowhere near the level of support to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this long held tenet of this country. Ain't happening.
Ah, the typical race card from the liberal left. White babies are born from illegal alien parents also. No, birthright citizenship is not guaranteed in fact there is a qualify clause in the 14th Amendment which disqualifies babies born from illegal aliens parents from being birthright citizens. Read all the posts under this topic describing it.

Yes, re-interpreting the birthright citizenship clause as it was meant to be would stop illegal aliens from getting benefits through their anchor babies. We are talking about billions of dollars a year! It has nothing to do with one's ethnicity either so stick your race card where the sun don't shine. We don't have enough diversity already? How is allowing in more from just one ethnic group both legally and illegally, "diversity"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:02 PM
 
5,905 posts, read 1,595,543 times
Reputation: 3659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Ah, the typical race card from the liberal left. White babies are born from illegal alien parents also. No, birthright citizenship is not guaranteed in fact there is a qualify clause in the 14th Amendment which disqualifies babies born from illegal aliens parents from being birthright citizens. Read all the posts under this topic describing it.

Yes, re-interpreting the birthright citizenship clause as it was meant to be would stop illegal aliens from getting benefits through their anchor babies. We are talking about billions of dollars a year! It has nothing to do with one's ethnicity either so stick your race card where the sun don't shine. We don't have enough diversity already? How is allowing in more from just one ethnic group both legally and illegally, "diversity"?
Go easy on Mr. Clutch, he doesn't have an opinion of his own, so must rely on these talking points. As they say, ignorance is bliss, particularly when smug people think they're so intelligent, yet cannot form their own independent thoughts. To them, smart people are those who are able to regurgitate memorized talking points without skipping a beat.
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