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 08-22-2019, 12:01 AM
 
13,025 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Interesting comment. I'm assuming you're referring to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?

That's another example of why we know the 14th Amendment didn't automatically convey birthright citizenship on those who are born in the US to a parent(s) who are citizens/subjects of foreign sovereigns.

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
That absolutely, but I was also thinking of the 1924 Immigration Act. it passed so overwhelmingly then, there was consensus enough to amend the citizenship clause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2019, 12:07 AM
 
Location: El paso,tx
2,289 posts, read 863,390 times
Reputation: 3638
I hope he does end it. Too many women come here, 9 mo pregnant solely to have their anchor baby. We even have birth tourism advertised in magazines overseas, and in mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 12:27 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
17,518 posts, read 19,769,091 times
Reputation: 13392
It is time to end birthright citizenship.

The United States has enough illegal aliens from south of the border.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 02:07 AM
 
Location: California
30,851 posts, read 33,729,277 times
Reputation: 26326
This would be a huge step in the right director for the country. It would literally HARM NO ONE, and pay off for us forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 06:55 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,865 posts, read 32,561,091 times
Reputation: 20231
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Doesn't matter. Plyer vs. Doe (1982) has reaffirmed that native born citizens are entitled to US citizenship regardless of the status of their parents.
Which is why we are pursuing a wall on our Southern border. Enough free loaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 07:01 AM
 
10,105 posts, read 4,729,914 times
Reputation: 5606
Just another promise that he can't do without a court fight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 07:10 AM
 
377 posts, read 41,457 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Just another promise that he can't do without a court fight.
He said he's "looking into it" not that's he's gonna end it. He's probably having his lawyers do some brainstorming.

He could try to pass some legislation or some EO that will be challenged in courts and hopefully the USSC will reverse itself. Not likely though. Justice Roberts will vote on precedence no matter if that precedence is wrong.

The only viable option is amending the constitution. I honestly don't know why ANY American would be against it. Why are you against limiting the scope of birthright citizenship to just "legal residents." Does it make sense for tourists who give birth or worse, illegal aliens, to pop out American citizens? It cheapens our citizenship. What does it mean to be an American, the latitude and longitude of your mother's womb as she's giving birth? Please, f*ck that. No wonder why all the kids from our FOB immigrants don't consider themselves "Americans" (and quite frankly I don't consider them to be either). If something is so easy to get, you don't value it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 07:26 AM
 
67,020 posts, read 30,716,136 times
Reputation: 8768
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
He said he's "looking into it" not that's he's gonna end it. He's probably having his lawyers do some brainstorming.

He could try to pass some legislation or some EO that will be challenged in courts and hopefully the USSC will reverse itself. Not likely though. Justice Roberts will vote on precedence no matter if that precedence is wrong.

The only viable option is amending the constitution. I honestly don't know why ANY American would be against it. Why are you against limiting the scope of birthright citizenship to just "legal residents." Does it make sense for tourists who give birth or worse, illegal aliens, to pop out American citizens? It cheapens our citizenship. What does it mean to be an American, the latitude and longitude of your mother's womb as she's giving birth? Please, f*ck that. No wonder why all the kids from our FOB immigrants don't consider themselves "Americans" (and quite frankly I don't consider them to be either). If something is so easy to get, you don't value it.
I disagree. There's just too much historic and legal precedent that establishes that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to illegal aliens or even temporary foreign (legal) visitors.

Given the following (which is actually only a short list), 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.


And Roberts does in fact sometimes rule to overturn prior SCOTUS decisions. He just did so in Knick v. Township of Scott, a 5th Amendment property rights case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,515 posts, read 13,929,043 times
Reputation: 22610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
The prospect of ending 'birthright' evidently horrifies liberals. Page after page of blather about buying Denmark (!!) and so forth.
But not a word on whether it may be a good idea, or if not, why not. Nary a word.
I'm one of your hated liberals and I've always thought that birthright citizenship is an awful idea and should be ended prospectively, i.e. people already the benefactors of it would retain their citizenship, but going forward no one would become a citizen simply by being born here, but I'm not going to engage in a stupid useless discussion about Trump ending it because he can't.

However, I am impressed by how well Trump supporters "keep the faith" and continue to believe that he can ever be taken seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 08:15 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,911 posts, read 8,742,308 times
Reputation: 20276
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
OK. Maybe it's a good idea. It's something worth looking at.

And the former prime minister of Denmark said Trump must be a madman, lol. That's how dumb it is to waste time speculating about buying Greenland.

Continue...
But Libs are the only ones talking about it. The Denmark PM said, "No", so Trump cancelled the meeting.
Then the Libs went crazy (er).
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