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.
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
Even the US Immigration website contradicts you completely (Please note the "OR" after the first part, and the fact that there is no mention made of the parents until after the "or")
I'm supposed to take the opinion of an anonymous poster on the internet over the US Gov't?
Give it up already, you're making a fool out of yourself.
This is why illegal immigrants make it a point to have their children here, because the law as it stands works in their favor. You can certainly argue that you don't like the law all you want, and if you do, you should set about trying to change it, but your feelings on the matter don't keep these children born on US soil from being (not being "assumed") legal citizens.
The question was: The status of the child is not equated to that of the parents in any area of the law. I showed it was with the words of Brennan. Now, does that discount the fact that the children born here are what are in question? I don't think so, the children follow the status of the parent(s). They (the parents) are either here legally (with the authorization of our gov't) and their children born here should be assumed citizens while parents here illegally are not here with the authorization of our gov't and their children should not be assumed citizens.
Obviously legal residents do as they are here with the authorization of our gov't, per precedent as set in WKA. Foreign nationals would depend on the visa they are on, immigrant vs non-immigrant. We've gone over all this before. Now, the entirety of the argument was about children born here from illegal alien parents being called US Citizens simply by place of birth. I showed that simple birth within the US isn't proof enough that children are automatic citizens, you have come in and are now attempting to take this way beyond the original point. I don't care about the N-600 argument you are making as it doesn't pertain to the point. If you wish to continue from here, start a new thread as this is now way beyond the original intent of the OP and we can discuss it there.
You've brought up Brennan in other threads, but this is the first specific reference to him for this thread. The child of illegal aliens is not equal in status to them when the birth country can differ. I've provided other examples of the child not sharing the status, notably that they can be treated independently in the immigration system (Obama's recent action also showing that definition, providing an ability for work-authorization and to be irremovable, despite being born in the same country as their parents, and usually entering the United States on the same date).
As you've said, we've argued all of these same areas in different threads that have been closed, I don't know what a new one will do. This one will be attended to in time, perhaps with a little teeth. Yac can even use the standard text, we've fallen into the same routine here. Deja Moo: A feeling that we've seen this bull before.
My highlights before I drop this:
Plyer v. Doe is only the status of the child, for factors beyond their control, and makes no claim to the status of the parent(s)...
Brennan has the Equal Protection Clause proven wrong in some cases, despite being a great Justice in the past (how would have been in the recent stands?)...
I didn't single the employee out. I said both are guilty. These illegal aliens know right from wrong. They know they are supposed to be paying income taxes. If their boss doesn't offer them a W-4 (not a W-2) they know their employer is trying to cheat the system and they are also.
Without a green card and a work permit they are breaking more than one law!!!
Without a green card and a work permit they are breaking more than one law!!!
All Resident Cards (the more appropriate name, even though the latest issues are back to being a green color) are work-authorized; There is no separate "work permit" needed. Thank You for your superfluous statement.
I think they are more of an authority on the matter than you.
The gov't can interpret law as they deem, each admin changes the interpretation. You need to first understand how law and gov't work. I don't really care what you think or who you think is more authoritative, it only shows how little you actually know. Even from your link it states that one must prove citizenship and what documents are usually accepted. The first paragraph you are clinging to is just a broad interpretation.
All Resident Cards (the more appropriate name, even though the latest issues are back to being a green color) are work-authorized; There is no separate "work permit" needed. Thank You for your superfluous statement.
Just a Social Security # which is not the same as the alien registration number.
Just a Social Security # which is not the same as the alien registration number.
Ya think? There are Social Security numbers that are not work-authorized. Alien Registration numbers are also not proof of work-authorization, as non-immigrant visas (when an I-765 is typically not filed) and even many (possibly former) illegal aliens have them (from going through removal proceedings).
The gov't can interpret law as they deem, each admin changes the interpretation. You need to first understand how law and gov't work. I don't really care what you think or who you think is more authoritative, it only shows how little you actually know. Even from your link it states that one must prove citizenship and what documents are usually accepted. The first paragraph you are clinging to is just a broad interpretation.
Broad interpretation?
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your birth certificate issued where you were born is proof of your citizenship." is pretty straightforward, not much room for for "interpretation", but they do specify "An exception to this rule exists regarding children born in the United States to foreign diplomats."
Are you telling me that illegal immigrants are foreign diplomats now?
This is the last I'll post on the matter, since I have linked you time and time again to Gov't resources and statutes that prove my point, while you continue to provide me your opinions and interpretations (chuckle). To continue "discussing" with you would be a waste of time, since it will probably be deleted, and you are unable to admit when you are proven wrong, having the mindset of the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
Funny, how you've never provided a single example of someone born in the US being denied Citizenship because their parents were illegal aliens. Not even one. I wonder why?
Broad interpretation?
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your birth certificate issued where you were born is proof of your citizenship." is pretty straightforward, not much room for for "interpretation", but they do specify "An exception to this rule exists regarding children born in the United States to foreign diplomats."
Are you telling me that illegal immigrants are foreign diplomats now?
This is the last I'll post on the matter, since I have linked you time and time again to Gov't resources and statutes that prove my point, while you continue to provide me your opinions and interpretations (chuckle). To continue "discussing" with you would be a waste of time, since it will probably be deleted, and you are unable to admit when you are proven wrong, having the mindset of the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
Funny, how you've never provided a single example of someone born in the US being denied Citizenship because their parents were illegal aliens. Not even one. I wonder why?
You're F'n Hilarious. So now some flyer, as put out by USCIS, is definitive proof! Dude, you still haven't grasped anything nor have you proven anything. As I stated, it's open to interpretation depending on the administration that is in power. What are you not understanding? You are aware that the BO admin changed the FAM that DoS uses in 2009 to read that children of illegals should be recognized as citizens if born here, aren't you? http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Quote:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;
Then you should be aware that that "ascriptive ideology" will change once a consensualist is back in charge. I even gave you a direct quote from a USCIS Senior Official stating that a birth certificate for a birth on US soil is usually enough to establishUS Nationality, not US Citizenship. Now, would you like to re-phrase your inept claim that I continue to provide me (you) your (my) opinions and interpretations (chuckle).
His birth certificate says he was delivered unto Weslaco 38 years ago, and church records say he was baptized here soon after. School files list him as a student in the local district from kindergarten through high school, and voter rolls show he votes for president here.
But to the U.S. State Department, all that black and white looks a lot like gray. It recently refused to issue Mr. Aranda a passport; the government isn't sure he's an American.
I think this part of the article makes it very clear what I have stated and shown
Quote:
He received a letter from the State Department's national passport center stating that "upon review, we have determined that further information is needed to support your claim of birth in the U.S.".............In early February, Mr. Aranda received a letter from the government, saying that he hadn't "fully complied with the request for additional information." The letter advised Mr. Aranda to learn about "procedures for your possible naturalization as a U.S. citizen" and closes: "Once you obtain U.S. citizenship, you may execute another application for a U.S. passport."
Even after he obtained and submitted his birth certificate, Baptismal, and school records, he was still deniedUS CITIZENSHIP!
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 07-06-2012 at 11:51 AM..
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.
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.
Even from your link it states that one must prove citizenship and what documents are usually accepted. The first paragraph you are clinging to is just a broad interpretation. 
