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.
1. Where in the law does it say "completely" subject to the jurisdiction?
The meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment is defined by the Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Globe (Record) at the time of submission: "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."
Quote:
2. Secretary of State rulings are not law.
The Secretaries of the State specifically referred to the requirements of citizenship law in their determinations. Note that such references echo the definition of the jurisdiction requirement stated by the Chairman in the Congressional Record.
Quote:
3. The legal record shows that even after the 14th Amendment, a child born in the United States of alien parentage (you know, those non-citizen parents) was a US citizen.
By political policy only. There is NO Constitutional Amendment or federal law granting any such person legal birthright citizenship.
1. Where in the law does it say "completely" subject to the jurisdiction? And how can a British law take away any jurisdiction from the United States on United States soil?
Tainted loyalty - The framers worked to prevent this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
2. Secretary of State rulings are not law. And these cases don't have any relevance, because they are about citizens of other countries, individuals living in foreign countries as citizens in those countries, who don't have any intention of taking up US citizenship, but want to use US citizenship to avoid the responsibilities of their home country citizenship. The United States does not allow itself to be used. Get over it.
Barack Obama's father - Not Wong Kim Ark's parents.
Anyone who meets the 14th Amendment's requirements has birthright U.S. citizenship.
Except of course for the naturalized citizens who meet the 14th Amendment's requirements and don't have birthright citizenship. Go read it again. They're right there in the first sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama meets neither 14th Amendment requirements nor the conditions ruled upon in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
"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"
Please logically explain why, OF PARENT OF CHINESE DESCENT, doesn't apply, but HAVE A PERMANENT DOMICIL does apply.
I never made any such assertion. I stated that as the circumstances of Obama's birth failed to meet the condition of parents permanently domiciled in the U.S., there was no need to examine any of the other RULED UPON conditions.
Quote:
If you say that both apply, then they apply to everyone, not just to Obama.
Completey false, and yet another failure of logic on your part.
Read Gray's 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 partieswere 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 single question... 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"
THAT is to whom the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling applies.
The 14th Amendment applies to everyone else.
NEITHER applies to Obama. The circumstances of his birth fail to meet the conditions and/or requirements of either one.
The meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment is defined by the Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Globe (Record) at the time of submission: "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."
The Secretaries of the State specifically referred to the requirements of citizenship law in their determinations. Note that such references echo the definition of the jurisdiction requirement stated by the Chairman in the Congressional Record.
By political policy only. There is NO Constitutional Amendment or federal law granting any such person legal birthright citizenship.
So the law doesn't say "complete" jurisdiction?
And you have no foundation for your argument that a British law can interfere with US jurisdiction on US soil?
The Secretary of State rulings aren't law, and are irrelevant.
There's no such thing as citizenship by political policy. Citizenship is a legal status. Therefore laws govern citizenship, not political policy.
Which is why, AGAIN, your arguments are simply you spinning your wheels. You don't like the laws. You don't like the way the courts are interpreting the law. Then you need to focus your energy on changing the law, so that the courts are unable to "misinterpret" the law.
It's like the Citizens United case. One of the most unpopular decisions of a SCOTUS. And yet, that decision still prevails as the law. And people who don't like (including myself) can argue for days on what's wrong with it. But guess what, it's still the law. And I'm better off trying to get Congress to pass a law that restricts campaign contributions in a way that SCOTUS won't find violates the Constitution.
And you have no foundation for your argument that a British law can interfere with US jurisdiction on US soil?
The Secretary of State rulings aren't law, and are irrelevant.
There's no such thing as citizenship by political policy. Citizenship is a legal status. Therefore laws govern citizenship, not political policy.
Which is why, AGAIN, your arguments are simply you spinning your wheels. You don't like the laws. You don't like the way the courts are interpreting the law. Then you need to focus your energy on changing the law, so that the courts are unable to "misinterpret" the law.
It's like the Citizens United case. One of the most unpopular decisions of a SCOTUS. And yet, that decision still prevails as the law. And people who don't like (including myself) can argue for days on what's wrong with it. But guess what, it's still the law. And I'm better off trying to get Congress to pass a law that restricts campaign contributions in a way that SCOTUS won't find violates the Constitution.
I never made any such assertion. I stated that as the circumstances of Obama's birth failed to meet the condition of parents permanently domiciled in the U.S., there was no need to examine any of the other RULED UPON conditions. Completey false, and yet another failure of logic on your part.
The 14th Amendment applies to everyone else.
NEITHER applies to Obama. The circumstances of his birth fail to meet the conditions and/or requirements of either one.
It is you that is being illogical.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Wong? Because????
The decision actually says their entire rationale for their ruling is based on the 14th Amendment. So the 14th Amendment must apply to Wong. And must apply to Obama. And must apply to you and me.
And what American law says that British laws can interfere with US jurisdiction on US soil?
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Wong? Because????
SCOTUS ruled otherwise for those of Wong's particular circumstances of birth.
To recap...
"the single question... 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"
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.
