Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 12-06-2011, 07:58 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
finally you link to it, and you failedto read the bill, only parts of it (that you think apply):

Information Center - Child Citizenship Act (http://eaci.com/info-center/child-citizenship.htm - broken link)

The child would be a NATURALIZED citizen.

the child would STILL need to go through the motions of nautralization. A 2 year old cannot be able to take the oath, they'd have to wait until they are able to speak on their own to do so. So no, they do not become automatic citizens when they are adopted.

A child who is adopted at an older age, also doesn't become an automatic citizen. he/She still must go through the naturalization process.
What part of this dont you understand?

The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.

They are not NATURALIZED, they are DIFFERENT

And your quote says that it cant place overseas, no one said it could.. A baby also cant consent to being adopted but it happens everyday, doesnt it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2011, 08:07 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,260,769 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
YOU ARE WRONG

H.R. 2883 would amend the current law regarding the acquisition of citizenship by the adopted children of U.S. citizen parents. The bill would automatically extend citizenship to the adopted alien child of a U.S. citizen in the following circumstances:
Its obvious you didn't read the actual bill in its final. you linked to a discussion of the bill, not the ACTUAL text of the bill

This site explains it quite well, and it does not support your claim:
Information Center - Child Citizenship Act (http://eaci.com/info-center/child-citizenship.htm - broken link)

In part this section as it pretty much destroys your claim:
Quote:
[SIZE=2]Is Automatic Citizenship Provided for Children (Including Adopted Children) Born and Residing Outside the United States?
In order for a child born and residing outside the United States to acquire citizenship, the United States citizen parent must apply for naturalization on behalf of the child. The naturalization process for such a child cannot take place overseas. The child will need to be in the United State temporarily to complete naturalization processing and take the oath of allegiance.
To be eligible, a child must meet the definition of “child” for naturalization purposes under immigration law[SIZE=1]3[/SIZE], and must also meet the following requirements:
  • The child has at least one U.S. citizen parent (by birth or naturalization);
  • The U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for at least five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14 – or the United States citizen parent has a citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States for at least five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14;
  • The child is under 18 years of age;
  • The child is residing outside the United States in the legal and physical custody of the United States citizen parent;
  • The child is temporarily present in the United States – having entered the United States lawfully and maintaining lawful status in the United States;
  • An adopted child meets the requirements applicable to adopted children under immigration law[SIZE=1]4[/SIZE];
  • If the naturalization application is approved, the child must take the same oath of allegiance administered to adult naturalization applicants. If the child is too young to understand the oath, INS may waive the oath requirement.
[/SIZE]
It essentially says, that no, the child does NOT obtain automatic citizenship through adoption. That the parent MUST go through the naturalization process on behalf of the child. And that the CHILD must take the oath in order to become a citizen.

Can a 2 year old do this?


Quote:
You dont know what the hell you are talking about. Call your cousin and maybe they can educate you on something
As proven through the actual law and bill, the only one who does not know what he/she is talking about is you. Her child can't complete the naturalization process since he is only a little more than a year old. Can a 1 year old recite the Oath?

Quote:
They are NOT the same.. its ANOTHER CLASS of citizens
that was the DISCUSSION of what the bill proposes. In the end the child becomes a NATURALIZED citizen.

Here is the text of the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...6hr2883rds.pdf

Please show us where in this bill that it says foreign adopted children get automatic citizenship , without stipulations.

Oops. nothing in the bills supports your claim.

The child would be a naturalized citizen once they complete the naturalization process

yes you linked to the DISCUSSION of the bill. Not the actual text of the bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 08:10 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,260,769 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
What part of this dont you understand?

The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
Please tell us where in this bill that is says this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...6hr2883rds.pdf

Line number would help.


You're resting your entire ARGUMENt on a DISCUSSION of the bill NOT the FINAL TEXT of the bill.

do YOU know the difference? Have you EVER had any class on US History?



Quote:
They are not NATURALIZED, they are DIFFERENT
wrong. the Bill specifically states that they go through a naturalization process. Unless you've been in a coma since 3rd grade, naturalization is the process by which a foreign person obtains citizenship. They become naturalized.

did you miss the part where said child must take the oath?

Tell me how a 2 year old can recite oath? The INS may waive it, but they are not required to do so. They may decide that the child must take the oath.

Quote:
And your quote says that it cant place overseas, no one said it could.. A baby also cant consent to being adopted but it happens everyday, doesnt it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 08:11 PM
 
Location: #
9,598 posts, read 16,535,816 times
Reputation: 6323
I don't blame Republicans for bringing this up again.

I'm pretty certain that deep down they know that none of the Moes, Larrys or Curlys fighting for that nomination are going to beat him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 10:28 PM
 
46,891 posts, read 25,866,768 times
Reputation: 29355
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsilver View Post
Dear God,

Threads like this test my faith. I am stronger for it.

Thank you.

As the classics put it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund Blackadder
It is said that civilised man seeks out good and intelligent company, so that, through learned discourse, he may rise above the savage and closer to God. Personally, however, I like to start the day with a total d*ckhead to remind me I'm best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 10:47 PM
 
4,042 posts, read 3,523,180 times
Reputation: 1968
Hopefully, a pack of five star leaders, the really old folks in the Pentagon will "grow a pair" and handcuff BO before we even get a reply from the S. Court. They sure have sound, Constitutional authority to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 11:48 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
No... it did not. In fact it explicitly refused to do so.
False. It refused to resolve doubts as to whether those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents were even citizens at all.

Quote:
The CRS study points out that...
Again, the CRS cannot overturn SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 11:51 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
There was no need for SCOTUS to establish that.
In fact, there was as the case was about Constitutional rights. Hence, SCOTUS declaring:
Quote:
"In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
Minor v. Happersett
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 12:10 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,978,939 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
In fact, there was as the case was about Constitutional rights. Hence, SCOTUS declaring:Minor v. Happersett
Tsk, tsk, tsk... selective quotations are a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 12:16 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Yes, they did:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

They specifically addressed that Wong was born a citizen, since through the Chinese Exclusion Act, no CHINESE could naturalize. Since there are only two (and ONLY 2 ways) to become a citizen in the US, he was found to be a natural born citizen based on the language of the 14th Amendment, by virtue of being born on US Soil.
You better read the decision again. WKA was ruled "a citizen" only, not a "natural born citizen."

Here, I'll help...
Quote:
"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.

Order affirmed."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top