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.
Illegal is exactly what it is..Yes we all (except for the native Americans) came from another country. But most have the documentation to back it up. Anyone that wants to come here, fine, I've got no beef with that, just follow the laws to do it!
You need to go back and read that trial, his situation was not the same as foreign citizens sneaking across our border to pop out a kid in a US hospital along the US/Mexico border.
The issue is subject to jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark established that immigrants on our soil are subject to our jurisdiction, but court cases that followed show that ALL persons - whether legally or illegally - within the territory of the US are protected and subjected to jurisdiction of our laws:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) - the court ruled that the 14th Amendment's EPC applied to all person's, including an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here. ( KAORU YAMATAYA v. FISHER, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) - Citing Yick Wo v Hopkins, the courts further applied that the 5th and 6th Amendments of our US Constitution to establish that all persons within the territory of the US are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws and our protection.
Plyler v. Doe (1982) - "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
The argument is the use of anti-illegals arguments that illegal immigrants are NOT subject to our jurisdiction . The Supreme Courts says, they are.
You continue to demonstrate an ignorance so profound that it compels you to actually argue against yourself. Legal immigrants cannot vote either. Neither can they be conscripted. So you have essentially admitted here that those have nothing to do with domicile. Neither do the other feeble attempts here at drawing distinctions, many of them already factually false.
There is no limitation in protections. There absolutely is a temporary allegiance. They are fully and entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of the legality of their residence on our soil. The law makes no distinction.
Illegals are only entitled to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th EPC protections. There is no "temporary allegiance" by them or for them. They are not "fully and entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the US". If the law makes no distinction, then why are they classified as illegals, why can they not obtain a status of resident in any State or even by the Feds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
No. You are wrong. Legally, domicile has a single specific meaning. It is the status of being a resident in a particular jurisdiction,. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
NO, I am right! Try reading the Conflict of Laws in regards to domicile. Try reading the briefs of the WKA case, then comprehend what Gray is actually stating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
What would lead you to hallucinate that there was no definition of natural-born citizenship? There absolutely was, and by the time of the framing it was more than three centuries old. It was the definition according to English common law. To whit:
Anyone born on national soil who was not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation was a natural born citizen.
Thats right, you quote a small portion of the ratio that you somehow think makes your claim all the more better. The ratio is not the holding of the case nor is it the precedent. I know you are not a lawyer and that you have no back ground in law, however I am pretty sure you had English classes while in school, you must first place into context the discussion and then comprehend what was actually said. I said there was no definition of "natural-born citizen" in the US Constitution. Again, my statement: How can it be under the Constitution as originally written as there was NO definition of citizenship by birth, not even in Article 2. Let me point out where Gray says what I just did:
Quote:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
Just to inform you, this is also part of the ratio descendi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Do you really need me to directly quote WKA again? Okay I will:
Once more with feeling: The 14th Amendment created no new path to citizenship, altered no preexisting citizenship law and redefined no Constitutional terms regarding citizenship. It was (as its author Senator Howard asserted) "simply declaratory of what (he) regard(ed) as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
And yet Gray distinctly points out the following
Quote:
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Go figure!
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-21-2013 at 10:30 AM..
If you bend Wong Kim Ark one more time, it's going to break.
You need to read the decision. You also need to read the cases that have used Wong Kim Ark as precedent concerning citizenship in cases where the person was considered an illegal alien.
You also need to read the US Constitution, because it seems are you unfamiliar with what it says (no where does it mention parent or parents)
No kidding, this liberal urban myth is way past due for a long death.
Again it seems that you are unfamiliar with what Wong Kim Ark says on the matter of subject to jurisdiction (that is the argument that OldGlory and anti-illegal immigrants are putting forth, and what the courts have said about "subject to jurisdiction").
The courts have said over and over again, CITING WONG KIM ARK, that it means that ALL persons within the TERRITORY of the US are subject to our jurisdiction.
Illegal is exactly what it is..Yes we all (except for the native Americans) came from another country. But most have the documentation to back it up. Anyone that wants to come here, fine, I've got no beef with that, just follow the laws to do it!
Can we stop this qualification?
Native Americans did not spring up from the soil.
They too came from other places to what is now known as the Americas at some point. Just a lot longer ago than recent immigrants.
I am every bit a "Native" to the United States as an American Indian also born in the United States.
Every immigrant must fit in and abide by the rules in place for immigration at the time they seek to enter. Back when the government had a "come as you are" policy, they didn't have universal education, WIC, foodstamps, Section 8, etc. etc..... the model of immigration in place 1910 no longer works in America.
I don't think the bill to end birthright citizenship will EVER go anywhere, but given that there's a ton of abuse and only limited social resources, it's not a bad idea to bring some attention to the problem.
A foreign citizen does not fall under US jurisdiction. Asking that foreigners obey our laws is not the same as taking jurisdiction over them. They still have full rights and protections as a citizen of their home country. The US cannot grab any person crossing our borders, draft them into the military, force them to pay federal taxes on property they own back home, nor force them to renounce their citizenship. We have treaties with our allies, so that any citizen from another country, crossing our borders to visit in the US, is still a citizen of their originating country.
The left acts as if the constitution says if any foreigner crosses our borders, we can snatch them up and their kids, void their citizenship to their home country, and force them to become American citizens. It's lunacy.
WRONG!
The US can't do any of the things you list, because those things are against the law. That doesn't mean that someone visiting from another country does not fall under US jurisdiction. If a German tourist murders someone here, that tourist will be arrested and tried for murder according to US law. That's what juridiction means. If someone from Canada is caught speeding, they can be stopped and fined for doing so. That's what jurisdiction means.
If, however, the German ambassador goes into Macy's and steals a fur coat, US authorities cannot arrest him and try him in a US court of law. The US government can expel him, and can request that German authorities arrest him on his arrival on German soil. But the ambassador is a diplomat and has diplomatic immunity. If the son of the Chilean ambassador is caught smoking pot, the son has diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested. Diplomats do not fall under our jurisdiction. Nor do invading armies.
Your last sentence shows that you do not understand what jurisdiction means. It simply means that they can be arrested and prosecuted for breaking our laws. Just as if I go to Cabo this weekend and break a Mexican law, they can arrest me and prosecute me in Mexico for doing so. I would be subject to Mexican jurisdiction.
Your last sentence shows that you don't know what "jurisdiction" means.
Surely you jest! Just what race is being demonized by requiring that at least one parent of a newborn be a citizen in order for the newborn to gain birthright citizenship?
This is only an issue to you because of Latin American migration. You don't seem to concerned about the thousands of illegal Canadians flooding our streets with their nice attitudes.
Quote:
Most countries require that.
+1 for American Exceptionalism.
Quote:
We are one of the few that don't and it is costing us billions in welfare support for these anchors because their parents decided it was ok to violate our immigration laws.
When those American children receive welfare, it's generally because the parents struggle to afford the child like any other. And they don't cost us billions, they provide billions in taxes that aren't redistributed by immigrants, legal and illegal. The idea that immigrants, legal or illegal, costs us billions is entirely a myth.
Quote:
Many of them do it on purpose knowing that their so-called citizen kids will be cared for until they reach adulthood. Yet you side with them?
Yes, I do, because they're indifferent from any other American citizen child by right, and by moral.
Quote:
Hobo Mexican women? What about all the Asian women who fly in here pregnant to give birth to their so-called U.S. citizen baby?
They number in a few thousand if you're lucky. I get the feeling you're pro-life, aren't you? How many of these women come here because of China's stringent one-child policy?
Quote:
Stop making this about race. It has nothing to do with it. There have been hundreds of thousands of anchor babies born on our soil and as I said it is costing us dearly and it makes a mockery out of our citizenship.
The only reason you give a **** is because of the tidal wave of Latin American immigrants.
That is not what Historian Dude is saying. You are reading into something that is not being said.
Quote:
Illegals are only entitled to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th EPC protections. There is no "temporary allegiance" by them or for them. They are not "fully and entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the US". If the law makes no distinction, then why are they classified as illegals, why can they not obtain a status of resident in any State or even by the Feds?
Not according to the various Supreme Court findings. They have repeatedly supported that any person within the territory of the US is protected by the ENTIRE US Constitution, and afforded the rights as anyone else in this country, whether born a citizen, naturalized, a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant. The courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
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.
And you claim I am ignorant. Yes, "legal immigrants" can be conscripted. You might try checking yourself Cadet. 
