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.
Actually, no piece of Mexican jurisdiction applies to a baby born in the United States. Mexican jurisdiction ends at the Mexican border. American jurisdiction applies to that baby. The only exceptions to American jurisdiction within American borders would be an invading army or ambassadors who carry their country's jurisdiction with them. Juridiction is the authority of the courts. Mexican courts don't have authority in the United States. American courts don't have authority in Mexico. Sometimes foreign governments, as a matter of diplomacy and international courtesy, recognize the rulings of other countries' courts. But the authority is solely in the hands of the home country.
You're wrong. It applies wherever they are born, if you have read it
Illegal aliens pretty much live under the threat of detection and deportation. How can that be called a permanent domicile?
One has exactly nothing to do with the other. Read the decision in Plyler v. Doe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
In the case of Mexicans, a Mexican anchor baby instantly made a Mexican citizen by the actin of the Mex. Constitution.
So what? This is true of a lot of countries. Tens of millions of natural-born US citizens of Italian, Polish and Irish descent (for just a few examples) are in the same boat. This is also conversely true for children of US citizens born overseas.
You got a whole lotta dots there, AA. You need to to do a better job on figuring out how to connect them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
This establishes a relationship, state and citizen; thus, a substantial piece of Mexican jurisdiction applies to that new Mexican citizen.
The United States is a sovereign nation. We are the only ones who get to determine who is or is not our citizen. No other country's laws can trump our own on our own soil. Again... as the US Supreme Court has told us:
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
That is not a qualified statement.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 05-23-2013 at 08:36 AM..
An American attitude would be to uphold the law and not try to kick US citizens out of the country because of what their parents did.
An American attitude would be to want to give other people an opportunity of a better life (as you have) instead of being so selfish as to kick someone out because of where their parents came from.
We give close to 1 million legal immigrants a better life each year, it doesn't mean the grass is always greener here.
The parents should be deported & they should take their children with them. A responsible parent would not jeopardize their kids future by being bad parents. In actuality it would be the parent to blame for kicking them out by poor parenting choices of living a criminal life.
We give close to 1 million legal immigrants a better life each year, it doesn't mean the grass is always greener here.
The parents should be deported & they should take their children with them. A responsible parent would not jeopardize their kids future by being bad parents. In actuality it would be the parent to blame for kicking them out by poor parenting choices of living a criminal life.
A responsible parent would take a risk of getting deported to give their kid a better life. The parents should be granted citizenship.
Are you actually serious about not wanting to give more people a chance at a better life? How can you not realize how that flies in the face of everything this country was founded on?
Right. It was not in the SCOTUS footnote as you originally claimed (and then when back and poltroonishly tried to fix) and it cannot be found in any Supreme Court decision. It is instead in some other book that the court has referenced on a different issue... but not the one at hand. You may as well be offering us a reference to The Baseball Encyclopedia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
I was using Bouve in footnote 10 as simple reference to Bouve's book (A treatise on the laws governing the exclusion and expulsion of aliens in the United States. Washington, D.C. : John Byrne & Co., 1912.   as being a credible source.
Too bad it is not an authoritative source on the issue under discussion. Birthers like to reference Vattel as a "credible source" a lot too... and yet the first two Amendments to the Constitution contradict him four times. An unrelated footnote on a different issue does not magically turn Bouve into the revealed word of God.
A responsible parent would take a risk of getting deported to give their kid a better life. The parents should be granted citizenship.
Are you actually serious about not wanting to give more people a chance at a better life? How can you not realize how that flies in the face of everything this country was founded on?
Agreed!
When my ancestors came over here, there were no quotas for "white people from Germany". I can't get on a high horse.
A responsible parent would take a risk of getting deported to give their kid a better life. The parents should be granted citizenship.
Are you actually serious about not wanting to give more people a chance at a better life? How can you not realize how that flies in the face of everything this country was founded on?
Coming here for a better life does not include breaking our immigration laws and then expect to be rewarded with our citizenship for doing so. This country was not founded on illegal immigration but legal immigration. This country was also founded on the rule of law not lawlessness.
When my ancestors came over here, there were no quotas for "white people from Germany". I can't get on a high horse.
What? Do you not realize that today that is mostly Mexicans and other Latinos that enjoy the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that they are also here in the largest numbers illegally?
Illegal aliens pretty much live under the threat of detection and deportation. How can that be called a permanent domicile?
In the case of Mexicans, a Mexican anchor baby instantly made a Mexican citizen by the actin of the Mex. Constitution.
This establishes a relationship, state and citizen; thus, a substantial piece of Mexican jurisdiction applies to that new Mexican citizen.
the US allows for dual citizenship. The child born of Mexican parents are ...In the eyes of Mexico...is Mexican. but that does in no way have any effect on the child born on American soil being an American citizen.
The child may choose his Mexican citizenship...But in no way does it mean that the child is under the jurisdiction of Mexico while here in the US. If the child would like to keep title to Mexican citizenship, he must petition for continuation of that classification.
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.
as being a credible source.
