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.
You're correct. It has just been assumed that kids born here from illegal alien parents are citizens. There has never been a case tried by the Supreme Court of this. It needs to happen to clarify once and for all who gets birthright citizenship and who doesn't according to the writer's of the 14th Amendment.
thanks for the correction on Michael Dukakis, but YOU are wrong about Spiro and Chester
According to to the Census Data for Agnew's father, he wasn't a citizen till after Spiro was born.
Not according to his World War I draft registration card AND the Census I've already posted. He was indeed naturalized before his son was born.
Quote:
And as for Chester A Aruthur, you are knowingly lying when you say that it was about his father's citizenship when that is not even the truth. IT was and always about where CHESTER WAS BORN.
You clearly don't recognize that as the subterfuge diversion. Much like Obama uses the forged birth certificate controversy to draw attention away from the fact that he was born to an alien father and therefore Constitutionally ineligible (see my post quoting Chertoff and Leahy).
More evidence that Arthur knew he wasn't a natural born citizen because his father was an alien at the time of his birth, and was hiding the fact:
Quote:
President Arthur, in his Fourth Annual Message, in 1884, said: “Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. * * * Section2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms* * *
“An uniform rule of naturalization, such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens* * *.”
[scribd]29744612[/scribd]
Recall that this was in the midst of a spate of U.S. Secretary of State decisions in which it was determined that those born in the U.S. to alien fathers weren't even U.S. citizens at all due to the fact that they were subject to a foreign power at birth (Hausding, Greisser: //www.city-data.com/forum/30314976-post777.html) .
In order to be considered “natural bornâ€, the person must be born on American soil and to 2 American citizens. This term “natural born citizen’ is extremely important qualification, as it demonstrates complete allegiance. one born with a parent of another country will have a tainted birth...
A baby has demonstrated "complete allegiance" to the United States at her birth because of the citizenship status of her parent(s)? "Tainted birth"? This topic keeps getting nuttier as it goes along.
Jurisdiction isn't about a person's choice to comply or not. It's about the law applying to THEM. They are required by law to do something. That's an assertion of jurisdiction by the government.
Which is why those born in the U.S. to an English subject parent in the 1960s, such as Obama, are natural born English subjects. They were born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to an alien parent whose country asserts the jurisdiction of jus sanguinis citizenship at the time of the child's birth. They are clearly born subject to the jurisdiction of their alien parent's country.
Which is why those born in the U.S. to an English subject parent in the 1960s, such as Obama, are natural born English subjects. They were born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K.
tell me, if you steal from a store in the US, are you subject to the theft laws, of England? Can you pick or choose which laws you wish to follow or take the lesser punishment - say England says you pay a fine of $20 and restitution and US says, no your fine is $700, restitution and community service?
did Obama have his English citizenship recognized? (you have to declare it to the government.) Did Obama Sr, declare his son's English citizenship to England?
That is how stupid your argument is.
English laws END at our borders (as with every other country; exceptions to this are if we have a specific treaty with that country to extend their laws into ours: ex. Extradition laws, military service laws). He was no more subject to England's Jurisdiction as you or I.
You again fail to understand what subject to jurisdiction is (subject to OUR laws while ON our soil).
Once you leave the US, you are no longer subject to our laws.
Quote:
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to an alien parent whose country asserts the jurisdiction of jus sanguinis citizenship at the time of the child's birth. They are clearly born subject to the jurisdiction of their alien parent's country.
And that would mean many US Citizens, have some type of multiple citizenship due to the laws of other countries. Ireland recognizes the children born of Irish Citizens dating back to ones great grandfather. That is why JFK was also an IRISH citizen (because of his grandfather). The same goes for Greeks and Italians.
By your assinine claim, no one who is born of Irish, Greek or Italian GRANDPARENTS are eligible, despite living the US, and having children born here for more than half-a-century
Still, their JURISDICTION ends at our borders. Once they leave the US, then they are subject to the laws of that country (or any country they visit).
tell me, if you steal from a store in the US, are you subject to the theft laws, of England?
How do you explain those born in the U.S. to a non-U.S. citizen English subject parent becoming English subjects at birth?
Quote:
English laws END at our borders
Clearly, not. Obama and the DNC proclaimed on their own campaign website that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama's status.
Quote:
And that would mean many US Citizens, have some type of multiple citizenship due to the laws of other countries.
Yep. They have conflicting allegiances. A problem the U.S. State Department has already addressed:
Quote:
"Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. ...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law ...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"
Ireland recognizes the children born of Irish Citizens dating back to ones great grandfather. That is why JFK was also an IRISH citizen (because of his grandfather).
Nope. It doesn't work that way. JFK never had Irish citizenship because he didn't meet the law's requirements for such. It's possible he could have APPLIED for Irish citizenship and be granted such, but he didn't automatically acquire it. The same is true of Italians, etc. A lengthy citizenship APPLICATION process is involved in acquiring those foreign citizenships.
On JFK and Irish citizenship...
Plans were made to grant "honorary" Irish citizenship to President JFK during his visit to Ireland in 1963 but this was abandoned due to the multitude of legal difficulties and consequences of granting a foreign head of state citizenship. http://www.irishtimes.com/premium/lo...isit-1.1042656
Honestly... where do you all get your completely asinine notions like, "JFK had Irish citizenship?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Still, their JURISDICTION ends at our borders.
No, it does not. That's yet another asinine notion. Foreign citizens are born in the U.S. every day via the jurisdiction of their alien parents' countries' nationality laws.
Not only that, such extraterritorial jurisdiction goes both ways... The U.S. taxes the foreign-source income of U.S. citizens living abroad, even though it has nothing to do whatsoever with the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. has worldwide jurisdiction to do so.
The same is true of the British Nationality Act of 1948. That Act is why the U.K. had worldwide jurisdiction over the nationality of children born to U.K. subjects/citizens as long as the parent's citizenship was not only acquired by descent.
The parents weren't here illegally. How many times does it have to be repeated in here? So the SC has never heard or addressed a case where illegal alien parents gave birth on our soil in regards to granting birthright citizenship to their offspring.
Which is why those born in the U.S. to an English subject parent in the 1960s, such as Obama, are natural born English subjects. They were born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to an alien parent whose country asserts the jurisdiction of jus sanguinis citizenship at the time of the child's birth. They are clearly born subject to the jurisdiction of their alien parent's country.
No, they weren't born subject to the jurisdiction of the UK.
If you're on American soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only exceptions would be if you are a foreign diplomat, or if you were part of an invading army.
An assertion of Jus sanguinis citizenship is not an assertion of jurisdiction. It's an extension of rights. President Obama had the right to claim British citizenship, but did not do so. Britain did not compel him to do so, because they couldn't. They didn't have jurisdiction.
Jamaica could pass a law today making any Americans with blue eyes into Jamaican citizens. That law would have zero impact on American citizenship laws. However, blue-eyed Americans could claim that citizenship if they so desired. They could not, however, be compelled to do so. Because Jamaica doesn't have jurisdiction over American citizens.
The parents weren't here illegally. How many times does it have to be repeated in here? So the SC has never heard or addressed a case where illegal alien parents gave birth on our soil in regards to granting birthright citizenship to their offspring.
Which would be pertinent to this thread if the topic of this thread were solely about children of illegal alien parents. However, this thread is only about children of non-citizen parents. And there is no doubt that neither of Wong's parents were citizens. Ever. And yet, Wong was deemed to be born a citizen. And the dissenting opinion of the case offered up, as an argument, that determining that Wong was born a citizen made him eligible to become President. Which suggests that at least one Justice on the Supreme Court at the time considered those who are born citizens to be natural-born citizens.
No, they weren't born subject to the jurisdiction of the UK.
If you're on American soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only exceptions would be if you are a foreign diplomat, or if you were part of an invading army.
An assertion of Jus sanguinis citizenship is not an assertion of jurisdiction. It's an extension of rights. President Obama had the right to claim British citizenship, but did not do so. Britain did not compel him to do so, because they couldn't. They didn't have jurisdiction.
Jamaica could pass a law today making any Americans with blue eyes into Jamaican citizens. That law would have zero impact on American citizenship laws. However, blue-eyed Americans could claim that citizenship if they so desired. They could not, however, be compelled to do so. Because Jamaica doesn't have jurisdiction over American citizens.
Only local not political.
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.
English laws END at our borders (as with every other country; exceptions to this are if we have a specific treaty with that country to extend their laws into ours: ex. Extradition laws, military service laws). He was no more subject to England's Jurisdiction as you or I. 
