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.
The Secretaries of State determinations are actual FACT.
WITH the added benefit that they cited exactly the 14th Amendment requirement in determining that those bon in the U.S. to alien fathers were NOT birthright U.S. citizens.
Yes, the Secretaries of State decisions actually did happen. No one said they didn't. And the decisions were right and proper in a diplomatic sense. The reasoning behind them was not. But it reflected a perspective that before the Civil War, the federal government had allowed the states to determine citizenship. So a Secretary of State reference to a state law at that point of time makes sense. However, when these decisions were made, the federal government was taking complete control over citizenship, and the decisions were wrong in light of the federal rules being established. The State Department, though, has nothing to do with making law, and its decisions have no WEIGHT OF LAW. I know you think they do, but they don't.
Yes, the Secretaries of State decisions actually did happen. No one said they didn't. And the decisions were right and proper in a diplomatic sense. The reasoning behind them was not.
You're projecting your "opinion" on a factual outcome. Doesn't work.
The U.S. Secretaries of State were indeed very correct in determining that those born in the U.S. to alien fathers were not birthright U.S. citizens because they, by being born foreign citizens/subjects, IN FACT owed allegiance to some other government.
Again, they're not my opinions. They're historic FACT.
It is a FACT that persons who were British subjects by Denization could not pass on the status of British subject to their heirs.
It is a FACT that U.K.-born English Denizens' children were prohibited from working for English masters (guild), while the children of English subjects could.
I've already posted the links.
Honey, they are your posts. You are providing links to your posts. Which express your opinions. And just your opinions. That's why the WONG ruling went the way it did. Because an educated, legal expert with years of judicial experience, who was familiar with the English common law in its breadth and depth (much more familiar than you, a person with a single axe to grind who spends her days googling to find things to support her position while IGNORING anything and everything that doesn't support her position), that expert came to a different conclusion than you. I agree with his conclusion. I think he knows the law better than you. And you've never provided any argument that would show that you know the law better than he did. You don't have his education, his experience, his resources. You're like a four-year-old who picks up a guitar and then claims he's better than Jimi Hendrix. Learning a few chords doesn't make someone an expert.
You're projecting your "opinion" on a factual outcome. Doesn't work.
The U.S. Secretaries of State were indeed very correct in determining that those born in the U.S. to alien fathers were not birthright U.S. citizens because they, by being born foreign citizens/subjects, IN FACT owed allegiance to some other government.
Well, they were foreign citizens for sure. Born with American citizenship, but they were living as citizens of foreign nations, and the scumbags didn't want to fulfill the obligations of that foreign citizenship. They thought they could hide behind American citizenship. I think the Secretaries of State were faced with one of the quandaries of dual citizenship, and they did the best they could. It's a good thing, though, that their decisions have no WEIGHT OF LAW. Because legally, they were poorly reasoned. Fortunately, the State Department's role in our government is diplomatic, not judicial.
And I'm not projecting my opinion on facts, I'm giving you my opinion of the facts. Just like you give us your opinion ad nauseum. The hubris is that you think YOUR opinion is infallible.
No, they're actual quotes. And their context has been cited by U.S. Secretaries of State in determining that those born in the U.S. to alien fathers were NOT birthright U.S. citizens. That's a matter of public record.
you've made no points. You're resorting to emotion, not facts. Perhaps that is your problem. Think; don't emote.
Proof of the part is not proof of the all. All of the supporting points that you've presented are at best anecdotal. If I can find an instance where your opinion is proven incorrect, then your opinion is shown to be invalid.
I'll simplify by limiting to one question:
Why would a foreign woman 8 or 9 months pregnant risk a dangerous and possibly life-threatening border crossing to have her baby in the United States if her born child would not gain United States citizenship by this action?
Well, they were foreign citizens for sure. Born with American citizenship
Foreign citizens? Yes. Born with American citizenship? No. The U.S. Secretaries of State said they were not born with American citizenship. They specifically cited the 14th Amendment requirement.
Cite any federal law or Constitutional Amendment which states without restriction that all children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. You can't do it. I'm not the one arguing proof of the part, YOU are.
No, they're facts. Historic facts. Documented by historic record.
U.S. Secretaries of State citizenship determinations citing the 14th Amendment requirement
Restrictions on U.K.-born Denizens' children
Etc.
All facts, matters of historic record.
Facts are facts.
And how you define items in the quotes you cite, and how others define those terms, goes to how people INTERPRET the statements.
Which is why I've asked you repeatedly, for instance, to tell us how you define "PERMANENT DOMICILE". So far, you've failed to do so. You've linked to a definition of DOMICILE (and there are lots of definitions out there, by the way, but evidently not so many of PERMANENT DOMICILE), but you haven't provided us with YOUR definition of "PERMANENT DOMICILE".
We've gone round and round on the question of "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION", when you have ridiculously asserted that foreign citizenship exempts a person from the jurisdiction of other countries. Then you blithely ignore the failure in logic that such an assertion is.
And that's what you do. You're all about the FACTS--AS YOU SEE THEM, and you're all about ignoring the FACTS YOU DON'T LIKE. That's intellectual dishonesty.
And please, don't come back with your pointless argument that I'm ignoring FACTS. I'm not ignoring FACTS at all. I'm not questioning FACTS. The 14th Amendment can be interpreted in different ways. The courts have consistently interpreted in one way, birthright citizenship. Trumbull's comments about American Indians were about American Indians, and that's why they don't weigh in on the court's interpretations that apply to children of immigrants. The Secretaries of State made determinations at odds with the court's interpretations, but were correct diplomatically. Diplomacy is the point of the State Department, and the State Department determinations have no legal weight. Only the courts do. You don't agree with their interpretation. Which is why you steadfastly express your opinion that Gray was wrong. However, you have no authority or expertise which would compel me or anyone else to give YOUR OPINION that Gray was wrong any weight at all.
Foreign citizens? Yes. Born with American citizenship? No. The U.S. Secretaries of State said they were not born with American citizenship. They specifically cited the 14th Amendment requirement.
The Secretaries of State determinations have no WEIGHT OF LAW. They are diplomatic determinations. Not legal determinations.
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.
