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.
hey people on the left who believe that we should follow other countries standards.
only 30, of the 194 nations of the world, give birthright citizenship status, shouldnt we be "progressive", and join the rest of the world, or is this "different"?
And many of those that do, reside in south america, not Europe, which you guys like to hold up as standards for the world.
Shouldnt we deny birthright citizenship just like they do? After all, they are your utopia examples non stop used..
Good catch. MOST "progressive" countries DON'T have birthright.
1989 Supreme Court case, United States vs Wong Kim Ark
"The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional jus soli rule, including the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships, and added a new exception of children of Indians owing direct allegiance to their tribes. It further held that the 'Fourteenth Amendment ... has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship' and that it is 'throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship."
In other words, the 14th Amendment excludes children born to diplomats or hostile occupying forces and those born on foreign public ships.
If it excluded diplomats, then why wouldnt it exclude non diplomats as well?
Because the decision clearly states the following:
“to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”United States v. Wong Kim Ark"
I'm not so sure of that, the Supreme Court would interprete "jursidiction" to possibly mean jursidiction under the US borders, thereby changing their previous ruling on the issue.
They have definately moved to be more open, over the last 100+ years.
And that is and would be unfortunate. The Supreme Court would have to read the 14th in it's entirety and the intent of the writer's of it and the discussions that were held at the time it was implemented. They'd have to accept the truth no matter how "open" they'd want to be. Either you respect the Constitution in its original form or you don't.
I don't agree, but how do I argue against irrational prejudice and hate? Your mind is made up, Oldglory.
What's irrational and how is prejudice or hatred to want the 14th Amendment respected in it's original form? I've made up my mind by researching the intent of the writer's of that Amendment at the time. Besides, most countries do not allow birthright citizenship unless at least one parent is a citizen of their country. Are they prejudiced, haters or are they just desiring some meaning to their citizenship rather than giving it away to kids whose parents had no respect for their immigration laws or borders? I would stop with the insults if I were you. Can't debate me with civility then buh, bye.
Are you an immigrant, Packard, or have an immigrant in your family tree?
An immigrant is someone who comes here legally. We aren't talking about them. The discussion is about illegal aliens. You do know the difference, don't you? Stop comparing apples to oranges for God's sake!
This is what the Supreme Court decision says, sorry you don't like it- I get that, but you can't devise some made up reason why it doesn't count, it does:
"the majority opinion in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark wrote, “to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”United States v. Wong Kim Ark"
After the Wong Kim Ark ruling, Congress needed to pass the Nationality Act of 1940, giving citizenship to Native Americans born in the USA.
If native americans werent granted citizenship by the 14th amendment, then its really hard to claim that people are citizens simply because they were born here, given they are under foreign jurisdiction just like native americans were considered.
An immigrant is someone who comes here legally. We aren't talking about them. The discussion is about illegal aliens. You do know the difference, don't you? Stop comparing apples to oranges for God's sake!
Because the decision clearly states the following:
“to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”United States v. Wong Kim Ark"
yes, to exclude the citizenship of children, would deny citizenship to thousands of persons... but they didnt say that would be unconstitutional.
its like saying
"making a left turn would be to not take a right"..
again, another fact. but that doesnt mean the right turn was wrong..
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.
