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.
Fed Gov archives. Have at it.
Immigration detention center, NOT a port of entry.
"In 1892 a baby born to a mother who was deemed unfit for entry into the US was denied citizenship, authorities relied on a Treasury department decision stating that parents on Ellis Island had not "landed" but no record of that rule has been found and it appears to have been recalled by 1906 when all babies born at Ellis Island were granted citizenship. That was later affirmed by a memo from the state department
"A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States". Memorandum of the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of State on Ona Laszas (Feb. 6, 1930)"
Immigration detention centers are not located at ports of entry. Aliens taken to immigration detention centers have been conditionally admitted to the US. Those who sneak across the border or overstay a temporary visa have no legal reason for being here. BIG difference.
You are either being intentionally obtuse or you have issues with reading comprehension. In the first place the 1892 memo was rescinded by 1906 after which time all babies born on Ellis Island were considered citizens, and you cited wording from a 2009 memorandum and attributed it to the 1930 memo.
This is the 1930 memo:
Quote:
The only possible ground for holding that Ona Laszas [born at Ellis Island] was not born a citizen of the United States, under the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, is that her alien mother was never admitted into the United States ... as an immigrant. It is clear, however, that when the child was born, the mother was physically present on territory of the United States, so that the child was born in the United States. It only remains to be determined whether the child was born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." . . . In rendering the opinion of the court in [Wong Kim Ark], Mr. Justice Gray explained the meaning of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' by saying in effect that its object was to except from the general rule cases of children born in the United States to alien parents who were at the time immune from the jurisdiction of the United States.... It does not appear that the mother of Ona Laszas belonged to any one of the classes of aliens referred to by Mr. Justice Gray as enjoying
immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States.... If she had committed a murder or any other criminal offense while she was on the island, there seems to be no question but that she would have been
subject to prosecution and punishment under the laws of this country.
This is from the 2009 memo
Quote:
A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
Both the 1930 and the 2009 memos affirm birthright citizenship for children born in US immigration processing or detention centers, and that policy continues to this day: https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1110.html
Actually common law domicile does not require legality.
Good thing the Constitution and Federal Legislation aren't common law. Both are actually debated and either passed and enacted/ratified as required, or not.
If such weren't necessary, we could all just live by "common law." We don't.
Good thing the Constitution and Federal Legislation aren't common law. Both are actually debated and either passed and enacted/ratified as required, or not.
If such weren't necessary, we could all just live by "common law." We don't.
Actually we resort to common law quite commonly as it was the basis of US law. And for the definition of such terms as domicile The common law definition is the working one. There is discussion in the legal writings of using the term "legal domicile" but it is certainly not in the 14th.
I have to say... I'm laughing at lvmensch's ridiculously outlandish stretch in asserting that a "common law" domicile is valid. If that were true, no public university student would ever have to pay out-of-state tuition. All they'd have to do is rent a local apartment when classes are in session, or even live in a dorm, and insist that's their "common law" domicile. Who thinks that will work?
Actually we resort to common law quite commonly as it was the basis of US law. And for the definition of such terms as domicile The common law definition is the working one. There is discussion in the legal writings of using the term "legal domicile" but it is certainly not in the 14th.
It may be a basis, but if it doesn't turn out to be the same as the Amendment/law actually ratified/enacted, it's invalid in and of itself.
Judging from the quoted text, IC is just trying to derail the thread now that the claim that "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the 14th Amendment has been proven to mean the opposite of what he/she hoped it would. That is why I have IC on ignore.
Judging from the quoted text, IC is just trying to derail the thread now that the claim that "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the 14th Amendment has been proven to mean the opposite of what he/she hoped it would. That is why I have IC on ignore.
How is Federal Legislation just a "claim?" It's reality. Documented. Archived. And it states exactly the opposite of what you think the 14th Amendment means.
I have to say... I'm laughing at lvmensch's ridiculously outlandish stretch in asserting that a "common law" domicile is valid. If that were true, no public university student would ever have to pay out-of-state tuition. All they'd have to do is rent a local apartment when classes are in session, or even live in a dorm, and insist that's their "common law" domicile. Who thinks that will work?
Common law domicile works quite well on out-of-state tuition. And note that many of the colleges fold on the issue when attacked. My brother for instance went to law school at the University of Wisconsin and paid in state tuition after his first semester. He simply used the domicile argument and the University folded. They could not dispute that a married man with a kid coming off a peace corp/military service tour was domiciled anywhere but Madison Wi. And he has now lived there for over 45 years.
I don't mean this in an insulting way but is English your first language? Sen. Howard's statement quite clearly referred to "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." That is not a list of three categories of people because there is no conjunction. "Who" is a relative pronoun there. As such, Sen. Howard was describing one category of people (those belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers) as being populated by "foreigners, aliens".
The sentence would need a conjunction (e.g., and, or) to take on the meaning you seem to ascribe to it. Perhaps that is why one poster tried to slip in a non-existent "or" to turn the sentence into a list of categories of people excluded from the Amendment and twist Sen. Howard's words into meaning something it plainly did not.
You left out the beginning of Howard's statement and a comma is an and/or conjunction. The full sentence which you conveniently snipped was and can be interpreted as: "citizenship will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,(or) aliens,(or) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".
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.
