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.
An Iranian National who spends a few years at an American University has no greater allegiance to the United States than an illegal-immigrant. Nor does the US government have greater or lesser jurisdiction over him.
When it comes to allegiance and jurisdiction, there is no difference between a legal and illegal-immigrant.
A Mexican who is on a temporary work VISA in the United States has exactly the same feelings about America as an illegal-immigrant. In fact, the illegal-immigrant is probably far more-likely to stay in the country and keep his money here, than a legal-immigrant on a temporary work VISA.
Allegiance being someone's the alien's personal mindset is your argument, not mine. My argument is the mindset of our constitution and laws are illegal aliens are just a class of invader, and that only the children of immigrant (LPR) non-citizens can be born citizens.
And guess what: That covers illegal aliens, and their U.S. born babies. They are subject to the power of the country they came from. So they are not citizens.
Can you explain what you mean by "subject to the power of"? And why is the illegal-immigrant living in Texas, under greater subjection to the power of Mexico, than a legal-immigrant from Mexico who is currently enrolled in a US university but who isn't yet a citizen?
The Constitution says "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to determine if someone born in the U.S. is a citizen. But the Const never defined it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Who does this, birth right citizenship effect? How many generations if removed will it go back? I'm asking because, I've been thinking on this ...
I was born in Houston Texas in the 60's ... (adopted but) both of my parents were German; people can tell by looking at me.
So I'm trying to figure out the nationality of this ... what makes an American and American if not by birth, rather than bloodline heritage?
So one more time ... what makes an American and American if not by birth?
I posted this again under you because I heard today some one talking about the jurisdiction word used in the Constitution, saying (in their opinion) it meant 'allegiance' only to the u.s. If so, what is that?
I looked it up many years back, confirmed with a friend today ... if I moved from here to Germany and I could prove to their government that my roots trace to Germany ancestry, I could be a citizen of that country no questions asked.
I know I am not alone in this. Italians, Norwegians or whatever; so it seems to me if any one monkeys around with the birthright citizenship of the Constitution, there would be a vast amount of Americans that would be effected. ~that's all~
The Constitution says "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to determine if someone born in the U.S. is a citizen. But the Const never defined it.
Which means that it's up to the only other legislative body to define it - Congress. And they did.
In the same year the 14th amendment was written and proposed by Congress, they also wrote in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "... all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States".
So there's your answer, explaining what the same Congress in the same year meant when they wrote, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. If someone is "subject to any foreign power", he is not a citizen of the U.S.
And guess what: That covers illegal aliens, and their U.S. born babies. They are subject to the power of the country they came from. So they are not citizens.
Allegiance being someone's the alien's personal mindset is your argument, not mine. My argument is the mindset of our constitution and laws are illegal aliens are just a class of invader, and that only the children of immigrant (LPR) non-citizens can be born citizens.
I understand why you want to believe that. But let's pretend Trump actually issues an Executive-Order, and it eventually wound itself to the Supreme Court. What do you think the decision would be? And by what margin?
Look, I don't like immigration. But I would put the decision of the Supreme Court at either 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of birthright citizenship for illegal-immigrants. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was unanimously in favor.
At best you could make an "originalist" argument that the drafters of the 14th amendment didn't intend it to include illegal-immigrants. But at the same time, all the court decisions till now have all been on the side of a broad interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause.
If you combine the plain text of the 14th amendment with legal precedents which have stood for more than a hundred years, I simply do not see how your interpretation of the 14th amendment would stand. I'm sorry.
So one more time ... what makes an American and American if not by birth?
I posted this again under you because I heard today some one talking about the jurisdiction word used in the Constitution, saying (in their opinion) it meant 'allegiance' only to the u.s. If so, what is that?
I looked it up many years back, confirmed with a friend today ... if I moved from here to Germany and I could prove to their government that my roots trace to Germany ancestry, I could be a citizen of that country no questions asked.
I know I am not alone in this. Italians, Norwegians or whatever; so it seems to me if any one monkeys around with the birthright citizenship of the Constitution, there would be a vast amount of Americans that would be effected. ~that's all~
The whole “allegiance” argument is premised on an intentional misquote of Sen. Trumbull and is, in any event, a subjective and totally nonsensical way of doing things. Dual citizens would not be able to sire a citizen, nor would a citizen married to a non-citizen. Supreme Court precedent has already effectively rejected that argument.
So one more time ... what makes an American and American if not by birth?
I posted this again under you because I heard today some one talking about the jurisdiction word used in the Constitution, saying (in their opinion) it meant 'allegiance' only to the u.s. If so, what is that?
I looked it up many years back, confirmed with a friend today ... if I moved from here to Germany and I could prove to their government that my roots trace to Germany ancestry, I could be a citizen of that country no questions asked.
I know I am not alone in this. Italians, Norwegians or whatever; so it seems to me if any one monkeys around with the birthright citizenship of the Constitution, there would be a vast amount of Americans that would be effected. ~that's all~
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
The whole “allegiance” argument is premised on an intentional misquote of Sen. Trumbull and is, in any event, a subjective and totally nonsensical way of doing things. Dual citizens would not be able to sire a citizen, nor would a citizen married to a non-citizen. Supreme Court precedent has already effectively rejected that argument.
Okay, say that is true, it still does not iron this out for me.
and not subject to any foreign power
If I can (along with millions of others) pack my bags move to the country of my blood heritage and be accepted as a citizen, wouldn't that make me and others ... 'subject'?
Just saying being of German blood, I have a pretty good idea of what a nationalism is, and the u.s. hasn't it, because people of America by blood relation are all from other countries of origin descent.
I understand why you want to believe that. But let's pretend Trump actually issues an Executive-Order, and it eventually wound itself to the Supreme Court. What do you think the decision would be? And by what margin?
Look, I don't like immigration. But I would put the decision of the Supreme Court at either 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of birthright citizenship for illegal-immigrants. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was unanimously in favor.
At best you could make an "originalist" argument that the drafters of the 14th amendment didn't intend it to include illegal-immigrants. But at the same time, all the court decisions till now have all been on the side of a broad interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause.
If you combine the plain text of the 14th amendment with legal precedents which have stood for more than a hundred years, I simply do not see how your interpretation of the 14th amendment would stand. I'm sorry.
Because a "subject" or being so comes from the common law and means rights and responsibilities and not just being subject to prosecution or law enforcement . And illegal aliens are essentially classified as intruders or invaders of the US jurisdiction. Intruder's or invader's children were not given natural born citizenship even under the common law. And it has not really been adjudicated yet by the Court that the children of any other non-citizens but LPRs are citizens. Lastly conceivably the Court could rule that congress can define the citizenship clause or much much less likely the Executive.
I think the decision could go 5-4 against the children of illegal aliens are born US citizens. But if Trump issues the EO and loses, what was really lost over doing nothing?
If the issue is ultimately taken to the Supreme Court, what do you think the decision of the court will be?
We have spent the last 155 pages yelling passed each other. I already know what you think should happen. But what will happen?
Best case scenario 5-4 against illegal aliens, or maybe the Court will rule the Congress can decide what the citizenship clause means and who can become a citizen.
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.
people might wanna look before they leap ...
