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.
Dude, we are doing it, that's how we are upholding the law. All your talk doesn't change how the we view births on American soil. Do you know how funny it is for people on the internet to decide the laws we have and how we enforce them are not really how the laws were intended? You can bash your head against the wall from now until the cows come home.... and still, someone born here is considered a citizen.
If you want it changed, or redefined, there is a process for that, and it sure ain't posting on the internet.
Oh yeah.... and it's NOT an EO.
Please stop calling me Dude. The law isn't being upheld if the law isn't being interpreted correctly. It's not just about talk but what we have read and researched. It's people like you that don't bother to investigate this issue even though much proof has been provided in here to prove our case, that aren't seeing clearly. What have you got besides ignoring the obvious which is "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is a qualifier? If everyone on our soil were fully under our jurisdiction and had no allegiance to another country then you might have a point but that simply isn't true. The offspring of illegal aliens would be subject to the jurisdiction of the country that their parents were under jurisdiction to.
What? Who's changing it on the internet? You're really going off the rails now. We are merely discussing this issue and expressing our opinions. The courts will decide if Trump's EO has any merit. At the very least this just may bring it up to the Supreme Court which is just what we want.
Speaking of unconstitutional EO's does the name Obama ring a bell? Don't be a hypocrite!
Chick is good with me, sorry about that, thought you were a guy.
Whether the law is being upheld correctly or not is for the courts.
It does not go from EO to SCOTUS. Not how it works.
If Obama's EOs were unconstitutional I would assume that was dealt with.
I don't care about Obama, it's not the current issue and I didn't vote for him.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
The left will tie it up through the Ninth Circuit or similar. The USSC will refuse to review the case. The famous duck of the USSC will again be used. No point to joining the issue unless they are willing to support the President's position which they will not do for a number of reasons.
Could be. Still a good move by Trump because it justs one more part to the bigger picture that he is trying to solve our immigration problems and Dems are trying to block any solutions.
If we lose the birthright citizenship issue, there are other ways to remove the "anchor" from "anchor babies". Nothing in the Constitution that says we have to allow someone illegal to remain here no matter how many citizen kids they have. We could take the illegal parents into custody at the hospital and subject them to expedited removal. We could do away with family immigration petitions altogether since the vast majority of them come from recent immigrants. We could also deduct from a country's legal admission quota (including work visas) the number of illegal entries from there.
Sorry but you are still hopelessly wrong. The Constitution is above the reach of the Congress except by the amendment process.
The language of the 14th is clear and understandable. The mental gymnastic being used to try to subvert its clear meaning will fail.
The point of the amendment was that all but a few unusual classes of people who were born in the US would be citizens by birth. And that is how it has been interpreted for over a century.
No you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but the guy who actually wrote the clause said point blank you're wrong.
US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't confirm birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, since that was not what the case was about. Do read the decision. It is crystal clear why the court ruled the way they did. I don't think anyone has disputed the ruling. It just doesn't apply.
And no, it doesn't say "born here". It says born to and subject to the jurisdiction of. You may think words don't have meaning, but they do. So does legislative history.
But that case does confirm a number of things.
First, it eliminates the ridiculous "'jurisdiction' means 'allegiance to the United States'" argument, because the Plaintiff's parents were not US citizens and they had no allegiance to the United States.
Second, it undermines the corollary claim that "only citizens can give birth to citizens."
Third, it requires that anyone arguing that illegal immigrants cannot sire a baby with 14th Amendment citizenship rights demonstrate than illegal immigrants somehow are less under US jurisdiction that legal non-citizens who are merely "sojourners" as the Plaintiff's parents were - something that I have yet to see anyone plausibly do. Put differently, that case confirmed green card holders and legal visitors can give birth to children with 14th Amendment citizenship. I do not see how either of those categories of people are more "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US than illegal immigrants.
Fourth, it eliminates any claim that the 14th Amendment is only supposed to apply to slaves.
Fifth, in discussing what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, the Court opines that "[i]t is impossible . . . to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" The Court further confirmed that "jurisdiction" is a measure of the application of the State's laws. Moreover, the Court flatly held that "Jurisdiction . . as applied to the State, it refers simply to its power over persons and things within its particular limits."
So no, ultimately, US v. Wong Kim Ark did not resolve this question expressly. However, it does cut off a number of arguments being advanced here.
I have found a pretty good read and when I have enough time I have some reading to do. However, I have scanned it some what and have concluded people are looking at the reason for the 14th Amendment the wrong way ... The founding fathers didn't want people 'leaving' the country or held in allegiance to the crown. 14th is protection.
"There have been many expatriates, but few people have legally expatriated.
<snip>
Birthplace and domicile considerations have given way to the distinction between jus sanguinis, the right of blood or the acquisition of citizenship through parentage, and jus soli, the right of soil or citizenship by virtue of being born in a territory.
<snip>
Much less attention, however, has been given to those who have left the country and/or lost their legal citizenship.
<snip>
Individuals are emigrants before they reach the other shore and become immigrants; their past and present cannot be so neatly severed.
<snip>
Legal debates in the United States over citizenship rights and obligations have been grounded in the political and the social.
<snip>
Expatriation was initially a form of nation-building.
<snip>
The United States had to counter both politically and philosophically the competing British claim that birthright or perpetual allegiance bound those born under the crown everlastingly to it.
<snip>
With a full panoply of family metaphors linked to the notion of perpetual allegiance and insistence that one could not alienate oneself from one's mother country, Britain continued to object to the upstart new nation's redefinition of those whom it still considered to be its subjects. Britain thus refused to recognize American naturalization and forcefully conscripted British-turned-American seamen as its own.
<snip>
However, while arguing that expatriation was a qualified right that should be constrained by patriotism and the public good, Justice James Iredell left one of the more memorable expressions of the principle of expatriation, still quoted today:
"That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."
_________
after having read some of that, imo, the ff fathers wrote the 14th to address expatriates. nation building 101
I have found a pretty good read and when I have enough time I have some reading to do. However, I have scanned it some what and have concluded people are looking at the reason for the 14th Amendment the wrong way ... The founding fathers didn't want people 'leaving' the country.
"There have been many expatriates, but few people have legally expatriated.
<snip>
Birthplace and domicile considerations have given way to the distinction between jus sanguinis, the right of blood or the acquisition of citizenship through parentage, and jus soli, the right of soil or citizenship by virtue of being born in a territory.
<snip>
Much less attention, however, has been given to those who have left the country and/or lost their legal citizenship.
<snip>
Individuals are emigrants before they reach the other shore and become immigrants; their past and present cannot be so neatly severed.
<snip>
Legal debates in the United States over citizenship rights and obligations have been grounded in the political and the social.
<snip>
Expatriation was initially a form of nation-building.
<snip>
The United States had to counter both politically and philosophically the competing British claim that birthright or perpetual allegiance bound those born under the crown everlastingly to it.
<snip>
With a full panoply of family metaphors linked to the notion of perpetual allegiance and insistence that one could not alienate oneself from one's mother country, Britain continued to object to the upstart new nation's redefinition of those whom it still considered to be its subjects. Britain thus refused to recognize American naturalization and forcefully conscripted British-turned-American seamen as its own.
<snip>
However, while arguing that expatriation was a qualified right that should be constrained by patriotism and the public good, Justice James Iredell left one of the more memorable expressions of the principle of expatriation, still quoted today:
"That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."
_________
after having read some of that, imo, the ff fathers wrote the 14th to address expatriates. nation building 101
Uh, the founding fathers were all DEAD when the 14th amendment passed in 1866.
Then by your own admission the committed an illegal act, and no one may profit or benefit from it. Because the parents were not lawfully situated and not legally present in the US, the children cannot benefit from it.
It's not a difficult concept.
Too clever by half. If children could be held responsible for the acts of their parents (which I doubt) your 'idea' would require adjudicating every parent who is suspected of being here illegally so what is your plan for managing that?
That would mean that millions of people who are parents of those children would have to be interviewed by ICE, and if it was determined they were here without authorization they would have to be taken into custody and held for removal proceedings. Keep in mind that immigration detention capacity in 2017 was 44,000
That happening is about as likely to happen as it would be for me to win the lottery without buying a ticket
By the second half of the nineteenth century, expatriation had become immigration. The Expatriation Act of 1868, declaring “the right of expatriation to be a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” was another way of welcoming the new “expatriates” of the mass migration—Germans, Irish, Scandinavians—to the demographically growing nation. The image of expatriation had changed, from British seamen to North European immigrants in general. This second period of American thought on the subject of expatriation reaffirmed the right of ingress in a double context, domestic and international. On the domestic front, the 1868 act was passed one day before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, which reinforced birthright in order to overturn the Dred Scott decision and confirm African Americans' right to citizenship. ...
<snip>
It was a necessary contradiction, one that shows how nation-building can be linked to sociological understandings of the citizens at stake.Expatriation was also a domestic demographic issue. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth had invoked this matter in 1799 when he argued in his controversial opinion against expatriation that the lightly populated country needed to keep its inhabitants, not lose them: “In countries so crowded with inhabitants that the means of subsistence are difficult to be obtained, it is reason and policy to permit emigration. But our policy is different; for our country is but sparsely settled, and we have no inhabitants to spare.”
___________
14th makes more sense to me as a protection against foreign governments laying claim to people who migrated to the u.s. Which is basically what the u.s. was all about to begin with, but you couldn't prove it today, by the way people are today. ~sigh~
Um, the constitution says born here. You may want to ignore it, and that's fine, but that is what we do, and that is not going to change without a constitutional amendment.
You've probably noticed by now that leftists who want illegal aliens to become legal and vote Democrat, keep misquoting the Constitution like this.
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.
The law isn't being upheld if the law isn't being interpreted correctly. It's not just about talk but what we have read and researched. It's people like you that don't bother to investigate this issue even though much proof has been provided in here to prove our case, that aren't seeing clearly. What have you got besides ignoring the obvious which is "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is a qualifier? If everyone on our soil were fully under our jurisdiction and had no allegiance to another country then you might have a point but that simply isn't true. The offspring of illegal aliens would be subject to the jurisdiction of the country that their parents were under jurisdiction to. 
We are merely discussing this issue and expressing our opinions. The courts will decide if Trump's EO has any merit. At the very least this just may bring it up to the Supreme Court which is just what we want.
