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.
Actually the two SoS did take the position that an alien must be domiciled for the child to be a citizen.
The aliens were temporarily domiciled at the time of their children's birth in the US. Same thing happens with illegal aliens and their US-born children. Then the illegal alien parents get deported, or could be deported at any time. That would make it quite clear that illegal aliens' US-born children are not 14th Amendment citizens.
Quote:
But it is also clear that an alien of the legal or illegal sort can be domiciled in the US. But what is even more striking is that it is now permitted for children born to obviously non domiciled aliens to be given citizenship. So current practice is wrong or the SofS were wrong.
No, I just explained how the Secretaries of State were correct and current practice is wrong.
It is strange that only the bits of the Constitution that conservatives don't like are subject to this contextual analysis. The founders clearly didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow Americans to own semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, or AR-15s since none of those things even existed at the time. The true intent of 2A was to allow militia members to own single shot muskets.
The "allegiance at birth" argument is irreconcilable with the US v. Wong Kim Ark case. There, the Plaintiff's parents were both "subjects of the Emperor of China" and could neither resign their status as subjects of the Emperor nor ever naturalize as American citizens due to the naturalization laws that existed at the time. But their son, born in the United States? Citizen.
I agree. Which is why I said the Supreme Court has set a precedent for a "broad definition" of the birthright citizenship clause.
I was called a lefty for saying it, but I'm about as far from a lefty as they come. I'm just being realistic here. Birthright citizenship ain't going anywhere, short of an amendment to the Constitution.
Right-wingers continue to circle-jerk each other for 166 pages in this thread, desperately looking for some mythical loophole or justification.
Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenone
It is strange that only the bits of the Constitution that conservatives don't like are subject to this contextual analysis. The founders clearly didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow Americans to own semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, or AR-15s since none of those things even existed at the time. The true intent of 2A was to allow militia members to own single shot muskets.
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29
The intention was actually to make sure the people were equal in power to a standing army, so that they could never be threatened by it, if it should exist.
The founders clearly didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow Americans to own semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, or AR-15s since none of those things even existed at the time. The true intent of 2A was to allow militia members to own single shot muskets.
So you assume that the founders did not conceive the possibility that technology would advance and firearms would get better and more deadly? Right in the midst of the Industrial Revolution? I know we like to look back now and see them as primitive but at the time they were the most technologically advanced society ever and would have felt modern and state-of-the-art. We must also remember that human intelligence, not to be confused with knowledge, has not significantly changed in tens of thousands of years.
I agree. Which is why I said the Supreme Court has set a precedent for a "broad definition" of the birthright citizenship clause.
In Wong Kim Ark? No. Gray very specifically limited the effect of the ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
"the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the court... present for determination the single question"
Your temporary domicile argument makes no sense at all. To have a temporary domicile requires intent to return to another "permanent" domicile.
No, it does not. A deported illegal alien has only been temporarily domiciled in the US. Illegal aliens can be deported at any time. They will never be permanently domiciled in the US unless and until they become Legal Permanent Residents.
Quote:
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and, in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended
Again, I will remind you that in a subsequent SCOTUS judgment, Gray very specifically limited the effect of the ruling you're quoting.
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
"the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the court... present for determination the single question"
"the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the court... present for determination the single question"
I agree with you that the Supreme Court only ruled on that single question. It was not a general declaration of principle. So technically, the question of birthright citizenship has not been clearly defined(and should be).
You list the "facts of the case agreed to by both sides". And you do this because you believe that if the facts of the case were different, then the ruling would have been different.
But which facts being different would have led to a different outcome? Basically, what causes an immigrant, legal or illegal, to become "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? And why is an illegal-immigrant less subject to our jurisdiction than a legal-immigrant?
Here are the full facts of the case...
Quote:
"That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.
That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
That after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land, and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong in Ark was not a citizen of the United States.
That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-02-2018 at 01:47 PM..
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
The easiest solution is for Congress to enact a statute that allows the government to seize any property on which an illegal alien lives or works.
Do you think landlords would prefer to have their properties permanently seized?
Not only does the landlord permanently lose the property, he loses all income derived from it, plus he's still on the hook for the mortgage. Sure, he can default, but the lenders will take legal action, which could result in the seizure of his own home, or his other rental properties and other non-rental properties if he has them. Yes, he could file bankruptcy, but it would be both very expensive and complicated.
If illegals have no place to live, there's not much point coming to the US, or staying here.
The same statute can also provide for the seizure of banks who allow illegal aliens to open and maintain accounts.
The same statute can also allow vehicles owned by illegals to be seized, and for the seizure of car dealerships that sell cars to illegals.
And since the government can seize businesses that hire illegals, no businesses are going to hire illegals.
You've now eliminated any reason to come or stay in the US.
The illegals will self-deport with no need for detention centers.
Another way to do it is for the President to hold a TV and radio address asking illegals to leave, wait 30 days then have another radio and TV address asking illegals to leave. No penalty for any illegal to leave.
After 30 days, hold a TV and radio address ordering illegals to leave, and give them 30 days. The penalty? No property or cash. Illegals will have to park their cars at the border and walk across, after being searched and stripped of all cash and property. Those who leave through airports or seaports are stripped of cash and property, too.
30 days later, declare a temporary national emergency and issue an order voluntarily deputizing any natural-born or naturalized citizen 21 years or older who does not have a felony record and pay them a bounty of $20,000 for each illegal they capture. Their sole authority is to detain any suspected illegal alien, and any person who interferes with the detention of a suspected illegal alien. So, if local police or city council members or State legislators want to interfere, fine, they'll be arrested. The deputies will seize any property where illegals are. If illegals run into a church, the deputies follow in pursuit, arrest the illegals and seize the church, which will be auctioned off to the highest bidder and that money used to pay the deputies their bounties. Set up military tribunals in all 50 States, and that's your Due Process. After their hearing before the tribunal, which will only last 5 or 10 minutes, illegals are taken to the nearest airbase and put on C-130s or C-141s for transport to another country, or the government will have private charted flights to take them out. All give a DNA sample so that neither they, nor their children, nor grandchildren nor any DNA relative can enter the US for the next 77 years. And all their personal property is seized. Any American stupid enough to interfere can spend a minimum mandatory 5 years in prison, be fined $1 Million and have their property and assets seized.
The "allegiance at birth" argument is irreconcilable with the US v. Wong Kim Ark case. There, the Plaintiff's parents were both "subjects of the Emperor of China" and could neither resign their status as subjects of the Emperor nor ever naturalize as American citizens due to the naturalization laws that existed at the time. But their son, born in the United States? Citizen.
'Allegiance at birth' is consistent with Elk v Wilkins which said the evident meaning of the words 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' "is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case [born], as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, ...."
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.
