Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:36 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,559,042 times
Reputation: 4852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. Jurisdiction means exactly that: jurisdiction over subject matter, geographical region, etc., and it applies to local, state, and/or federal laws. Given that, post the law that allows foreign subjects/citizens who are NOT also US citizens to obtain a US passport.

Oops!!! NOT under US jurisdiction.
In theory, non-citizens can apply for a passport. The issuing agency then applies US law to application and will reject it. Their rejection of the passport application under the relevant statutory guidelines isn't an absence of law, it is an application of US law to the non-citizen and his/her application.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:37 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,713 posts, read 44,482,974 times
Reputation: 13593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
The "jurisdiction" language in the 14th Amendment was discussed amongst the drafters at the time and was meant only to carve out two classes of people: "Wild Indians" (who lived on tribal land and were neither required to abide by US law nor could they be sued in a US court - as the drafters put it "we [cannot] sue a Navajo in Court" ) and diplomatic families (who could not be civilly or criminally prosecuted in a US Court due to diplomatic immunity).
Nope, and I've posted this info including a link to the Congressional Globe (Congressional Record at that time). The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:

Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

How do we know that actually was the intent? Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:40 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
18,423 posts, read 15,163,092 times
Reputation: 14288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
It is not nonsense. 91% them work. You pulling biased examples off the seat of your pants does not change the fact. DACA people paid over $9 billion in taxes, so obviously they are not all landscapers and housekeepers as you think. That being the case, an average DACA person pays more in income taxes than average American (quite a bit more, as a matter of fact).

DACA recipients own 59,000 homes and are directly responsible for $613.8 million in annual mortgage payments. They pay $2.3 billion in rent to their landlords each year.

They hold a combined $24.1 billion in spending power—or income remaining after paying taxes—each year.

They are by far the most productive segment of the alien population, and you want to deport them first. Go figure. Well, its easy to figure: Trump said so, and you repeat after him.
I don’t necessarily want to deport them. It just wouldn’t bother me if they were. Clearly, the democrats want them to stay very badly. I am hoping they can be used to negotiate some real and permanent fixes to keep more “DACA” types from coming in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:42 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,889,418 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
I'll be honest and say I'm not sure what the exact legal issue the SC is considering. Is it the legality of Obama's EO? Or is it that Presidents can cancel EO's of prior Administrations?

But I will say that I think you'd be surprised about the willingness to let some DACA's stay. There is great political will on the right to negotiate FOR the DACA's in some fashion in exchange for greater enforcement of laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
As a side point, I'd like someone to show me in our Constitution or laws where it says one branch of government has to provide reasons to the liking of another branch when exercising their prescribed powers.
Hoping this will clarify:

Quote:
They began this morning by considering a threshold question: whether the government’s decision to end DACA is something that courts can review at all.

...The second question before the justices was whether the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA violated the law. Here the case is in a somewhat unusual posture, because everyone agrees that the administration could end DACA if it wanted to. As a result, the focus is largely on the process by which the Trump administration reached its decision, rather than the substance of the decision itself. In particular, several justices pressed Francisco on whether, before deciding to end DACA, the government had sufficiently considered the extent to which DACA recipients and others had relied on the program, and they suggested that the court should send the case back for more consideration and a better explanation than the Department of Homeland Security has provided.
Amy Howe, Argument analysis: Justices torn, hard to read in challenge to decision to end DACA (UPDATED), SCOTUSblog (Nov. 12, 2019, 2:07 PM),

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/a...n-to-end-daca/

Here too is more analysis:

Quote:
That leaves Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who simultaneously appeared sympathetic to the administration’s arguments, but also concerned that the administration did not adequately address the reliance problem. Gorsuch, in particular, seemed concerned that because winding down DACA would impact a large class of individuals, the administration may need to provide a fuller explanation for its actions.
One way or another, the Supreme Court is likely to let Trump end DACA

The DACA arguments went better than expected for DREAMers, but that’s probably not enough to save them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...such-kavanaugh

Why not provide a fuller explanation for its action?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:44 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,559,042 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope, and I've posted this info including a link to the Congressional Globe (Congressional Record at that time). The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:

Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

How do we know that actually was the intent? Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false
Yes, and we know that you are misconstruing your cherry-picked quote, which Sen. Trumbull later clarified, because of the Kim Wong Ark case. There, Kim Wong Ark's parents were both of "Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China." Yet Kim Wong Ark, birthed in the US of parents owing allegiance to the Emperor of China? He was a US citizen.

Similarly, if it were true that one's parents' "allegiance to someone else" was some type of litmus test for determining citizenship, children birthed from dual citizens on US soil would not be citizens. Again, that is obviously not the case.

So the claim that your parents' allegiance to a foreign power somehow dictates whether a child born on US soil is a citizen is provably bunk. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has always been about whether one is subject to US law and capable of being sued or prosecuted in US courts. All this nonsense about "allegiance" is a distraction and is nowhere to be found in the text of the 14th Amendment itself, which instead purely focuses on "jurisdiction".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:47 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,713 posts, read 44,482,974 times
Reputation: 13593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Yes, and we know that you are misconstruing your cherry-picked quote
Actually, no, as it was followed by Congress passing the following Federal Law which was never challenged as being unconstitutional:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
25,119 posts, read 16,126,868 times
Reputation: 14408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
$9B divided by their number (600K) gives about $15K, while average American pays about $11K.

I forgot to mention that higher percentage of them start their own business (5%) and US average (3%)

Seems I got the number wrong, there are 800K DACAs not 600K, so they paid $11,250 in taxes, which is still more than US average.
a link to the claims. they certainly appeared to come from 1 source. if it takes multiple links, so be it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:51 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,559,042 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, no, as it was followed by Congress passing the following Federal Law which was never challenged as being unconstitutional:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false
If the allegiance of one's parents dictates whether or not citizenship is bestowed on them at birth, explain how Kim Wong Ark was a citizen upon his birth in the US. The Court in that case expressly noted that his parents had allegiance to and remained subjects of the Emperor of China, yet he was born an American citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
25,119 posts, read 16,126,868 times
Reputation: 14408
actually, I think I found it ...

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...ipients-state/

can you find where this is solely INCOME taxes, and not ALL methods of taxation? That would be a good starting point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2019, 07:57 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,713 posts, read 44,482,974 times
Reputation: 13593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
If the allegiance of one's parents dictates whether or not citizenship is bestowed on them at birth, explain how Kim Wong Ark was a citizen upon his birth in the US.
Very odd decision that has been roundly criticized, HOWEVER... Gray specifically and intentionally limited SCOTUS' ruling.

Wong Kim Ark 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 parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Neither do DACAs with their temporary deferral of deportation. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.

"The single question."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top