American By Birth!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by froggy, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. froggy
    Offline

    froggy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,309
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
     
  2. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    A simple clarification to one parent must be a US citizen for the child to be a US citizen from birth would suffice. A time limit as you suggest could be used to fuck some people up, for instance two US citizens are living overseas for a few years and have a child , is that child a US citizen? Nor do I think it should read that one parent must be a US citizen for five years before any child they have is considered a US citizen.
     
  3. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    No!
    The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,725
    Thanks Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,861
    It wouldn't allow me to add a rep....

    1. In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

    3. There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. Decided under the premise that the Fourteenth Amendment was based on the common law concept of birthright citizenship, Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.

    https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

    (emphasis mine throughout)

    4. My opinion is that, while it would be interesting to see a Supreme Court decision specifically dealing with the child of illegal immigrants, it would not be advisable nor politic to revise the current reading of the 14th amendment.
    I am coming close to looking elsewhere for a solution to the problem, based on reality rather than a magic wand solution.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  6. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    15,996
    Thanks Received:
    3,307
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,299
    My father would not be a citizen! Once the frightened, paranoid right gets on a kick and wants to change the constitution, watch out!
     
  7. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    I have a few friends who grandparents would be in the same boat, along with my brother's father.
     
  8. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Always seemed clear to me.

    And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.
     
  9. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

    Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively
     
  10. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    I wasn't worried. ;) For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. ;) My brother's have different Grandparents.
    And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here. ;)
     

Share This Page