"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[80zephyr]

It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.

They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

A number of countries have changed away from birthright citizenship. If they can do it, I am quite sure the problem isn't insurrmuntable.

Besides, unless we go to it, we still have the same problem with illegals. Which I am sure we will have forever unless we finally fix the problem.

Mark

And there is no evidence that abolishing birthright citizenship; that is jus soli has reduced illegal immigration elsewhere. Even the assumption that abolishing it in the US will reduce illegal immigration has no creditable data to support it.

If we require that parents prove they are citizens, we will have more undocumented kids and they will give birth to more undocumented kids.

The issue is a distraction from the major cause of illegal immigration, jobs.

BTW, there are only two countries, that have abolish jus soli in it's entirely, India and Malta. All the other countries have just restricted it.

Jus soli - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And the countries that restrict it require LEGAL residency for citizenship birth. And again, doing nothing means the problem never goes away.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...

And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?

The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.

If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.

Mark

According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.

When you are saying "you again" is that aimed at me? As to my comment, I was responding to the charge of whining. My proof that both sides do it is what I was stating.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.

They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress approved a more inclusive statement,
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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution July 9, 1868).

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment assumed that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents. How could they possibly have made such an assumption? There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship. If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior. However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories. With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship. The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

In essence, you are saying that since proof is scarce, all of us are de facto citizens.

No one can be deported, because we simply don't know.

I'm amazed anyone can think like that. We have the capability to prove what we need to.

Mark

 

[Oldglory1]

According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.

Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but that's not whining on your part? Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.

So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?

Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".

And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.

Can we agree on that point?

Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.

I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out. It is hypocritical for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't? One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna cracker" counter remarks. I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all. Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here. I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence. So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions. I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars. Silence once again. Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.

I am glad to point out your hypocrisy again if that is what you want to discuss rather than address my question:


What you said:

According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.

my response

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.

I already addressed your above remarks. You need them repeated again? When are you going to answer my questions? Tick, tock, tick tock.

 

[Oldglory1]

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?

They are if their parents are legal residents of this country. They hold allegience to this country then.

Why do you think that?

If legal residents have 'allegiance' to the United States why do they have to give an oath of allegiance when they become Naturalized?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Because they have to swear on paper that they do by saying the oath. It's a formality. Duh!

 

[Flopper]

They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

 

[Spare_change]

We need to enforce the immigration laws ... if it calls for deportation of illegal immigrants, we should deport them. That ain't 'rocket surgery'.

If that means that parents have to make a decision whether to leave their baby behind or take it with them ... so be it. It was their actions that resulted in the situation, and they should be held culpable.

 

[Oldglory1]

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

What do other countries do that require that at lest one parent be a citizen of their country? Maybe you should look into that instead of throwing up all your strawman arguments. I don't know how you figure that would increase illegal immigration. Quite the opposite would occur. Don't really give a damn how any of this affects illegal aliens anyway. Their kids have no right to our citizenship.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

 

[Syriusly]

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?

They are if their parents are legal residents of this country. They hold allegience to this country then.

Why do you think that?

If legal residents have 'allegiance' to the United States why do they have to give an oath of allegiance when they become Naturalized?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Because they have to swear on paper that they do by saying the oath. It's a formality. Duh!

But if as you say that they already have allegiance to the United States- why would they have to swear allegiance to the United States- and at that point renounce allegiance to any other state?

Clearly they still have allegiance to other states.

Example- I had a friend who was born a dual U.S. and Swiss citizen. He was born here, but his parents were Swiss nationals. He had to be careful when he visited Switzerland not to stay more than a specific time period- if he stayed beyond it, he was subject to the Swiss draft.

That was because even though born in the United States and being a U.S. Citizen he also had 'allegiance' to Switzerland AND if he was within Swiss jurisidiction- he was subject to Swiss laws- including the draft on citizens.

Allegiance is not jurisidiction and jurisdiction is not allegiance.

Anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen except children of diplomats.

Don't like that- then change the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.

Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but that's not whining on your part? Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.

So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?

Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".

And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.

Can we agree on that point?

Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.

I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out. It is hypocritical for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't? One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna cracker" counter remarks. I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all. Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here. I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence. So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions. I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars. Silence once again. Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.

I am glad to point out your hypocrisy again if that is what you want to discuss rather than address my question:


What you said:

According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.

my response

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.

I already addressed your above remarks. You need them repeated again? When are you going to answer my questions? Tick, tock, tick tock.

I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.

Can we agree on that point?

Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States?

If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.

 

[Flopper]

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

What do other countries do that require that at lest one parent be a citizen of their country? Maybe you should look into that instead of throwing up all your strawman arguments. I don't know how you figure that would increase illegal immigration. Quite the opposite would occur. Don't really give a damn how any of this affects illegal aliens anyway. Their kids have no right to our citizenship.

What do other countries do that require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country? Although it varies by country most allow children that are born without parental documentation to remain in the country with legal status. They can either determine the parents citizenship or wait until the age specified in the law and then make application for citizenship at that time.


In France, they allow children of foreign parents to remain legally in the country until they are 18 and then they are allowed them to apply for citizenship. Children born in Germany to foreign parents may acquire German nationality between the ages of 18 and 23.

I don't think you would like what most of these countries are doing since they allow the children not only to remain in the country but provide a path to citizenship.

Jus soli - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Oldglory1]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

 

[Syriusly]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

Thanks.

I find their position to be a little biased, but they present your argument in a fairly clear fashion.

I don't agree with how they logical equate allegiance to jurisidiction, but I can see by reading this, why you keep making the same argument.

 

[protectionist]

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark

Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ? HA HA. So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.

 

[protectionist]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

FALSE! See post # 132.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[Oldglory1]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

 

[Unkotare]

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. ...

You haven't "debunked" anything, oldgloryhole. You have merely insisted upon your own completely inexpert opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee (it's extra because the coffee shop charges you to have them listen to your bullshit).