Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Settled law for 126 years. It's why three different courts have slapped Cheeto Hitler down on this one. .



Well, there isn't much documenting because in those days, they WANTED immigrants to come over, when they were white people. So it was usually pretty easy to get naturalized and your kids were considered citizens the moment they popped out of the womb.

The only reason for the wording of the 14th being as explicit as it was because slaves were not considered citizens under the awful Dred Scot ruling.



There's a lot of ambiguity there, see US v. Miller to start with. In fact, up until the Crazy that is Heller, it was basically accepted that the militia clause gave states and the feds rights to regulate gun ownership.



How can you prove that?

To give you an example, my next-door neighbor at my previous residence was married to an undocumented immigrant. She was born in Texas and lived here her whole life. When ICE deported him after a DUI, she made a sponsorship claim based on their marriage to get him back.

The immediate response of USCIS was to challenge HER birthright. You see, she wasn't born in a hospital, she was born at home with a midwife attending. So they tried to claim the midwife forged a document.

This is the kind of insanity you guys are proposing.

Nope. Settled law for 126 years. It's why three different courts have slapped Cheeto Hitler down on this one. .

Yes, based on a deviation from the original intent in 1866. I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that the 1898 court interpreted away from the idea behind the 14A

Well, there isn't much documenting because in those days, they WANTED immigrants to come over, when they were white people. So it was usually pretty easy to get naturalized and your kids were considered citizens the moment they popped out of the womb.

Again, the laws were what they were until they wrote laws to restrict it. From that point forward, we have rules to go by.

There's a lot of ambiguity there, see US v. Miller to start with. In fact, up until the Crazy that is Heller, it was basically accepted that the militia clause gave states and the feds rights to regulate gun ownership.

See, you're doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing, using external arguments to clarify the meaning of the amendment. I can say the same thing that you did, "that wasn't written into the constitution".

How can you prove that?

I know my parents were citizens. They were born in america. I know I'm a citizen because I was born in america to parents who were citizens.

To give you an example, my next-door neighbor at my previous residence was married to an undocumented immigrant. She was born in Texas and lived here her whole life. When ICE deported him after a DUI, she made a sponsorship claim based on their marriage to get him back.

The immediate response of USCIS was to challenge HER birthright. You see, she wasn't born in a hospital, she was born at home with a midwife attending. So they tried to claim the midwife forged a document.

You're going to use one example of an issue that's rare.

My question is, why didn't her parents report the birth to the county and the state and start the process for a birth certificate? That would have cleared that all up.

I have a birth certificate, my birth was registered in thr state of California, my parents had birth certificates registered in thr states they were born in.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Does not matter, Thisisme. It is what it is.

 

[bendog]

I have to say, I'm okay with this. Who does this harm? The child of an illegal immigrant? An illegal immigrant who came here to do this on purpose? Take this away from them.

And if a person is visiting pregnant from Australia or Europe or they want to have the baby in America in an American hospital they are more than welcome to come pay for the top healthcare but that kid is a Canadian, not an American.

Who is this hurting? Who would argue against this? They may say that Mexico won't take them as citizens either. After all, they weren't born on Mexican soil. No Mexican social security card. What about the kids? I would say, that's their parents fault.

What does a Canadian do if they get pregnant while visiting the USA? I'm sure they file the necessary papers for their baby when they get back home.

I love it! I'm on board. Who isn't?

the people hurt would be an imported class of workers who are not citizens but rather share croppers. That's why the framers created birthright citizenship. They knew what capitalism would create ... the lowest wages possible.

Germany created a guest worker system that allows protections for non citizen workers who are ineligible for citizenship. But our two parties have no capabilty to work together even on that.

Of course, our stand against slavery now hinges upon Keggers and ACB

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Social Security And Us Solvency Versus 18 Years Extortion "

* When And Not When Subjects Of Us Jurisdiction *

But they were in the minority, so the ruling as written stands.
Well, that's kind of the problem. You can't declare people illegal and then say that rights that their children enjoy under the clearly written words of the constitution don't apply to them. We've done this in the past, such as Jim Crow or the internment of Japanese Americans, and bad things resulted.

If a sojourning foreign national is not a subject by title in us legal immigration system then by law the individual is not eligible to receive food , clothes and shelter through us social security system .

Thus why would access to food , clothes and shelter , through us social security system , be obtainable through offspring produced by a sojourning foreign national , whom is not a subject by title in us legal immigration system , and whom would otherwise not be entitled to food , clothes and shelter through us social security system ?

Through the term thereof in us 14th amendment clause , " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , it is clear there are different realms of us jurisdiction .

Clearly , all individuals within the domain of us territories are subject to us jurisdiction , however not every individual also satisfies a thereof realm of us jurisdiction .

What would be characteristics of individuals satisfying a unique realm of us jurisdiction known as thereof ?

The term thereof deconstructs into there and of , a meaning of which represents a unique realm of us jurisdiction , a realm of us jurisdiction that applies to those there and of the united states .

The term thereof , as there and of , relates with a subject of us jurisdiction , and subjects of us jurisdiction are subjects by title in us legal system , either as a citizen with a social security , or as a legitimate visa holder .

 

[JoeB131]

Blah Blah Blah. You forgot to remind us "WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!!". You liars pretend like you are upholding the Constitution when you twist the words of the 14th Amendment to hand citizenship to the babies of illegal immigrants. LIAR.

Nobody's twisting the words of the 14th. The words are pretty clear and that's how they've been interpreted for over a century.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, based on a deviation from the original intent in 1866. I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that the 1898 court interpreted away from the idea behind the 14A

No, the court interpreted the law as written. The problem with Trump's argument is that he's not just including illegal aliens but legal ones. So if little Pradip's H1B parents aren't citizens, he's out of luck, too.

Again, the laws were what they were until they wrote laws to restrict it. From that point forward, we have rules to go by.

Except those laws are stupid and unworkable and don't really apply to people born here, who are citizens.

See, you're doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing, using external arguments to clarify the meaning of the amendment. I can say the same thing that you did, "that wasn't written into the constitution".

And unfortunately, this is what you people do, even when we are wheeling kids out of schools in body bags because some fucking lunatic like Lanza or Cruz could buy a military grade weapon to belong to a militia that doesn't exist.

I know my parents were citizens. They were born in america. I know I'm a citizen because I was born in america to parents who were citizens.

Really? Prove it from inside a jail cell, where ICE has decided to not let you make a phone call and they are going to march you onto a plane.

Will your argument be, "but, but, but... I'm white."

You're going to use one example of an issue that's rare.

My question is, why didn't her parents report the birth to the county and the state and start the process for a birth certificate? That would have cleared that all up.

I have a birth certificate, my birth was registered in thr state of California, my parents had birth certificates registered in thr states they were born in.

Except I'm not sure that this was a rare issue. Clearly, they got the idea from somewhere.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

“Now all the midwives in the area are suspected of committing fraud,” said Diez, who said his office regularly sees cases of people delivered by midwives in Texas. Some of them are struggling to get passports because officials question the validity of their birth certificates, he said. Others have been deported and had their identification documents confiscated at the border, he said.

Vazquez, who Diez is representing in a federal lawsuit filed last week, said she was intimidated into signing a document swearing she was not a U.S. citizen at a border crossing in Brownsville, Texas, last year.

“He said, ‘You’d better cooperate with me, because if you don’t, you’re going to jail. I had to lie and say that I was not a citizen. … I was quite scared. I was crying,” the second-grade teacher said.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, the court interpreted the law as written. The problem with Trump's argument is that he's not just including illegal aliens but legal ones. So if little Pradip's H1B parents aren't citizens, he's out of luck, too.



Except those laws are stupid and unworkable and don't really apply to people born here, who are citizens.



And unfortunately, this is what you people do, even when we are wheeling kids out of schools in body bags because some fucking lunatic like Lanza or Cruz could buy a military grade weapon to belong to a militia that doesn't exist.




Really? Prove it from inside a jail cell, where ICE has decided to not let you make a phone call and they are going to march you onto a plane.

Will your argument be, "but, but, but... I'm white."



Except I'm not sure that this was a rare issue. Clearly, they got the idea from somewhere.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

“Now all the midwives in the area are suspected of committing fraud,” said Diez, who said his office regularly sees cases of people delivered by midwives in Texas. Some of them are struggling to get passports because officials question the validity of their birth certificates, he said. Others have been deported and had their identification documents confiscated at the border, he said.

Vazquez, who Diez is representing in a federal lawsuit filed last week, said she was intimidated into signing a document swearing she was not a U.S. citizen at a border crossing in Brownsville, Texas, last year.

“He said, ‘You’d better cooperate with me, because if you don’t, you’re going to jail. I had to lie and say that I was not a citizen. … I was quite scared. I was crying,” the second-grade teacher said.

According to your article:

Their problems began, according to attorney Jaime Diez, when a group of midwives along the U.S.-Mexico border were found guilty of selling birth certificates to people who were not born in the United States.

There is your problem right there. That's why they were suspect. It might also give some insight into why their parents didn't report the birth to the county and to the state in order to get it all legalized.

Except those laws are stupid and unworkable and don't really apply to people born here, who are citizens.

I was listening to a podcast the other day about this topic, 2 lawyers debating the topic. The lady who was pro BRC said something that undermined her own argument.

Let's back up for a moment though, first. So, we're talking about babies. Obviously a baby cannot be subject to the laws, nor to the complete jurisdiction of the country. The baby can't consent to anything, it doesn't pay taxes, it can't be drafted into the military, among a host of other things, so, it takes on the jurisdiction of its parents.

If a couple is on vacation or I'm america on business, and the woman gives birth early, you're saying the child is now a us citizen, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. What if the parents don't want the child to have US citizenship? They were never given a choice.

Now, since that child is a US citizen, does the US have a right to claim any authority over it? Does the US have the right to tell the parents, for whatever reason, they cannot take the the child, who is a citizen, out of the country, back home? Of course not. So, obviously the US can't claim jurisdiction over them.

Also, the parents, while "sojourners" in america, would have still been under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came, which means they couldn't have been under the complete jurisdiction of the US.

Now, I say all that to get back to the podcast I was listening to. The lady told a short bit about Boris Johnson, who was the mayor of London, who was born in the United States, but was only here a very short time. His parents moved away from the US when he was very young. She said that, even though he hadn't lived in the US since he was a child, the US still was sending him letters about trying to collect income taxes...since he was still considered a US citizen.

So my question, then would be, if a child was born here to non citizen parents, but shortly after, moved back to their home country, 18 years later when that kid starts working, does the US have the authority to require him to file tax returns and the like? Or to pay any kind of taxes? Or require them to register with the selective service? Of course not, because the United States does not have any jurisdiction over them.

Also, if you read the wong decision, it talks about the fact that his parents had a permanent domicile, meaning, they were, at the time, legal permanent residents. The government actually didn't recognize wong as a citizen, I can only assume because they were operating under the original intended meaning of the 14A, which was only changed after the scotus case.

This is why I'm trying to find out if BRC to alien parents existed after the passing of 14A, but before the wong decision. This would give insight as to how the government and the country understood the issue of BRC.

And unfortunately, this is what you people do, even when we are wheeling kids out of schools in body bags because some fucking lunatic like Lanza or Cruz could buy a military grade weapon to belong to a militia that doesn't exist.

I'm using your argument against you. You claim that, if it's not written there, then it doesn't matter. Well, gun restrictions were not written into the 2A, so they cannot be legal.

I'm not arguing against reasonable gun restrictions, I'm simply saying that, because something wasn't specifically written into an amendment, doesn't mean it's not what the amendment means, when we have the meaning of the words provided to us by the people who wrote them.

 

[sealybobo]

the people hurt would be an imported class of workers who are not citizens but rather share croppers. That's why the framers created birthright citizenship. They knew what capitalism would create ... the lowest wages possible.

Germany created a guest worker system that allows protections for non citizen workers who are ineligible for citizenship. But our two parties have no capabilty to work together even on that.

Of course, our stand against slavery now hinges upon Keggers and ACB

1. For centuries Mexican migrated across the border, picked fruit then went home at the end of the season. Why stop this? Keep it going. Those people aren't who we are worried about. It's the migrant who's working illegally in Chicago or Florida.

2. We should give those people approval. Don't change any laws, just register those good migrants. Give them paperwork, let them continue to pick fruit. Work with the manager of the migrants. The boss. The shit needs to be organized and legal.

3. Remember this is post 9 11. Before 9 11 we didn't worry about terrorists. Now we do and we should.

4. Capitalism needs ditch diggers. But you should be able to rise above that position in America. I think any migrant who's been picking fruit for years should be able to apply for citizenship. They've proved themselves. Just go apply for citizenship IN Mexico and expect a quick response.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, the court interpreted the law as written. The problem with Trump's argument is that he's not just including illegal aliens but legal ones. So if little Pradip's H1B parents aren't citizens, he's out of luck, too.



Except those laws are stupid and unworkable and don't really apply to people born here, who are citizens.



And unfortunately, this is what you people do, even when we are wheeling kids out of schools in body bags because some fucking lunatic like Lanza or Cruz could buy a military grade weapon to belong to a militia that doesn't exist.




Really? Prove it from inside a jail cell, where ICE has decided to not let you make a phone call and they are going to march you onto a plane.

Will your argument be, "but, but, but... I'm white."



Except I'm not sure that this was a rare issue. Clearly, they got the idea from somewhere.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

“Now all the midwives in the area are suspected of committing fraud,” said Diez, who said his office regularly sees cases of people delivered by midwives in Texas. Some of them are struggling to get passports because officials question the validity of their birth certificates, he said. Others have been deported and had their identification documents confiscated at the border, he said.

Vazquez, who Diez is representing in a federal lawsuit filed last week, said she was intimidated into signing a document swearing she was not a U.S. citizen at a border crossing in Brownsville, Texas, last year.

“He said, ‘You’d better cooperate with me, because if you don’t, you’re going to jail. I had to lie and say that I was not a citizen. … I was quite scared. I was crying,” the second-grade teacher said.

Also, I'd like to mention the conundrum that would have been presented, that the writers of the amendment did not address, and that is, what to do with the child. It's a problem we wrest with today. Where does the child go? If the child is a citizen but the parents are not, the child has a right to be in the US but the parents don't. When the 14th was written, this would have had to been one of the considerations, and it isn't addressed at all.

This would have created a problem that they would have had to have addressed. They never mentioned it.

This actually makes sense on 2 different fronts. Perhaps "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to refer to people with lawful permanent residence. This would explain the wording of the wong kim ark decision, where they mentioned his parents were legally domiciled in thread united states, and it would also explain the 14A, where it talks about ..."....and in the state where they RESIDE", meaning, they might have actually been specifically talking about both children of citizen parents, OR children of parents with legal permanent residence.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, the court interpreted the law as written. The problem with Trump's argument is that he's not just including illegal aliens but legal ones. So if little Pradip's H1B parents aren't citizens, he's out of luck, too.



Except those laws are stupid and unworkable and don't really apply to people born here, who are citizens.



And unfortunately, this is what you people do, even when we are wheeling kids out of schools in body bags because some fucking lunatic like Lanza or Cruz could buy a military grade weapon to belong to a militia that doesn't exist.




Really? Prove it from inside a jail cell, where ICE has decided to not let you make a phone call and they are going to march you onto a plane.

Will your argument be, "but, but, but... I'm white."



Except I'm not sure that this was a rare issue. Clearly, they got the idea from somewhere.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

“Now all the midwives in the area are suspected of committing fraud,” said Diez, who said his office regularly sees cases of people delivered by midwives in Texas. Some of them are struggling to get passports because officials question the validity of their birth certificates, he said. Others have been deported and had their identification documents confiscated at the border, he said.

Vazquez, who Diez is representing in a federal lawsuit filed last week, said she was intimidated into signing a document swearing she was not a U.S. citizen at a border crossing in Brownsville, Texas, last year.

“He said, ‘You’d better cooperate with me, because if you don’t, you’re going to jail. I had to lie and say that I was not a citizen. … I was quite scared. I was crying,” the second-grade teacher said.

And one other thing....the US automatically creating citizens, kind of usurps the sovereignty of other countries doesn't it? If you are pregnant and give birth in the United States, unintentionally (for whatever reason), the child is automatically made a US citizen. If the parents do not intend on actually staying in the US, does this mean the child then becomes an illegal immigrant back in their home country?

What consequence would this make if you belonged to a country that doesn't grant citizenship to foreigners? Your child would be considered a foreigner, this could create difficulties in getting your child citizenship in your home country. Also relevant for countries that do not allow dual citizenship. The parents would have to renounce the American citizenship of their child upon entry back into their country. Renouncing your American citizenship is irrevocable. Also, I'm not even sure about parent is allowed to renounce the citizenship of their child, which means in some cases, the child might not be able to become a citizen of their home country, until they are old enough to renounce their own American citizenship.


That could make for a mess.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Stop Overlooking The Obvious "

* Opportunists Exercising Easy Identification Of Fools With Money *

1. For centuries Mexican migrated across the border, picked fruit then went home at the end of the season. Why stop this? Keep it going. Those people aren't who we are worried about. It's the migrant who's working illegally in Chicago or Florida.

Seasonal workers is not the problem , it is the eighteen years of social subsistence through theft by incursion .

A legal visa includes an agreement that one is not traveling to the us for purposes of having a child to be a us citizen and interdiction against birth tourism is actively occurring .

* Merit Based Immigration *

2. We should give those people approval. Don't change any laws, just register those good migrants. Give them paperwork, let them continue to pick fruit. Work with the manager of the migrants. The boss. The shit needs to be organized and legal.

The workers are not the issue , some capitalist pays them , it is the eighteen years of theft by incursion from us social subsistence programs , along with a first come first birthed immigration and naturalization process .

A legal immigration system includes restrictions on visa holders , such as deportation for lack of self sufficiency , and yet anchor babies circumvents the intent of the policy .

* No Extension Of Citizenship For Adherents To Fictional Ishmaelism *

3. Remember this is post 9 11. Before 9 11 we didn't worry about terrorists. Now we do and we should.

* Not Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence *

4. Capitalism needs ditch diggers. But you should be able to rise above that position in America. I think any migrant who's been picking fruit for years should be able to apply for citizenship. They've proved themselves. Just go apply for citizenship IN Mexico and expect a quick response.

How about , no ? The contractor that hires such individuals is to take care of them and not shift the responsibility to us taxpayers .

Contributes nothing to social security system , little in the way of taxes due to low skills and wages , but inherits enrichment through us social security when too old to work .

 

[beagle9]

" Stop Overlooking The Obvious "

* Opportunists Exercising Easy Identification Of Fools With Money *

Seasonal workers is not the problem , it is the eighteen years of social subsistence through theft by incursion .

A legal visa includes an agreement that one is not traveling to the us for purposes of having a child to be a us citizen and interdiction against birth tourism is actively occurring .

* Merit Based Immigration *

The workers are not the issue , some capitalist pays them , it is the eighteen years of theft by incursion from us social subsistence programs , along with a first come first birthed immigration and naturalization process .

A legal immigration system includes restrictions on visa holders , such as deportation for lack of self sufficiency , and yet anchor babies circumvents the intent of the policy .

* No Extension Of Citizenship For Adherents To Fictional Ishmaelism *


* Not Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence *

How about , no ? The contractor that hires such individuals is to take care of them and not shift the responsibility to us taxpayers .

Contributes nothing to social security system , little in the way of taxes due to low skills and wages , but inherits enrichment through us social security when too old to work .

There's hope for you yet.

 

[JoeB131]

Ahhh... so much effort into an argument you WILL eventually lose.

There is your problem right there. That's why they were suspect. It might also give some insight into why their parents didn't report the birth to the county and to the state in order to get it all legalized.

No, that's not a problem. People forging documents NOW isn't a reason to go back and doubt the origin of people born 40 years ago. (Especially when said person can show a lifetime of residency here.) This is Human Reptile Steven Miller perverting a situation to abuse brown people.

I was listening to a podcast the other day about this topic, 2 lawyers debating the topic. The lady who was pro BRC said something that undermined her own argument.

Let's back up for a moment though, first. So, we're talking about babies. Obviously a baby cannot be subject to the laws, nor to the complete jurisdiction of the country. The baby can't consent to anything, it doesn't pay taxes, it can't be drafted into the military, among a host of other things, so, it takes on the jurisdiction of its parents.

This has to be the stupidest argument yet. (Especially coming from the party that wants to give human rights to frozen embryos)

If a couple is on vacation or I'm america on business, and the woman gives birth early, you're saying the child is now a us citizen, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. What if the parents don't want the child to have US citizenship? They were never given a choice.

I would guess, they would go home, register their child as a citizen of their home country, and whichever country has precedence. Most countries don't allow dual citizenship, so this probably wouldn't be an issue until the child reaches the age of majority.

Now, interesting aside. My father was born in Germany, immigrated here as a baby, and became a US Citizen when he was about 4 years old. Now, not sure how that jives with your "Babies can't be subject to laws" nonsense, but there it is. He was drafted into the US Army in 1943, but seen with suspicion due to his German heritage. (They made him a medic because they didn't trust him with a gun. He was also the unit translator.)

Still, despite all that, until the day he died, he held both US and German citizenship.

Also, if you read the wong decision, it talks about the fact that his parents had a permanent domicile, meaning, they were, at the time, legal permanent residents. The government actually didn't recognize wong as a citizen, I can only assume because they were operating under the original intended meaning of the 14A, which was only changed after the scotus case.

Actually, it was probably assumed he was a citizen, which is why he sued when they tried to deny him re-entry. Wong's parents went back to China, he got married, and then tried to re-enter the US with his new wife despite the Chinese Exclusion Act.

This is why I'm trying to find out if BRC to alien parents existed after the passing of 14A, but before the wong decision. This would give insight as to how the government and the country understood the issue of BRC.

Well, you keep working on that, but it probably wasn't an issue, for White people from Europe. The first real restrictions on them didn't happen until the 1920's. The only reason WHY it was an issue for Wong was that the US had passed first the Page Act and then the Chinese Exclusion Act trying to keep Chinese out. (

(also, could you please capitalize Wong's name, it's very annoying.)

I'm using your argument against you. You claim that, if it's not written there, then it doesn't matter. Well, gun restrictions were not written into the 2A, so they cannot be legal.

Except the word Gun never appears in the 2A. The word Militia does, which is why for most of your history we've had reasonable gun laws... until the Gun industry realized that crazy people are their best customers.

I'm not arguing against reasonable gun restrictions, I'm simply saying that, because something wasn't specifically written into an amendment, doesn't mean it's not what the amendment means, when we have the meaning of the words provided to us by the people who wrote them.

Except this was never an issue at the time, at least for white immigrants.

Also, I'd like to mention the conundrum that would have been presented, that the writers of the amendment did not address, and that is, what to do with the child. It's a problem we wrest with today. Where does the child go? If the child is a citizen but the parents are not, the child has a right to be in the US but the parents don't. When the 14th was written, this would have had to been one of the considerations, and it isn't addressed at all.

That's an easy one. Having a child here does not grant one residency, so any minor child would still be in the custody of their parents. But they would still be US citizens.

This is the problem, for guys like you who fear "anchor babies", is that a child cannot "sponsor" it's parents for immigration status until they are 21 years of age.

Now, that's what I would call playing a long game.

This actually makes sense on 2 different fronts. Perhaps "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to refer to people with lawful permanent residence. This would explain the wording of the wong kim ark decision, where they mentioned his parents were legally domiciled in thread united states, and it would also explain the 14A, where it talks about ..."....and in the state where they RESIDE", meaning, they might have actually been specifically talking about both children of citizen parents, OR children of parents with legal permanent residence.

Again, not capitalizing Wong Kim Ark's name.

This is largely a moot point, because the courts have ruled in other cases that children, documented or not, have certain rights. Plyler v. Doe said states cannot deny education to undocumented Children. Nor could they charge the families of undocumented children a fee to educate them.

And one other thing....the US automatically creating citizens, kind of usurps the sovereignty of other countries doesn't it? If you are pregnant and give birth in the United States, unintentionally (for whatever reason), the child is automatically made a US citizen. If the parents do not intend on actually staying in the US, does this mean the child then becomes an illegal immigrant back in their home country?

Not at all, going back to the example of Papa B131, he held dual citizen of two countries, at a time when they were ACTUALLY AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER. Germany didn't revoke the citizenship of my dad for fighting against Germany during WWII. You'd think that would have been a good reason, but no.

(He never returned to Germany after the war, although his sister visited the relatives over there in the 1970s)

What consequence would this make if you belonged to a country that doesn't grant citizenship to foreigners? Your child would be considered a foreigner, this could create difficulties in getting your child citizenship in your home country. Also relevant for countries that do not allow dual citizenship. The parents would have to renounce the American citizenship of their child upon entry back into their country. Renouncing your American citizenship is irrevocable. Also, I'm not even sure about parent is allowed to renounce the citizenship of their child, which means in some cases, the child might not be able to become a citizen of their home country, until they are old enough to renounce their own American citizenship.

Actually, it's not an argument.

Let's take China, which I am finding out, courtesy of Mrs. B131, doesn't allow dual citizenship. If my wife puts her hand up in front of the flag, China will revoke her citizenship.

So let's say their parents renounce US citizenship, that doesn't mean on Jrs' 21st birthday, he can't reclaim it.

 

[sealybobo]

" Stop Overlooking The Obvious "

* Opportunists Exercising Easy Identification Of Fools With Money *

Seasonal workers is not the problem , it is the eighteen years of social subsistence through theft by incursion .

A legal visa includes an agreement that one is not traveling to the us for purposes of having a child to be a us citizen and interdiction against birth tourism is actively occurring .

* Merit Based Immigration *

The workers are not the issue , some capitalist pays them , it is the eighteen years of theft by incursion from us social subsistence programs , along with a first come first birthed immigration and naturalization process .

A legal immigration system includes restrictions on visa holders , such as deportation for lack of self sufficiency , and yet anchor babies circumvents the intent of the policy .

* No Extension Of Citizenship For Adherents To Fictional Ishmaelism *


* Not Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence *

How about , no ? The contractor that hires such individuals is to take care of them and not shift the responsibility to us taxpayers .

Contributes nothing to social security system , little in the way of taxes due to low skills and wages , but inherits enrichment through us social security when too old to work .

Contractors are going to pay as little as they can. If wages go up in the factories, hotels or other industries that compete, then those contractors will have to raise the pay to compete.

This is why unions are good. They bring everyone's wages up. Or they did when 35% of our work force was organized.

What is "take care of them"? How much do you think ditch diggers should make? Maybe college kids should be doing those jobs. Oh, they won't.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ahhh... so much effort into an argument you WILL eventually lose.



No, that's not a problem. People forging documents NOW isn't a reason to go back and doubt the origin of people born 40 years ago. (Especially when said person can show a lifetime of residency here.) This is Human Reptile Steven Miller perverting a situation to abuse brown people.

The article seemed to indicate the fraudulent birth certificates were being sold back then, not now.

This has to be the stupidest argument yet. (Especially coming from the party that wants to give human rights to frozen embryos)

Actually no, it indicates that the child takes on thr jurisdiction of the parents. The amendment says "any person born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." of its "laws" you are talking about, no baby is subject to the laws of a country, not especially the complete jurisdiction. This has to mean the jurisdiction of the parents, which, at the time, would have meant their jurisdiction to another country. Back then, in some countries, in exchange for being born there, you were given protection by the king, In return, you owed the king your allegiance. You were a subject to the jurisdiction of that king.

I would guess, they would go home, register their child as a citizen of their home country, and whichever country has precedence. Most countries don't allow dual citizenship, so this probably wouldn't be an issue until the child reaches the age of majority.

Except some countries do not allow dual citizenship, and in america, the parent cannot renounce the citizenship of their child. This would mean, a child born in america, if they gained automatic citizenship, would not be able to gain citizenship in their home country.

Actually, it was probably assumed he was a citizen, which is why he sued when they tried to deny him re-entry. Wong's parents went back to China, he got married, and then tried to re-enter the US with his new wife despite the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Wong was granted citizenship because his parents, who had been lawful permanent residents of the US for about 20 years, were excluded from citizenship because of the naturalization law of 1802. The 14th amendment was later passed, and changed it.

But even the government, at the time, argued that "jurisdiction" meant political jurisdiction.

Except the word Gun never appears in the 2A. The word Militia does, which is why for most of your history we've had reasonable gun laws... until the Gun industry realized that crazy people are their best customers.

You're right, but the word "arms" does, which is the same thing.

But the 2A didn't assign gun ownership to the militias, it assigned it to the people. Now, if you want to argue that the reason for the people owning guns was the militias, and is no longer needed, that's an argument that you can have, but as written, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Except this was never an issue at the time, at least for white immigrants.

Not sure how this is relevant. We're talking about the use of terminology in the document, and using, or not using external arguments to define that document.

That's an easy one. Having a child here does not grant one residency, so any minor child would still be in the custody of their parents. But they would still be US citizens.

This is the problem, for guys like you who fear "anchor babies", is that a child cannot "sponsor" it's parents for immigration status until they are 21 years of age.

Now, that's what I would call playing a long game.

So you are saying you are fine with sending the baby back with the parents? That's a large deviation from the typical left wing standpoint.

Again, not capitalizing Wong Kim Ark's name.

This is largely a moot point, because the courts have ruled in other cases that children, documented or not, have certain rights. Plyler v. Doe said states cannot deny education to undocumented Children. Nor could they charge the families of undocumented children a fee to educate them.

Notice in the plyler decision they didn't call them "citizens"

Not at all, going back to the example of Papa B131, he held dual citizen of two countries, at a time when they were ACTUALLY AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER. Germany didn't revoke the citizenship of my dad for fighting against Germany during WWII. You'd think that would have been a good reason, but no.

(He never returned to Germany after the war, although his sister visited the relatives over there in the 1970s)



Actually, it's not an argument.

Let's take China, which I am finding out, courtesy of Mrs. B131, doesn't allow dual citizenship. If my wife puts her hand up in front of the flag, China will revoke her citizenship.

So let's say their parents renounce US citizenship, that doesn't mean on Jrs' 21st birthday, he can't reclaim it.

Except:

Parents may not take the oath of renunciation or otherwise seek to relinquish the U.S. citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not relinquish the citizenship on behalf of an individual who may lack sufficient capacity to do so

As previously stated, persons contemplating renunciation of U.S. citizenship are reminded that renunciation is irrevocable, except as provided in Section 351(b) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be cancelled or set aside absent a successful administrative or judicial appeal.

Oath of Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship - INA 349(a)(5)

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S...

travel.state.gov

Parents cannot renounce the citizenship of their child. Even if it were possible, it's irrevocable, barring a few slim circumstances, and it's a legal process to get it back.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pay For Your Own Serfs And Stop Offloading Yearn Debt Onto Us Public Social Services "

* Licensing Services For National Sovereignty *

Contractors are going to pay as little as they can. If wages go up in the factories, hotels or other industries that compete, then those contractors will have to raise the pay to compete.

The economic libertarian , aka . economic liberals , believe its liberty extends into being able to import foreign labor to complete a task and returning them , perhaps .

An supposition from extreme libertarian ethos does not include an allegiance to bureaucratic collectives or to other individuals or to private collectives .

* Selling A Civil Tort Service Rather Than Open Source Volition *

This is why unions are good. They bring everyone's wages up. Or they did when 35% of our work force was organized.

Where is union leadership , those who disposition collective funds , bolstering its own compensation ?

Ask ee ll oo nn where compensation in equity to us public wealth , given us public wealth is surrogate to his selective endowment .

Public Private Trust

"Public Private Trust" A Public Private Trust originates through a variation of state capitalism where shares of stock from corporations are exchanged for state subsidies. However, unlike state capitalism the shares acquired through the exchange are relinquished by the state into private...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence Paid Four Fore For By Contractor Negligence License *

What is "take care of them"? How much do you think ditch diggers should make? Maybe college kids should be doing those jobs. Oh, they won't.

Stop extending us citizenship in trifling ways .

The process of us naturalization is an extended process that takes years and pending petitions are processing more slowly due to live birth naturalization for children of sojourners whom are not subjects by title in us legal immigration system and are therefore not subjects of us jurisdiction .

 

[sealybobo]

" Pay For Your Own Serfs And Stop Offloading Yearn Debt Onto Us Public Social Services "

* Licensing Services For National Sovereignty *

The economic libertarian , aka . economic liberals , believe its liberty extends into being able to import foreign labor to complete a task and returning them , perhaps .

An supposition from extreme libertarian ethos does not include an allegiance to bureaucratic collectives or to other individuals or to private collectives .

* Selling A Civil Tort Service Rather Than Open Source Volition *

Where is union leadership , those who disposition collective funds , bolstering its own compensation ?

Ask ee ll oo nn where compensation in equity to us public wealth , given us public wealth is surrogate to his selective endowment .

Public Private Trust

"Public Private Trust" A Public Private Trust originates through a variation of state capitalism where shares of stock from corporations are exchanged for state subsidies. However, unlike state capitalism the shares acquired through the exchange are relinquished by the state into private...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence Paid Four Fore For By Contractor Negligence License *

Stop extending us citizenship in trifling ways .

The process of us naturalization is an extended process that takes years and pending petitions are processing more slowly due to live birth naturalization for children of sojourners whom are not subjects by title in us legal immigration system and are therefore not subjects of us jurisdiction .

All that and I don't even know what you said. Or what you are saying. Or who's side you are on. Do you or do you not like immigrants?

Libertarians want no regulations. ZERO. And let the market decide. If a US company wants to import immigrants to do some work, then send them home, libertarians say that's fine. Let the market decide. The answer is always less regulations.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually no, it indicates that the child takes on thr jurisdiction of the parents. The amendment says "any person born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.."

Guy, we are goign around in fucking circles. If you can arrest immigrants for breaking US laws (including ironically immigration laws) then they're subject to US Jurisdiction.

Therefore, any babies they drop here are US Citizens.

Even the Roberts Court isn't going to stand the Constitution on its head to please Cheeto Hitler.

Notice in the plyler decision they didn't call them "citizens"

Because for the most part, they weren't born here.
And their citizenship wasn't at issue, just whether the state had an obligation to educate them.

So you are saying you are fine with sending the baby back with the parents? That's a large deviation from the typical left wing standpoint.

It would depend on the circumstances. If they were at the end of an H1B visa, and required to go home, yes. If they were legitimately seeking asylum, not so much. But their kids would still have the right to citizenship upon adulthood.

 

[Rawley]

Nobody's twisting the words of the 14th. The words are pretty clear and that's how they've been interpreted for over a century.

So was Plessy

 

[JoeB131]

So was Plessy

No, Plessy outright ignored the Constitution.