bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!
Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION
- Thread starter Vandalshandle
- Start date
poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #702
Trump wants them deported as well. There would be no way to keep the family together otherwise. Read what he says instead of trying to impose your own vision. If he doesn't want to split up families then he would have to deport the kiddos. There's no other way.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #703
I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...
poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #705
I have no problem with that.
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
the Right has no control over who comes here illegally leftard. if we shared a border with poland and had a problem with 15 million or so pale polish people here the GOP would be calling for their deportation too
you're just a race-baiting clown dude, it's all you on the Left really know
you're just a race-baiting clown dude, it's all you on the Left really know
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
What would that have to do with the FACT that there is no net increase in immigrants? Nothing. The claims about "crime" are bullshit, fueled by racist assholes. Crime is lower in areas near the border.
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
Bullshit. Natural born citzenship
The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
You cite Ann Coulter? She is a ******* moron. The 14th Amendment is 150 years old. It has never been construed other than to provide for citizenship to those born here.
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...
poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!
All of them not just brown ones.
This has got to stop, it's insane.
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
Lured by U.S. citizenship for their children, thousands of Chinese women give birth annually in the States, supporting a thriving birth-tourism industry
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
but we both know it was only passed to help free slaves; by Republicans of course. the only one misconstruing it is you dummy
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
because they all stay near the border right idiot?
why do you seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself?
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
Natural born citizenship meant that persons born in the nation were citizens. Our laws were based on English common law, which provided the same.
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."[1]
St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence", and that "The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[8] In Vol. II, Chapter 10, Blackstone writes:[9]
The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.
St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:
Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens.
Before Blackstone, the leading authority for the meaning of constitutional language is Edward Coke, who explains in Calvin's Case,[10] that a child born on the soil of England to a foreign national visiting the country who is not an invader or foreign diplomat is a "natural born subject" of England:
[A foreign national]... so long as he was within the King's protection; which [though] but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a [natural bond] he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject;
One of the drafters of the 14th amendment...
"John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[23]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[24]
In 1854, the U.S. Secretary of State, William Learned Marcy (1786–1857), wrote to John Y. Mason, the U.S. Minister to France:[27]
In reply to the inquiry ... whether "the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father's country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States", I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it.
In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, named Arthur Steinkauler,[28] had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father had relinquished his American citizenship. The young man was now 20 years old and about to be drafted into the Imperial German army. What was this young man's situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:[29]
Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States .... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
In 1904, Frederick van Dyne (1861–1915), the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State (1900–1907) (and subsequently a diplomat), published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said:[31]
There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens.
It appears to have been assumed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804) 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 64, 119, 2 L.Ed. 208, 226, that all persons born in the United States were citizens thereof. ... In M'Creery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 354, 6 L.Ed. 109, which concerned the title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state to an alien were native-born citizens of the United States. .... The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship.
Treatises and academic publications[edit]
In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759–1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799), wrote that
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.[32]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[33]
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on "natural-born citizen". The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[40] (mentioned by Attorney-General Bates in his 1862 opinion quoted above) which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[41]
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[42]
You are the one ignoring the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof , so who is the illiterate asshole?
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
You are. The only foreigners not subject to the jurisdiction of the US when here are ambassadors and others here as representatives of their government. Ever hear of "diplomatic immunity." Any other foreign person here is subject to our jurisdiction.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
UK to remove Churchill from paper money and replace (possibly) with picture of a Badger
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 5
-
-
New name for the lefty white guy used as a boost for the Bomb thrower in NYC "Jihadi Footstool"- Started by martybegan
- Replies: 5
-
US Treasury targeting Iran's "Shadow Fleet" of oil tankers that continue exporting oil for Iran.- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 1
