Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Swamp_Music, Aug 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He keeps circling the same rhetoric that goes no place. Go figure!
     
  2. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's what the author of the amendment says under the jurisdiction there of means

    - - - Updated - - -

    No one circles as well as rahl
     
  3. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You thoroughly documented one Nazi white supremacist guy who said a Facebook page that supports Donald Trump which is not associated with the campaign quoted his blog post that he shared. Whoop de doo. That is not evidence of squat. That is six degrees guilt by association Kevin Bacon style.

    Your shameless race baiting is disgraceful, offensive and obnoxious. But you just go ahead and keep it up.

    You think your so clever in your language which is only a veil to hide your despicable flamebaiting.

    I'll be sure to call you out.

    Additionally:

    I notice you failed completely to even respond to my post. Will you not quantify how many of Trump's supporters are Nazi's and white supremacists? Do you have any better evidence for that besides a blog post? How many? What percentage? Are you going to just be chicken squat about that too?
     
  4. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stated intentions of legislators never matter. The only thing that matters is the law as written. Legislators don't get to say, after the fact, "well I meant this in this law." If that is the case, the law must be changed. That is besides the difficulty in determining intent in the 1st place.
     
  5. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The notes are there so you can see the intent of the law. Once more the law is fine as written. Nothing need be changed.
     
  6. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What notes? Is the guy speaking for every legislator who passed the law in those notes? There is individual and collective intent. Some of the Constitution ratifiers may not have liked the 2nd A, but they compromised in order to get something else they wanted. How does one determine their intent when they ratified the Constitution? How does one determine the collective intent of a legislative body by reading the notes of one man after the fact? How do you know his position didn't evolve since passage?

    See what I mean? Intent doesn't matter. Only the letter of the law.
     
  7. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The original charges against Khobragade had to be dismissed because she had diplomatic immunity at the time charges were filed. The charges were subsequently refiled because she no longer had immunity. If charges can be filed against diplomats as you have argued, then there would have been no reason for the judge to dismiss them.

    From the CNN article I linked to previously:
    If you have evidence that charges had already been filed against Makharadze, I would like to see it.

    You don't seem to understand that any charges filed while someone holds diplomatic immunity are unenforceable. That's why prosecutors had to wait to file against Makharadze and had to re-file against Khobragade.
     
  8. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not any more. Actually, it never really has been. Exploitation, invasion, hatred, bigotry, racism, murder, rape, and if I missed any, you can remind me of those. This countries mantra since Plymouth rock should have inscribed those words on the Statue Of liberty. And thanks to Donald Trump, he brought the one's out of the wood work who wouldn't blink an eye to repeat the same process, going all the way back to 1607.
     
  9. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And now desperation has set in. The poem is in the pedestal and was added in 1903 and was never seen by those that entered via Ellis Island. The statue itself has no meaning towards immigration. :yawn:
     
  10. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you renounce your citizenship you must have another to take its place, and it is done outside the US, its called expatriation. And if you later enter the US it will be on a visa, unless you enter via EWI, to which then you can be charged with a federal misdemeanor. If you don't know about allegiance, then again try reading WKA.

    Mexico recognizes children born to Mexicans as citizens no matter where their child is born. The child could hold US Nationality and Mexican Citizenship. All us Citizens are US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens. 7FAM1110

    What is jurisdictionless? Its not even a lawful term. A person can not be stateless is what you should be looking for, but then that is above your head.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Is that why neither of you can actually cite the portion of WKA that you claim backs up your claims? Is that why when I quote WKA neither of you can actually refute what the SC Justice states? :roflol:
     
  11. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The legislators stated it before the amendment was passed, what was shown was what the Congress was discussing prior to passing the 14th. The law as written is determined on the discussions of Congress for original meaning.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The discussion is in Congress between those that had issue with the proposal. Let me guess you didn't read anything, you are only going by common sense. :roll:
     
  12. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They are charged until they claim diplomatic immunity. Once they claim it then the US talks to their country and tries to get them to revoke the immunity, if the immunity is revoked then we get your case link. If the immunity is not revoked, then we get my case link. Either way they can be charged, whether charges later get dropped or not. :roll:


    He was charged with speeding and DUI, his formal charges for assault and manslaughter had yet been brought.


    Again, charges were brought in each case, were they not? Whether they are unenforceable or not is determined by their country revoking immunity or not.

    Now that we've been over this, my original statement still stands since even you admit they were charged to begin with even though they may have had them dismissed or refiled or simply formerly charged after the revocation. :yawn:
     
  13. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have yet to explain what allegiance has to do with jurisdiction, and therefore the 14th A. Allegiance is irrelevant to this issue.

    What about the child of two illegal aliens, one Colombian and the other Iraqi? Where are you dropping off that kid? How does that child acquire citizenship of a country if birthright citizenship is denied?

    It's my term I invented to suit this so-called debate.
     
  14. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't need to read those conversations or notes to know that legislative intent is difficult, if not impossible to determine. They have very limited use. First of all, there are 2 types of intent: individual legislator intent and the collective intent of the entire body. Second, was this a private conversation within Congress that was released later? What a legislator discusses in private can be very different from what a legislator is willing to put into law for all to see, and for all constituents to be accountable to.

    I'm having trouble believing that the 1868 Congress did not foresee the possibility of illegal aliens having children in this country. I think they did think of that possibility, and they still used jurisdiction in a general sense so as to make them citizens. This notion of "full" jurisdiction, or any other qualifier, is preposterous when considering national jurisdiction. Either the country has jurisdiction or another country does. The US does not "share" jurisdiction with another country regarding illegal aliens. They are under US jurisdiction, and if born here, become a citizen.
     
  15. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How fascinating. Please tell me more about how being required to register for the draft doesn't mean that you can be drafted. Makes one wonder why they would require it...
     
  16. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And can you refute what the SC justice says is only his opinion, and that WKA won his case based on Common Law? No! And that is what's eating your lunch.

    You are really having a hard time here connecting the dots, and that has not only become annoying, but boring.You seem unable to come to terms with reality with your immature emoticons on every one of your posts. WKA won its case from past laws handed to us by English Common Law that accepted most everyone. That same law rolled over into the Constitution, and to this day was never contested. And the opinions of others after the fact, mean nothing, unless you formulate a Constitutional Amendment.

    You are basing all your arguments on the opinions of others, when the results of those opinions in the end, have not turned over Common Law procedures. You are beating your own dead horse. And no matter what opinion you dig up from Joe Blow, isn't going to change that.
     
  17. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now for the real truth of the matter>>>>>'A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true. Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Furthermore, there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship.

    In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship.

    The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms “citizen” or “citizenship.” The idea of birthright subjectship, as Blackstone admitted, was derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant: All who are born within the protection of the king owed perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered.”

    Birthright subjectship under common law is the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies . . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” So, the common law — the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance — could not possibly serve as the ground of American citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.

    Trump’s Immigration Plan Is a Good Start — For All GOP Candidates Consider as well that, in 1868, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the 14th Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common-law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.”

    notion of birthright citizenship was characterized by another member as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government. Nor was this the only legislation concerning birthright citizenship that Congress passed following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. As mentioned above, there was almost unanimous agreement among its framers that the amendment did not extend citizenship to Indians. Although born in the U.S., they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe-by-tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become a citizen. Thus Congress used its legislative authority under Section Five of the 14th Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A constitutional amendment is no more required today than it was in 1923. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation. Legislation to end birthright citizenship has been circulating in Congress since the mid ’90s and such a bill is circulating in both houses today. It will, of course, not pass Congress, and if it did pass it would be vetoed. But if birthright citizenship becomes an election issue and a Republican is elected president, then who knows what the future might hold. It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States. Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation.

    BTW JORGE RAMOS HAS A LONG HISTORY OF ACTIVIST ‘REPORTING’ JORGE RAMOS IS AN IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST POSING AS A REPORTER

    Political pundits believe that Trump should not press such divisive issues as immigration and citizenship. It is clear, however, that he has struck a popular chord — and touched an important issue that should be debated no matter how divisive. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party want to avoid the issue because, while both parties advocate some kind of reform, neither party has much interest in curbing illegal immigration: Republicans want cheap and exploitable labor and Democrats want future voters. Who will get the best of the bargain I will leave for others to decide.' — Edward J. Erler

    Thus the truth has been presented....no need to keep going back and forth on this...the truth cannot be refuted...though some no doubt will continue to try in vain to obfusicate it. Time to close this thread.
     
  18. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Christ, with the wall of text. Any thoughts that haven't been fed to you by some blog? Or is thinking for yourself asking too much?
     
  19. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many scholars think the Constitution doesn't need to be amended to change the current interpretation of Birthright Citizenship as upheld under Wong Kim Ark?

    A small minority.

    Greatly outweighed by the legal and Constitutional scholars who think the Constitution must be Amended.

    This topic has been studied for a long, long time.
     
  20. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Anyone can have an opinion and you are enitled to yours but it is not enough....as we all know what opinions are like.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The truth is not determined by some popularity contest....logic dictates that Birth Right Citizenship is a stupid and fallacious practice. It must be stopped.....President Trump will do that. End of story.
     
  21. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For decades legislators have tried to pass through bills to change birthright citizenship -- and even when the GOP held the House, the Senate and the Executive - nothing happened.

    Make you wonder?

    There will be no President Trump.
     
  22. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nothing to wonder about.....political correctness has ruled in Washington for decades.....Trump will put an end to such stupidity.

    Trump Says U.S. Is Only Country ‘Stupid Enough’ To Guarantee Birthright Citizenship

    http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/08/22/3694197/trump-us-birthright-citizenship-countries/

    Elite Republicans have long assumed that Donald Trump’s support would fizzle quickly. But Trump has dominated the polls for more than a month and
    continues to gain momentum.
    If you want to understand why elite Republicans don’t understand his appeal, this tweet has the answer.

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/29/3696850/what-the-republican-elite-doesnt-understand-about-donald-trump/
     
  23. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Logic dictates that changing birthright citizenship will place many children in no man's land. Where are we going to deport the children of nationals from 2 different countries? It's just one flaw that indicates it is a bad idea.
     
  24. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep dreaming.

    We can call it the Keep Dreaming Act.
     
  25. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First things first.....Trump will stop the practice......then implement workable policies to reunite the illegals with their homelands....wherever they may be.

    If FDR could re-locate the west coast japanese....Trump can solve the problem of illegals in America.

    We live in Revolutionary Times....the status quo is no longer acceptable...the Trump Revolution will astound the pc/liberal/moderates who have authored the current decline....Trump will make America Great Again....you can count on it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page