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. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48


    CHAPTER 2: THE SOURCE AND SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

    2004 © David Weissbrodt and Laura Danielson

    CHAPTER 2: THE SOURCE AND SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

    2004 © David Weissbrodt and Laura Danielson

    http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    REGULATING IMMIGRATION

    § 2-3.1 The Legislature


    The plenary and unqualified power of the federal government to regulate immigration, naturalization, and related foreign policy belongs to Congress. The possible international consequences of decisions in this area have made the federal judiciary extremely reluctant to substitute its judgment for the legislature's. Justice Jackson articulated the Court's position in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): "[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference." Subsequent decisions echo this sentiment. Since the judiciary poses no obstacle, Congress has been historically free to "exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country." Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914). For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens. IIRIRA appears to show that the legislative branch wields the full measure of the federal plenary power over immigration. In light of two 2001 Supreme Court decisions, some scholars have questioned whether the plenary power may have its limits, but in each case the Court recognized the potential for legislative plenary power.

    In Nguyen v. INS (Sup.Ct.2001), the Court upheld INA § 309(a)’s distinction between illegitimate children of U.S. citizen fathers and mothers, but rather than a weak rational basis review, the Court applied the same intermediate scrutiny standard it would apply for ordinary gender-based classifications. This appears to be a step toward limiting the plenary power, but the Court noted that it did not need to address the “wide deference accorded to Congress in the exercise of its immigration and naturalization power” because it held that no equal protection violation had occurred. Similarly in Zadvydas v. Davis (Sup.Ct.2001), the Court held that a reasonable time limitation on post-removal detention must be inferred because “a statute permitting indefinite detention would raise a serious constitutional problem.” In reaching this holding, the Court described the legislature’s plenary power as being “subject to important constitutional limitations.” Despite these constitutional problems, the Court stated that had it found clear Congressional intent to grant the Attorney General the power to indefinitely detain non-citizens ordered removed, it would have had to uphold such detention.
     
  2. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,139
    Likes Received:
    37,567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's clear is that you did not read the Congressional record regarding this Amendment. If you did, you would know that it wasn't just about slaves and their children. The children of immigrants were explicitly mentioned, considered, and explicitly described as being covered by the Amendment. The letter and intent of the law cover the children of immigrants, and the letter of the law covers the children of illegal immigrants (the intent was agnostic, since all immigration was legal at the time).
     
  3. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,139
    Likes Received:
    37,567
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Supreme Court and Immigration

    September 11, 2001, underscored that we need greater government scrutiny over our borders and immigration. Congress’s role in drafting and the executive’s authority in enforcing immigration law have never been more important, and the judiciary’s interference with these constitutional roles has never been more dangerous.



    >>>>>>>>>>>http://cis.org/CitizenshipSupremeCourt
     
  5. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's been posted numerous times. They ignore it or they bounce to another argument, acting like moving targets with some silly parsing or change in definition.

    Penrod earlier actually inserted a word "OR" into the text of what was said on the debate floor -- then brashly claimed: the word "or" was left out of the original quote. lol

    Some of these folks are good for comedy. I'll give them that.
     
  6. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The American people are being told by the liberal political class that there is nothing they can do to prevent future waves of illegal immigrants from coming here, unilaterally declaring political and legal jurisdiction, and securing citizenship for their children. We are told that there is no recourse through our elected representatives to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining a legal foothold in this country all because of a footnote from the most radical anti-originalist justice of this century, William Brennan Jr.

    If you are scratching your head wondering how our own Constitution can be used as a suicide pact against us by foreign countries, you are not missing anything. This irrational sentiment expressed by a number of conservative and liberal pundits alike, in fact, undermines the very fabric of the social contract, popular sovereignty, and the republican form of government established by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    The Original Case Against Birthright Citizenship

    Read more: http://joemiller.us/2015/08/the-originalist-case-against-birthright-citizenship/#ixzz3kPr6tXMK
    Read more at http://joemiller.us/2015/08/the-originalist-case-against-birthright-citizenship/#yjG5MScHiLW2t7FY.99
     
  7. buddhaman

    buddhaman New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, there is a perfectly legitimate way to amend the Constitution.
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I'm using 2 separate rulings to correct you.

    He isn't the only author. And you've already been called out for lying about what he said when you inserted an "OR" where none existed.
     
  9. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have shown it numerous times over


    The citizenship of the child then follows that of the father if the parents are married or of the mother if the child is born a bastard. (that's already law)



    Inventing terms shows a clear failure on your part of understanding the debate. :roll:
     
  10. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
  11. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was the Congressional Record for the discussion of the Amendment. :roll:

    The country one is found in requires the person to be subject to the laws of that country, nothing more. If that person is not a citizen or did not emigrate to that country then no that country does not have jurisdiction over the person, meaning that country can not force the individual into military service, etc.

    Illegal aliens were not a known matter in 1868. The states took care of who they allowed to become citizens, and for aliens entering into their jurisdictions. Aliens had to register with the local magistrate back then or they were taken to the border of the state and told to go back. Some of the states still have who they allow in in their Constitutions.
     
  12. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SSS registration isn't just for the draft. Why don't you call SSS and ask them why since I already showed what else the registration is used for. :yawn:
     
  13. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Common law never refers to illegal aliens, as they were unknown to common law. That's what you can't get beyond. Common law was also only whites were allowed to be born citizens prior to 1866. There's nothing eating my lunch. :roll:

    And you can't get beyond the simple fact that the SC Justice states that no amendment is necessary.
    The one having the hard time here isn't me. You claim to follow what the Chief Justice opined, yet you dismiss his statement that no amendment is needed. Yea, you have a hard time getting past that. :yawn:

    Opinions of others? Im quoting Justice Gray directly from his opinion in WKA. Are you so truly this inept? :roflol:
     
  14. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is when the person isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the govt.

    MOD EDIT - Rule 3
     
  15. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's about jurisdiction, and national jurisdiction is about geography. I've yet to hear one single factor that determines national jurisdiction besides geography. Governments can bypass the geography determination if and only if a deal is made with another country (diplomats, SOFAS). Congress could not unilaterally declare natives citizens because they were geographically subject to Indian jurisdiction if they were on their territory. The Indian nations had a say too. Just like if Congress decided to declare children of diplomats citizens, the country of the diplomats' origin would have a say.
     
  16. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its actually about a 50/50 split. And it hasn't been studied for a long time when it comes to children born to illegals. The issue was raised after the 1986 amnesty, its also why Senator Harry Reid first introduced a bill in 1993 to change the laws, not the amendment, regarding citizenship by birth to illegals.
     
  17. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Logic does not dictate that at all. The wife and child, assuming they mother and father are married, goes with the husband. If they are not married then the child goes with the mother.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It is dependent upon if the parents are married or not, so its either Costa Rica or the US, since the Cubans have the wet foot dry foot policy granted by Bill Clinton. :roll:
     
  18. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was meant to cover immigrants, it wasn't meant to cover illegal aliens as they were unknown at the time to common law.

    There was paperwork that was necessary back then, each arriving person was logged on the ships log and they paid a tax to enter at the port. Then they had to register with the local magistrate and state their intentions, it was all recorded by the states back then.

    :roflol:
     
  19. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the parents are dead then the child is treated like a "foundling". (look it up)

    - - - Updated - - -

    What about if they had a child on US soil off the reservation? Did that child become a citizen or not? By your logic and claim it must be a born US citizen since it was born on US soil.
     
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,139
    Likes Received:
    37,567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I've said before: the idea of "illegal aliens" was unknown to them. The Amendment was, however, meant to cover all children within U.S. jurisdiction. That is both the letter and the intent. The exception being proposed would require a new amendment.

    So no visas, no green cards.

    Yes, the conspiracy theory is quite laughable.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conscription has nothing to do with being subject to jurisdiction. All that is required is physical presence. Wka and plyler.

    And I and several others keep pointing out you don't comprehend it.
     
  22. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Congress declared they were citizens of the US
    Looks like Congress declared them citizens, there was no asking. :yawn:
     
  23. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then you would be guessing incorrectly, as Congress declared them to be citizens.
     
  24. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly right, yet his parents were here permanently domiciled and resident, and for those reasons Gray affirmed his status.
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually as I've already pointed out, he merely noted they were. His reasoning for declaring him a citizen was from English common law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page