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. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it could have been shown that he was born here, by any sort of evidence, then he would have been a citizen. As it stands, this case has nothing to do with our conversation.

    Congress brings it up a new bill every new Congress.[/QUOTE]Which is necessary given the fact that the law, as it stands, grants birthright citizenship, even to the children of undocumented immigrants.
     
  2. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For all the times people use the phrase "illegal immigrants," there actually is NO law making it a crime to be in the USA without permission. Nor is anyone, even Trump, proposing making it illegal. In short, not one person including Trump himself believes a word he says as far as actually doing anything.
     
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a conspiracy theory that the 14th amendment wasn't actually ratified. It's up here so moon landing nutters
     
  4. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Congress didn't exclude the Chinese, where you come up with that is beyond me. The govt claimed that WKA was not a citizen because his parents were denied naturalization, and as such wka was not born a citizen via the CEA 1875. That's why Gray stated the Treaty ratified in 1870 only denies the parents from naturalization, since the parents were here prior to 1870, it does not deny them legal domicil and residence. Thats why WKA was born a citizen, his parents, although aliens denied form naturalization, but were here under treaty and before the CEA, the CEA does not pertain to them, was born a citizen.
     
  5. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution is the Law of the Land. The 14th Amendment is part of our Constitution. It is that law.

    Please name one administration that denied birthright citizenship in this fashion and took action in doing so.

    I honestly can't make sense of what you are trying to say here.

    Visas do not work in this way. There are (often arbitrary and ludicrous) nation-of-origin and labor categorization quotas and a labyrinth of legal pitfalls. Modern visas require much more than what you described previously. I've known half a dozen visa-holders who have been deported or threatened with deportation for attending the overseas funeral of a parent. The simple, reasonable, rational, logical process you described before bears no resemblance to the visa system of today.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Perhaps because of the Chinese Exclusion Act?
     
  6. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Basing that claim on one persons opinion is :roflol: I'm not cherry picking like your link did.

    It simply means that Congress hasn't the fortitude to get it out of committee, whether it be a R Congress or a D Congress.

    That doesn't mean eventually they won't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

    That's the whole point, to have the law challenged and settled once and for all. Either way it comes out, there would be no more questions about it.

    Only someone that has standing can bring it before the court, and it has to work its way through the lower courts to get there. I'll be happy with it either way, because then it will be settled.
     
  7. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, what about citizenship by marriage? Where is THAT in the constitution?

    Jeb Bush's wife has got to go as do all those brides of US servicemen.

    Actually, very few Americans have ancestors that were ever technically given citizenship by the government. Some did in the great immigration rush in the 1800s. But most didn't. Everyone has ancestors who came here before or after has to go. We can't afford you. Native Americans get to stay because a specific law declared them citizens. So I guess Trump's right. Basically everyone including his first ex-wife and himself too has to leave.

    And since those treaties giving white people land were passed by non-Americans in Congress they are all void.Native Americans get the USA back. Just about everyone else has to leave. It's about time. This is a great plan for the environment and to reduce the carbon footprint of the USA.
     
  8. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are right about the last part -- Trump is just spewing hot air. But there are laws making it a crime to be in the USA without permission, unfortunately. If you are an unskilled Mexican laborer with no family here, you can't just move here, for example.
     
  9. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You haven't proven anything other than an inability to properly quote and cite the very cases you claim do something they don't.

    The only thing you have repeatedly shown is the ability to copy and paste the same claim without actually quoting the portions you claim do what you claim.



    Gray specifically claimed after the DoI, English Common Law no longer existed in the US.

    Then it mustn't be one of the reasons to affirm the case, yet it was a reason as Gray pointed out. Even the politifact link from paperview states what I state.
    Are you now going to call politifact a liar, or a non-credible source? :roflol:

    It means foreigners from countries with a treaty, friendly nations. It has to do with the temporary allegiance owed to the sovereign, or as Gray quotes Calvins case, the ligealty
    were not restricted to natural-born subjects (citizens) and naturalized subjects (naturalized citizens), or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance (Green Card holders), but were predicable of aliens in amity (aliens from friendly countries via treaties - The VWP and actual Treaties like the Burlngame Treaty which WKA parents were here under)

    You haven't proven anything other than an inability to properly quote from your citation. You don't even grasp your own quote. :roflol:

    Nowhere in WKA does Gray claim that the 14th covers illegal immigrants, his ruling is limiting to only what was brought before the court.
     
  10. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,486
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except Congress is limited in its immigration power by the 14th A, which supersedes this law, and qualifies Congressional immigration power in cases where someone is born within the US and is subject to its jurisdiction.

    Thnx for answering my question, I'll take your word for now. I am still unsure if these other countries you intend to deport them to will agree.

    I understand the debate well enough to realize it's about ensuring Republicans get zero Hispanic vote, and that Trump is only stirring up this controversy to help Dems win.

    Which means almost nothing when it comes to interpreting the law. You aren't aware that Reps and Senators regularly say things in debates and notes that they would never enact into law?

    That's funny because I remember landing in Malaysia and receiving a warning prior to landing that said if I had drugs, give them up now because once I set foot on their soil I could be subject to the death penalty. I felt very subject to Malaysian jurisdiction, and my allegiance didn't matter whatsoever.

    Which simply means that any law passed after 1868 that makes them illegal AND removes birthright citizenship of their children cannot supercede an amendment.

    I say if you aren't willing to be the guy breaking down doors to split families, or the guy willing to shove them off the bus in Central America, then you shouldn't support this crazy argument that wasn't necessary through multiple waves of immigration in our history, but now is supposedly necessary to deal with the Latinos.

    I assume that if the child was born outside of sovereign native territory, it would be a US citizen, unless there are agreements between native and US government that said otherwise.

    I see a qualifier that appears to respect the sovereignty of tribal government. And if the tribal government does not have jurisdiction and is not sovereign, all that means in regard to this debate is that natives did fall under US jurisdiction, and the 14th phrase about jurisdiction applied to them. The phrase still would not be superfluous, as it still would apply to those in US territory and not under its jurisdiction because of an agreement between nations like diplomatic protocol. It would be a case of Congress declaring who was in its jurisdiction which is different from Congress unilaterally declaring who was not in its jurisdiction such as you want. If Congress did the latter, it would be a dereliction of its duty. If they could do that, they could declare any group or all groups outside of its jurisdiction, and thus abandon its duty to make laws for the people within the US, and turn the meaning of jurisdiction on its head.
     
  11. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, so "a correct understanding" as you call it, you have yet to grasp. Melvin Fullers dissent did argue for Common Law in the case of WKA. It is why WKA won; https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Dissent_Fuller

    The rest of this cut and paste rambling by you and others is a desperate attempt to use opinions of others and discussions as a way to make yourselves believe you have always had a case. The only way you truly have a case, is through a Constitutional Amendment. Even Trump and his team have acknowledged they do not know where they stand and are going to find out, without a Constitutional Amendment.
     
  12. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Er, maybe from here:
    Chinese Exclusion Act

    "Wong Kim Ark was the result of anti-Chinese immigration sentiment in the late 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. This sentiment produced a series of laws that began with 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, which criminalized all immigration from China and created barriers to reentry for lawful Chinese residents already living in the U.S. (if they left the country and later returned). 1888 brought the Scott Act, which prohibited all Chinese non-citizens from reentering the country altogether."

    http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonr...t-rules-immigrant-children-born-u-s-citizens/

    And maybe from the fact Wong Kim Ark cites it:

    "

    • 'Because the said Wong Kim Ark has been at all times, by reason of his race, language, color, and dress, a Chinese person, and now is, and for some time last past has been, a laborer by occupation.

    • 'That the said Wong Kim Ark is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, because he does not belong to any of the privileged classes enumerated in any of the acts of congress, known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,'1 which would exempt him from the class or classes which are especially excluded from the United States by the provisions of the said acts."

    "It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of congress known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,' prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him."

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html

    They excluded him upon re-entry - in 1895.

    His parentage didn't matter - legally domiciled or not. He was born here. That's why KWA still reigns/
     
  13. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not having legal permission to be here does not make it a crime to not legally be here.
     
  14. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no law as it stands granting citizenship by birth to children born to illegals, it is merely an assumption that does so now.
     
  15. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's pretty ****ing insane - considering what you just did here is quote someone elses words, and attribute them to me.

    FIX IT. NOW.

    Not a single word you quoted in #708 as being from me was from my posts.

    Sloppiness like that is not acceptable.

    Fix the quotes, and stop accusing others of what you are doing.
     
  16. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being in the US without permission or beyond authorization can warrant 2 situations, charges of EWI (federal misdemeanor first offense and federal felony second offense) and bar to re-entry. For those that are visa overstays, which is what your claim is discussing, they can receive a bar to re-entry as well, there is no charges that can brought against them as they entered legally, but they too can be deported.
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is already a law making all people naturalized or born here, with specific exceptions, citizens. It is not "merely an assumption" to think that the law means what it literally says. What you are proposing is an additional exception. Until that exception is added to our law, it is not part of our law. The law grants all people born here -- with specific exceptions, non of which being the legal status of their parents -- citizenship. I know this is inconvenient for your politics, but the law means what it says until you get it to say something else.
     
  18. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that doesn't change the fact that the 14th citizenship clause is merely declaratory of existing law. Surly you aren't going to claim a SC Cheif Justice to be incorrect are you?

    This admin merely claims they are, no other admin did such, they stated they "may be" citizens. So unless they hold a US Passport declaring the US citizens they are merely assumed to be so.

    That everybody is assumed to be a citizen, unless they hold an actual passport declaring them to be a citizen. Surely you don't think your birth certificate alone makes you a citizen. :roll:

    Visas don't work in what way? Are you unaware of the Visa Waiver Program? http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

    The CEA was in 1875, the 14th was passed in 1868, the CEA limited certain Chinese classes of people from entering. :roll:
     
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are picking at straws. The Constitution itself says that it is the Law of the Land. Surely you aren't going to claim that the Constitution is incorrect about the Constitution, are you? Is this another case where the law doesn't mean what it says?

    There is other documentation for establishing citizenship, not just passports. And again, this has nothing to do with our conversation.

    I didn't have a passport until a few months ago, and I was assumed to be a citizen. There are many other means of identifying yourself as a citizen. And for the dozenth time, this is a distraction. It has nothing to do with our discussion. I have no idea why you insist on trying to change the subject.

    In the way already described. You don't just come here, check into a port, file for taxes, etc. There is a lot more to it than that, as I've already clarified.

    I'll try again: look back at the process you described before. The one you were talking about when I replied to you and said that modern visas don't work that way. I'm saying visas don't work that way. Visas don't work in the way described in the quote I was responding to. They have far more restrictions.

    Are you under the impression that his has something to do with our discussion? If so, what?

    Yes. Limiting. Also known as excluding. Which is what was being claimed.
     
  20. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Simple Truth of Immigration Law, viz. Immigration Reform Act

    There are only two political conditions in which the national allegiance of a father has no bearing on the allegiance or citizenship of the child at birth:

    Feudal Monarchy
    Slaveholder’s property rights over the issue of his slaves
    I want you to think about this as you read further, because the condition of property and subjection is clearly apparent in the above. One would think rights of the father predominate in free societies, especially a constitutional republic in which the government is crafted to be ‘subject’ to the citizens, not the other way around.

    As I’ve posted previously, the ratio of illegal to legal immigrants is approximately 10-to-1. For some reason, lawless behavior is the status quo and the result is a broken INS.

    Therefore, the so-called Immigration Reform Act is not so much reform but utter ‘liberalization,’ including sections hidden within its one-thousand pages pledging millions in ‘pork’ to activist organizations such as La Raza. Indeed, the cowardice of our congress to control the borders and deport illegal aliens is the cause for ‘liberalization,’ i.e., reform, which in reality is the abrogation of existing law to avoid its constitutional obligations.

    Here is an interesting quote from an excellent Wikipedia article, cited by the Boston Bar in their article on Jus Soli (‘right of soil’). http://www.bostonbar.org/sections/international-law/news-archive/2011/11/22/jus-soli

    In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S.649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” restriction applied only to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The Court also rejected the government’s attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens.

    Actually, the latter part of the quote rejecting ‘the government’s attempt to limit’ is the key to understanding our current immigration crisis. The ‘government’ this article refers to was the U.S. Attorney in his brief [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA] before the Wong Kim Ark. Unfortunately, only two out of nine justices of that court, including the Chief Justice, dissented, and vigorously. (Search ‘Chief Justice Fuller Wong Kim Ark Dissent’)

    Indeed, the law as it stood from our nation’s beginnings, from the first Naturalization Act to its last intact revision in 1855 required a U.S. citizen Father for a child, as a minor or at birth, to be a U.S. citizen. There was no ‘right’ of soil, i.e., jus soli.

    Therefore, the ‘government’ in Wong Kim Ark was correct; the 7:2 SCOTUS majority was wrong. However, many congressmen and jurists are stuck with the idea that Calvin’s Case (1608) is a common law principle adopted by the states, which just isn’t true! In fact, the English law most valuable as controlling law is the 1772 British Nationality Act, which is jus sanguinis, not jus soli.

    Indeed, the 14th Amendment, a summary of the Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War, specifically the 1866 Civil Rights Act, was to protect the rights of slaves, and to remove their ‘stateless’ condition.

    In fact, that stateless condition as property resulted in no nationality passed on to their children, revealing that jus sanguinis (blood of the father) was the law of the land (pun intended) and jus soli had to be conjured up, resurrected so to speak, from Gothic laws from two centuries previous, from a case called Calvin’s Case (1608). How awkward and inappropriate to cite ancient law, and foreign law too.

    Some jurists say that jus soli is part of our common law tradition, inherited from English common law. Two things bely that judicial notice: 1) The 1772 British Nationality Act invoked jus sanguinis as its primary principle toward the recognition of natural born subjects, and 2) English common law was, in our earliest case law, denied stare decisis status, unless that cited law was specifically approved in the state’s highest court. [citations omitted]

    As you may see now, the ‘birthright’ soil citizenship conjured up by the Wong Kim Ark majority is what created our out of control immigration problem, and must be ended. The Boston Bar suggests that Wong Kim Ark, even if in error, has been on the books so long only a constitutional amendment can change it. However, Art 1, Sec 8 gives congress plenary power over Naturalization law, and it can correct the Ark court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as being derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s similar preamble, ‘born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.’

    Of course, activists will take that revision/addition/clarification to 8 USC 1401 to the Supreme Court, but I feel the legislature would prevail.

    https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/tag/wong-kim-ark/
     
  21. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Common Law doesn't have to refer to illegal aliens when Common Law says "all persons". Not cats and dogs, just "all" persons!

    And who won the case with the dissent of Fuller?
     
  22. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mark Levin: 'Completely False' That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/levin-completely-false-children-born-illegals-have-constitutional-right
     
  23. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    67,098
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mark Levin? Really? Anyway, yes, another blog post that you like. We get it. If you would like to specifically address anything I've said, you are welcome to do so. I'm not really going to respond to any "but here's a blog post I like" posts.
     
  24. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mark Levin is a very knowledgable person and speaks the truth. Now you may disagree with him if you like but from what I have seen you lack the basic knowledge to be able to credibly contradict him or anyone else with much legal epertise.

    The bottom line folks in your camp depend on folks not researching the topic for expert opinions...your thesis is only believed by those who accept your distortions, spin and your personal opinion which essentially does not hold water.

    Biography and credentials of Mark Levin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin
     
  25. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page