Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is that little qualifier again "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The Wong Kim Ark situation wasn't about illegal alien parents.
The majority opinion of the court incorporated many of the themes in question today. The court ruled that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was taken from English common law"...exemptions of :
(1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Justices cited the other condition of 4) Indian Tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Ark's parents were not illegal aliens[wasnt law at that time], but nor were they naturalized or any other kind of "citizen". That is the focus of today's "birth right" opposition. The court did not focus on the parents citizenship, only if the parents met the criteria of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" while residing in the US.
Ark was cited by the Plyler court and further extendent the understanding of "and under the jurisdiction thereof"...The court ruled that "and under the jurisdiction thereof" and "within the jusridiction" were equal. The court ruled that IA children residing in Texas were Under the jurisdiction of the state [therefore US] so they were afforded Equal Protection under the law.
If IA children are "under the jurisdiction", "within the jurisdiction", and "and subject to the jurisdicition thereof", then so are their parents residing in the state[US]. If the parents are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then their native-born child is therefor is a citizen of the United States accordind to the 14th amendment and upheld by opinions from US Supreme court decessions.
The majority opinion of the court incorporated many of the themes in question today. The court ruled that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was taken from English common law"...exemptions of :
(1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Justices cited the other condition of 4) Indian Tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Ark's parents were not illegal aliens[wasnt law at that time], but nor were they naturalized or any other kind of "citizen". That is the focus of today's "birth right" opposition. The court did not focus on the parents citizenship, only if the parents met the criteria of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" while residing in the US.
Ark was cited by the Plyler court and further extendent the understanding of "and under the jurisdiction thereof"...The court ruled that "and under the jurisdiction thereof" and "within the jusridiction" were equal. The court ruled that IA children residing in Texas were Under the jurisdiction of the state [therefore US] so they were afforded Equal Protection under the law.
If IA children are "under the jurisdiction", "within the jurisdiction", and "and subject to the jurisdicition thereof", then so are their parents residing in the state[US]. If the parents are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then their native-born child is therefor is a citizen of the United States accordind to the 14th amendment and upheld by opinions from US Supreme court decessions.
Your viewpoint on this has all been debunked in here many times over. I am not going to repeat those arguments once again.
The 14th amendment to the Constitution confers citizenship to all persons born in the US...
I dont see "Visitation births" sufficient reason to amend the US Constituion.
With our very generous welfare programs to these birth citizens and their families, there is no way we can keep on doing this.
Work sponsored legal immigrants have to jump through hoops, yet they are the only valuable honest kind of immigrants that are going to contribute and give their fair share.
Family sponsored immigration should be limited to spouse and minor children. It's absurd that all the grandparents, and whole extended family must be brought in to be cared for by the taxpayers.
Over a third of the US population now lives off government handouts, unemployment is high, the economy is in trouble yet the illegals continue to pour over the border and reproduce when they have no way of providing for their children themselves.
Cut off all welfare handouts to these birth citizens and the problem would be less.
The majority opinion of the court incorporated many of the themes in question today. The court ruled that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was taken from English common law"...exemptions of :
(1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Justices cited the other condition of 4) Indian Tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Ark's parents were not illegal aliens[wasnt law at that time], but nor were they naturalized or any other kind of "citizen". That is the focus of today's "birth right" opposition. The court did not focus on the parents citizenship, only if the parents met the criteria of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" while residing in the US.
Ark was cited by the Plyler court and further extendent the understanding of "and under the jurisdiction thereof"...The court ruled that "and under the jurisdiction thereof" and "within the jusridiction" were equal. The court ruled that IA children residing in Texas were Under the jurisdiction of the state [therefore US] so they were afforded Equal Protection under the law.
If IA children are "under the jurisdiction", "within the jurisdiction", and "and subject to the jurisdicition thereof", then so are their parents residing in the state[US]. If the parents are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then their native-born child is therefor is a citizen of the United States accordind to the 14th amendment and upheld by opinions from US Supreme court decessions.
For the trillionth time, there is NO constitutional mandate for the conferment of citizenship relative to illegal aliens. That is an issue yet to be addressed.
The US Constitution is an unfinisdhed work...and was meant to be. If it were a "masterpiece"... not needing further work, then the "artist" would not provided ways to change/amend it.
Unless you feel the 13th, 15th and the 19th amendments to the constitution sully the masterpiece...
So why were liberals all in a huff when repealing birthright citizenship was being discussed. ? distinctly recall liberal loons like Chris Matthews saying the GOP was crazy to do this and that the Constitution should not be touched with. I guess with his logic the slaves would never have been freed since the 14th is not an original amendment.
So why were liberals all in a huff when repealing birthright citizenship was being discussed. ? distinctly recall liberal loons like Chris Matthews saying the GOP was crazy to do this and that the Constitution should not be touched with. I guess with his logic the slaves would never have been freed since the 14th is not an original amendment.
You're right. Liberals are hypocrites. If something doesn't suit their agenda then it isn't ok to amend the Constitution. When it suits their agenda then it is ok.
The US Constitution is an unfinisdhed work...and was meant to be. If it were a "masterpiece"... not needing further work, then the "artist" would not provided ways to change/amend it.
Unless you feel the 13th, 15th and the 19th amendments to the constitution sully the masterpiece...
I just get nervous every time I see a graffiti "artist" with a can of spray paint start walking towards the "masterpiece"...
With our very generous welfare programs to these birth citizens and their families, there is no way we can keep on doing this.
Work sponsored legal immigrants have to jump through hoops, yet they are the only valuable honest kind of immigrants that are going to contribute and give their fair share.
Family sponsored immigration should be limited to spouse and minor children. It's absurd that all the grandparents, and whole extended family must be brought in to be cared for by the taxpayers.
Over a third of the US population now lives off government handouts, unemployment is high, the economy is in trouble yet the illegals continue to pour over the border and reproduce when they have no way of providing for their children themselves.
Cut off all welfare handouts to these birth citizens and the problem would be less.
I blame Ted Kennedy.Not like it would do much good.
For the trillionth time, there is NOconstitutional mandate for the conferment of citizenship relative to illegal aliens. That is an issue yet to be addressed.
What is a "consitutional mandate"? I never-ever heard that term use in any context.
The point of precedent is the "child". The child being born on American soil has been[by precedent] considered an American citizen. No madate or conferment was necessary if the bodies of Government and Law have accepted the That "all persons born on American Soil" are American citizens; regardless of the nationallity or immigration status of the parent.The proof of this precedent acceptance is the current practice of confering US citizenship to all persons born on US soil. Regarless of immigration status of the parent.
The only exception to this is children born on US soil of Foreign Diplomats. This has been the only ruling in which the "Parents' " nationality was cited for an exception.
To this point in time, the parents' immigration status has not come before the USS court... There it is, clearly stated.
I have tried to use past USScourt rulings to illustrate a how those rulings and precedent has brought us to our current legal status.
Quote:
Precedent-
Incommon lawlegal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
