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.
For example in Mexico's constitution Chapter 2, Article 30, paragraph 2, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory.
Did you take an oath of allegiance?
I took a loyalty oath when I worked for the state of California.
I never had to take an oath of allegiance because I was born on U.S. soil.
So are these U.S. citizens who you claim should take a loyalty oath.
I don't like illegal immigration, but despite their parents status as lawbreakers, the children who you call "anchor babies" are U.S. citizens as defined by our laws.
Don't like it - then change the law.
Until you do - these children are U.S. citizens by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.
Um, I am not a birther if you are referring to Obama and I have never participated in those threads. Know who you are talking to before spouting false accusations and nonsense.
I never said you were a birther, but that you participated in those threads and offered your not supported claims about the 14th Amendment and was summarily trounced by the SAME court opinions that are found in this thread.
Quote:
How many times does it have to be explained to you that anyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws and being prosecuted for not doing so? That has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
My $deity, you can't even keep your argument straight.
It actually makes a great deal of sense. As representatives of foreign governments they have to be free in every aspect of their lives to immune from any pressures which can be placed upon them. In the case of children if we were to grant them the right of citizenship then they could be subjected to a whole slew of laws and regulations that could be used to coerce the actions of foreign representatives and vice versa. If such a policy were to be accepted as logical some foreign nation could decided for example that children born of the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia as a Saudi citizen must be a Muslim and as result expose the Ambassador to the threat of a custody battle because Saudi authorities believed that the Muslim child wasn't being raised correctly, not because they cared just as a leverage on the Ambassador. The list of forms of coercion using children as a pawn is endless. This is why they are exempted.
Same thing could be said of illegal alien parents andchildren are not entitled to U.S. citzenship either according to the 14th Amendment and its "clause/qualifer".
For example in Mexico's constitution Chapter 2, Article 30, paragraph 2, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory.
I never said you were a birther, but that you participated in those threads and offered your not supported claims about the 14th Amendment and was summarily trounced by the SAME court opinions that are found in this thread.
My $deity, you can't even keep your argument straight.
A birther is one who doesn't believe that Obama was born a U.S. citizen. I am not one of those so why are you bringing that subject up? My arguments have been upstraight and upfront in every post. I haven't changed a thing about them.
Same thing could be said of illegal alien parents andchildren are not entitled to U.S. citzenship either according to the 14th Amendment and its "clause/qualifer".
As have been EXPLAINED to you several times, in the birther threads that you have participated in and now in this thread:
The qualifier you are on about doesn't apply to illegal immigrants (since there was no such thing as illegal immigrants when the 14th Amendment, let alone the US Constitution was ratified), but applies to AMBASSADORS and ENEMY COMBATANTS on US SOIL (and at the time Native Indians). the Supreme Court made this distinction in Wong Kim Ark.
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
A birther is one who doesn't believe that Obama was born a U.S. citizen.
Insert duh here. I never SAID you were a birther. ONLY that you participated in birther threads. You clearly have reading comprehension problems.
Quote:
I am not one of those so why are you bringing that subject up? My arguments have been upstraight and upfront in every post. I haven't changed a thing about them.
YOU really can't follow your own arguments.
I bring up the subject because its the SAME argument you used in those THREADS, and where you were told that you were wrong. And here you are again, using the same WRONG arguments as if you weren't told that they weren't wrong.
Are you admitting here that what you claimed was in that footnote is actually not in that footnote at all, but somewhere else?
Duh, it is in Bouve's book. I was using Bouve in footnote 10 as simple reference to Bouve's book (A treatise on the laws governing the exclusion and expulsion of aliens in the United States. Washington, D.C. : John Byrne & Co., 1912.   as being a credible source.
In the case of the child, as in that of the mother, presence under detention does not constitute residence; and therefore, its relations to the US do not partake of the nature of allegiance, and consequently fall short in laying the foundation for the existance of that protection without which the child could not, if it would seem, be correctly said to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the US."
The case under discussion would seem to differ from that of the child is born in detention in this: that the latter at the time of his birth is not residing nor is his mother residing in the US, and, therefore, he is not born in allegiance to or subject to the jurisdiction thereof; while the child born of alien parents who, though under the immigration law they have no right to do so and are subject at anytime to deportation thereunder, are nevertheless residing in the US and owe temporary allegiance thereto, is necessarily born in allegiance to, and therefore, is a citizen of this country.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 05-22-2013 at 07:13 PM..
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.
as being a credible source.
