User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:10:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? yeah I was going to ask how a case that magically addresses this will be heard by the SC |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:15:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 14th Amendment can not gut the Powers of Congress with regard to Naturalizaion, because if that is what the court ruled we would be in some deep shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Congress can change the law regarding jurisdiction if there is the political will to do it (which I seriously doubt). Of course, even if congress were to get off its ass and exercise the legislative power to do so, that ultimately brings the issue right back to the SCOTUS when an inevitable challenge is brought based on the 14th. The 14th Amendment can not gut the Powers of Congress with regard to Naturalizaion, because if that is what the court ruled we would be in some deep shit. lol Like we've never seen this sort of a situation before. (Hows the 2A stacking up against the commerce clause lately?) You have two competing sections of the constitution - the 14th and congress's power under Art I to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Where do you think those sorts of questions end up getting answered? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:22:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no "naturalization" involved if you're a citizen jus soli. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Article 1 section 8 clause 4 is pretty clear. There's no "naturalization" involved if you're a citizen jus soli. Congress makes the rules Natural born refers to the lineage of the parents thus a child born to two foreigners residing illegally in this country can't produce a citizen based on geography. The parents and the child would all have to be naturalized to legally become citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:29:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol Like we've never seen this sort of a situation before. (Hows the 2A stacking up against the commerce clause lately?) You have two competing sections of the constitution - the 14th and congress's power under Art I to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Where do you think those sorts of questions end up getting answered? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress can change the law regarding jurisdiction if there is the political will to do it (which I seriously doubt). Of course, even if congress were to get off its ass and exercise the legislative power to do so, that ultimately brings the issue right back to the SCOTUS when an inevitable challenge is brought based on the 14th. The 14th Amendment can not gut the Powers of Congress with regard to Naturalizaion, because if that is what the court ruled we would be in some deep shit. lol Like we've never seen this sort of a situation before. (Hows the 2A stacking up against the commerce clause lately?) You have two competing sections of the constitution - the 14th and congress's power under Art I to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Where do you think those sorts of questions end up getting answered? They are supposed to get answer via legislation when it comes naturalization. Also you notice what happened in the 2nd Amendment cases, the 2nd did not override the grossly inflated and out of control commerce powers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:35:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are supposed to get answer via legislation when it comes naturalization. Also you notice what happened in the 2nd Amendment cases, the 2nd did not override the grossly inflated and out of control commerce powers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress can change the law regarding jurisdiction if there is the political will to do it (which I seriously doubt). Of course, even if congress were to get off its ass and exercise the legislative power to do so, that ultimately brings the issue right back to the SCOTUS when an inevitable challenge is brought based on the 14th. The 14th Amendment can not gut the Powers of Congress with regard to Naturalizaion, because if that is what the court ruled we would be in some deep shit. lol Like we've never seen this sort of a situation before. (Hows the 2A stacking up against the commerce clause lately?) You have two competing sections of the constitution - the 14th and congress's power under Art I to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Where do you think those sorts of questions end up getting answered? They are supposed to get answer via legislation when it comes naturalization. Also you notice what happened in the 2nd Amendment cases, the 2nd did not override the grossly inflated and out of control commerce powers. So you agree one section of the constitution will get priority over another. And the SCOTUS will decide which way it goes. I won't hold my breath with the current bunch. Art I only gives congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, it does not give congress the power to override or ignore other sections of the constitution in establishing those rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:38:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you agree one section of the constitution will get priority over another. And the SCOTUS will decide which way it goes. I won't hold my breath with the current bunch. Art I only gives congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, it does not give congress the power to override or ignore other sections of the constitution in establishing those rules. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress can change the law regarding jurisdiction if there is the political will to do it (which I seriously doubt). Of course, even if congress were to get off its ass and exercise the legislative power to do so, that ultimately brings the issue right back to the SCOTUS when an inevitable challenge is brought based on the 14th. The 14th Amendment can not gut the Powers of Congress with regard to Naturalizaion, because if that is what the court ruled we would be in some deep shit. lol Like we've never seen this sort of a situation before. (Hows the 2A stacking up against the commerce clause lately?) You have two competing sections of the constitution - the 14th and congress's power under Art I to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Where do you think those sorts of questions end up getting answered? They are supposed to get answer via legislation when it comes naturalization. Also you notice what happened in the 2nd Amendment cases, the 2nd did not override the grossly inflated and out of control commerce powers. So you agree one section of the constitution will get priority over another. And the SCOTUS will decide which way it goes. I won't hold my breath with the current bunch. Art I only gives congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, it does not give congress the power to override or ignore other sections of the constitution in establishing those rules. As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:49:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 5:54:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Yet the US born child of illegals who if their parents are Mexicans are still considered Mexican citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:04:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet the US born child of illegals who if their parents are Mexicans are still considered Mexican citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Yet the US born child of illegals who if their parents are Mexicans are still considered Mexican citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. According to the court in Wong, the child would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. There were two exceptions to jurisdiction provided in Wong, neither of which your example fits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:09:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. You do know that there wasn't such a thing as illegal immigration we he (Kim Ark) was born in the US right? The Chinese exclusion act came about 10 years after he was born. edit: I'm in the middle on this really. I think the chances of the courts ruling against jus soli is slim. The true issue is not illegal versus legal immigration. The issue is the welfare state. Eliminate the Welfare state and this issue goes away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:17:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think there aren't illegal aliens with long-standing "domiciles" here when they have their anchor babies?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Swing and a miss! You think there aren't illegal aliens with long-standing "domiciles" here when they have their anchor babies? Do you think there are not any destination berthing centers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:18:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This thread is succinct proof that reading is for faggots. Let me summarize this: 1. Article I, Section 8 applies to naturalization. As in, you show up here from another country where you were born and BECOME a citizen. Not "you're born here." 2. Wong, as anyone who has read it knows, discusses at great length the Anglo-American jurisprudence in this area. It specifically says that ALIENS - which of course includes "illegal" aliens - who give birth to children on U.S. soil thereby give birth to a U.S. citizen. 3. As alluded to above, aliens - all of them - are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That's why they can be arrested and charged here with crimes, sue and be sued in U.S. Courts, etc.. Traditional rules exclude formal agents of foreign powers (i.e., diplomats). There is absolutely NO reason to believe that SCOTUS, let alone the current one, is going to radically reverse the concept of birthright citizenship, irrespective of that case. That doesn't mean anchor babies are good, it just means you're not going to win that issue in the courts, on that basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:19:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet the US born child of illegals who if their parents are Mexicans are still considered Mexican citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Yet the US born child of illegals who if their parents are Mexicans are still considered Mexican citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So? Dual citizenship on that basis is incredibly common and well-grounded in the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:24:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because it's racist to want to keep the bottom of the Third World's barrel from bleeding the American taxpayer dry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
These threads really bring out the 88'ers. Yes, because it's racist to want to keep the bottom of the Third World's barrel from bleeding the American taxpayer dry. Lol. You let them in and hire them but then don't want to give them rights. Tough shit. Everyone is equal under the constitution. Either don't let them in or they have full rights and should be on the fast track to full citizenship. You want permanent second class peasants among us. I don't. You let them in, now they have rights. Next time don't let them in. See how simple that is? Everything else here is just 88 haters. There is no such thing as an anchor baby. Myth. Birthright citizenship. No we are not voting away our rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 6:41:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Yet no one fears prosecution for admitting to multiple felonies on a forum full of cops... As long as your hiring illegals you may as well evade taxes, licences and labor laws too. Nothing to fear.
Zero enforcement on one side and your ready to shred the constitution and create millions of permanent second class citizens on the other side. More Orwellian police state to track and round up one in 10 living in this country. Over 30 million people. Fucking insane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:06:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is succinct proof that reading is for faggots. Let me summarize this: 1. Article I, Section 8 applies to naturalization. As in, you show up here from another country where you were born and BECOME a citizen. Not "you're born here." 2. Wong, as anyone who has read it knows, discusses at great length the Anglo-American jurisprudence in this area. It specifically says that ALIENS - which of course includes "illegal" aliens - who give birth to children on U.S. soil thereby give birth to a U.S. citizen. 3. As alluded to above, aliens - all of them - are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That's why they can be arrested and charged here with crimes, sue and be sued in U.S. Courts, etc.. Traditional rules exclude formal agents of foreign powers (i.e., diplomats). There is absolutely NO reason to believe that SCOTUS, let alone the current one, is going to radically reverse the concept of birthright citizenship, irrespective of that case. That doesn't mean anchor babies are good, it just means you're not going to win that issue in the courts, on that basis. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I have pointed out birthright citizenship somehow does not apply to the children of employees of foreign governments living in the US or at the time of Wong Ark resident Indians. The 14th covered and was written to cover freed slaves and their children. No one can seem to thread that needle and explain that. If you read Wong, you wouldn't need someone to explain that. The exceptions in Wong were based upon the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This thread is succinct proof that reading is for faggots. Let me summarize this: 1. Article I, Section 8 applies to naturalization. As in, you show up here from another country where you were born and BECOME a citizen. Not "you're born here." 2. Wong, as anyone who has read it knows, discusses at great length the Anglo-American jurisprudence in this area. It specifically says that ALIENS - which of course includes "illegal" aliens - who give birth to children on U.S. soil thereby give birth to a U.S. citizen. 3. As alluded to above, aliens - all of them - are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That's why they can be arrested and charged here with crimes, sue and be sued in U.S. Courts, etc.. Traditional rules exclude formal agents of foreign powers (i.e., diplomats). There is absolutely NO reason to believe that SCOTUS, let alone the current one, is going to radically reverse the concept of birthright citizenship, irrespective of that case. That doesn't mean anchor babies are good, it just means you're not going to win that issue in the courts, on that basis. You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:11:18 PM EDT
[#17]
I don't need some Fucking fancy law degree from a school better than the school Mark Levin went to, to know two Wongs don't make a white.
Anyways, take a look at the countries these "immigrants" come from. If you want this country to look just like that one, let more in. What could go wong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:49:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't need some Fucking fancy law degree from a school better than the school Mark Levin went to, to know two Wongs don't make a white. Anyways, take a look at the countries these "immigrants" come from. If you want this country to look just like that one, let more in. What could go wong? I love people who can't understand that acknowledging the futility of a particular argument doesn't mean that I agree with the outcome. It's what makes GD ... special. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:52:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "staying on topic." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:56:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "stating on topic." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "stating on topic."  Thank you for confirmation of my assertion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:58:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Anyone wanna bet how they will rule when they do? If the Supreme Court is our great hope, then we're fucked. Trump will personalize it. Plus it's not just about anchor babies, it's also border and deportation, neither of which anyone other than perhaps Cruz will get serious about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:31:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "staying on topic." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "staying on topic." It was my question if you want to get snarky about it and you ignore it because it does not align with your narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:41:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was my question if you want to get snarky about it and you ignore it because it does not align with your narrative. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "staying on topic." It was my question if you want to get snarky about it and you ignore it because it does not align with your narrative. No it wasn't your question, and it's not "my" narrative. It's 400+ years worth of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Good luck with your big SCOTUS case to undo it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:44:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it wasn't your question, and it's not "my" narrative. It's 400+ years worth of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Good luck with your big SCOTUS case to undo it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have purposely ignored those individuals that were inside of the United States and still not considered citizens of the United States. Many would consider this a lie of omission. No, I purposely ignored your daft questions about Indians and Puerto Ricans because they have, at best, little to do with the issue we're discussing. Most people would call that "staying on topic." It was my question if you want to get snarky about it and you ignore it because it does not align with your narrative. No it wasn't your question, and it's not "my" narrative. It's 400+ years worth of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Good luck with your big SCOTUS case to undo it. If the children of illegal invaders have birthright citizenships why was no case brought before SCOTUS during Operation Wetback? So the original premise of the title of the thread SCOTUS HAS NOT adjudicated this issue, leaving Article 1 Section 8 in full effect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:54:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the children of illegal invaders have birthright citizenships why was no case brought before SCOTUS during Operation Wetback? So the original premise of the title of the thread SCOTUS HAS NOT adjudicated this issue, leaving Article 1 Section 8 in full effect. Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. 2. Article 1, Section 8 also has nothing to do with birthright citizenship because it addresses NATURALIZATION. I think this is the third fucking time I've had to say that already. 3. The original title of the thread is wrong. I don't know what to tell you, I didn't write the title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:58:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Anchor babies" are not the problem you think they are. For instance, if a Chinese woman has her kid here and he is a USC, it will still take decades for him to sponsor any other family members into the US legally Taiwanese tend to be big abuser of the "anchor baby" thing not as a means to citizenship, but as a back up in case the Chinese invade then they can send their kids here. Chinese anchor babies aren't really a huge problem (yet) but anchor babies in general are huge issue. Literally millions of illegals use them to avoid deportation. There are plenty of documented cases of women waiting until they're in labor to cross the river. Most are content to just cross when they're 6-7 months because they know if they're not Mexican they'll just get a Notice To Appear and get released on bond (never to be heard from again till after the birth). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:01:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chinese anchor babies aren't really a huge problem (yet) but anchor babies in general are huge issue. Literally millions of illegals use them to avoid deportation. There are plenty of documented cases of women waiting until they're in labor to cross the river. Most are content to just cross when they're 6-7 months because they know if they're not Mexican they'll just get a Notice To Appear and get released on bond (never to be heard from again till after the birth). And that right there folks is the problem that can actually be solved. There is NO reason whatsoever why the illegal alien parents can't be deported. Their kid may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) entitle THEM to stay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:04:36 PM EDT
[#28]
premature posting
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:06:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that right there folks is the problem that can actually be solved. There is NO reason whatsoever why the illegal alien parents can't be deported. Their kid may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) entitle THEM to stay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chinese anchor babies aren't really a huge problem (yet) but anchor babies in general are huge issue. Literally millions of illegals use them to avoid deportation. There are plenty of documented cases of women waiting until they're in labor to cross the river. Most are content to just cross when they're 6-7 months because they know if they're not Mexican they'll just get a Notice To Appear and get released on bond (never to be heard from again till after the birth). And that right there folks is the problem that can actually be solved. There is NO reason whatsoever why the illegal alien parents can't be deported. Their kid may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) entitle THEM to stay. First off, when writing legislation to deal with that you tack on a section removing the birthright citizenship and deal with the problem all at once. Second start paring back the powers and options of the immigration courts, and develop a fast track for deportation. Nibbling around the edges is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:07:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. 2. Article 1, Section 8 also has nothing to do with birthright citizenship because it addresses NATURALIZATION. I think this is the third fucking time I've had to say that already. 3. The original title of the thread is wrong. I don't know what to tell you, I didn't write the title. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the children of illegal invaders have birthright citizenships why was no case brought before SCOTUS during Operation Wetback? So the original premise of the title of the thread SCOTUS HAS NOT adjudicated this issue, leaving Article 1 Section 8 in full effect. Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. 2. Article 1, Section 8 also has nothing to do with birthright citizenship because it addresses NATURALIZATION. I think this is the third fucking time I've had to say that already. 3. The original title of the thread is wrong. I don't know what to tell you, I didn't write the title. Also ignores the fact that there were illegals with children born here who were shipped out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:07:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off, when writing legislation to deal with that you tack on a section removing the birthright citizenship and deal with the problem all at once. Second start paring back the powers and options of the immigration courts, and develop a fast track for deportation. Nibbling around the edges is stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chinese anchor babies aren't really a huge problem (yet) but anchor babies in general are huge issue. Literally millions of illegals use them to avoid deportation. There are plenty of documented cases of women waiting until they're in labor to cross the river. Most are content to just cross when they're 6-7 months because they know if they're not Mexican they'll just get a Notice To Appear and get released on bond (never to be heard from again till after the birth). And that right there folks is the problem that can actually be solved. There is NO reason whatsoever why the illegal alien parents can't be deported. Their kid may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) entitle THEM to stay. First off, when writing legislation to deal with that you tack on a section removing the birthright citizenship and deal with the problem all at once. Second start paring back the powers and options of the immigration courts, and develop a fast track for deportation. Nibbling around the edges is stupid. You can't legislate away something that's a constitutional right. That's basic supremacy clause right there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:08:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then please enlighten us the Indians that had/have a permanent domicile within the borders of the US were NOT granted citizenship until 28 years later? Please explain why Puerto Ricans were not granted US citizenship until 19 years later while an American territory? Please explain why congress could wield plenary power in these two aforementioned cases and not with regards to Mexican children born here to illegal invaders. Because wrt the Indian Nations, the US sovereignty was not absolute, and state law was inapplicable to them due to their status. Otherwise, you can explain why Congress had to institute the Major Crimes Act of 1885 to deal with Indian crimes in the wake of Ex Parte Crow Dog? As to Puerto Rico, I would agree that they should have had automatic US citizenship after Spain ceded it to the US, but I'm also at a loss to find a case where a Puerto Rican seeking US citizenship was denied in the interim between the time Spain ceded it to the US and the passage of the Jones act, or any case in which a Puerto Rican citizen at that time brought suit and was denied based on some reading of the exceptions in Wong. Perhaps you can enlighten me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:10:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also ignores the fact that there were illegals with children born here who were shipped out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the children of illegal invaders have birthright citizenships why was no case brought before SCOTUS during Operation Wetback? So the original premise of the title of the thread SCOTUS HAS NOT adjudicated this issue, leaving Article 1 Section 8 in full effect. Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. 2. Article 1, Section 8 also has nothing to do with birthright citizenship because it addresses NATURALIZATION. I think this is the third fucking time I've had to say that already. 3. The original title of the thread is wrong. I don't know what to tell you, I didn't write the title. Also ignores the fact that there were illegals with children born here who were shipped out. No it doesn't. They got shipped out because they're illegals. Presumably they took their children with them, as one would expect, but that certainly doesn't change the fact that their children (born here) were U.S. citizens. Which brings me right back to the much simpler solution of deporting the illegal parents. It's not like most of them will just leave their kids here, and a firm policy on this will deter future "strategic births." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:17:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which brings me right back to the much simpler solution of deporting the illegal parents. It's not like most of them will just leave their kids here, and a firm policy on this will deter future "strategic births." Jesus Christ, this. And cut back on the legislatively provided handouts for all Americans that drive illegals to come here like welfare and healthcare. But no, thats too simple. We'd rather fuck around with the constitution and set ourselves up for other unintended constitutional consequences or tilt at windmills with implausable court cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:24:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't legislate away something that's a constitutional right. That's basic supremacy clause right there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chinese anchor babies aren't really a huge problem (yet) but anchor babies in general are huge issue. Literally millions of illegals use them to avoid deportation. There are plenty of documented cases of women waiting until they're in labor to cross the river. Most are content to just cross when they're 6-7 months because they know if they're not Mexican they'll just get a Notice To Appear and get released on bond (never to be heard from again till after the birth). And that right there folks is the problem that can actually be solved. There is NO reason whatsoever why the illegal alien parents can't be deported. Their kid may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) entitle THEM to stay. First off, when writing legislation to deal with that you tack on a section removing the birthright citizenship and deal with the problem all at once. Second start paring back the powers and options of the immigration courts, and develop a fast track for deportation. Nibbling around the edges is stupid. You can't legislate away something that's a constitutional right. That's basic supremacy clause right there. Let's give it a spin and see if really is a right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:28:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's give it a spin and see if really is a right. You're going to have to spin awfully fast to move upstream through centuries of jurisprudence. I think I like my solution better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:32:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're going to have to spin awfully fast to move upstream through centuries of jurisprudence. I think I like my solution better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's give it a spin and see if really is a right. You're going to have to spin awfully fast to move upstream through centuries of jurisprudence. I think I like my solution better. Let us test and see if some bullshit about centuries worth of non-existent jurisprudence actually exist. Since only the US and Canada are dumb enough to put up with the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:34:31 PM EDT
[#38]
I have always wondered if someone from Asia or Eurpoe is here on vacation a nd has a baby is the child actually an American? Especially if they are going back to their home country.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:35:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let us test and see if some bullshit about centuries worth of non-existent jurisprudence actually exist. Since only the US and Canada are dumb enough to put up with the shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's give it a spin and see if really is a right. You're going to have to spin awfully fast to move upstream through centuries of jurisprudence. I think I like my solution better. Let us test and see if some bullshit about centuries worth of non-existent jurisprudence actually exist. Since only the US and Canada are dumb enough to put up with the shit. Uhhhh... it exists. Whether you agree with it or not. There's a nice sampling of it in the Wong case, which apparently is still only for faggots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:38:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have always wondered if someone from Asia or Eurpoe is here on vacation a nd has a baby is the child actually an American? Especially if they are going back to their home country. That is actually a better question (because under Wong, such people would not be domiciled and resident here). But the answer is yes. That baby is considered a U.S. citizen currently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:41:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:42:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only by fools and socialists. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:03:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:09:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. Did you read the other 400 years worth of law before that? And no, they didn't really fix anything as a practical matter. "Anchor babies" born in the UK are still entitled to stay there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:14:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. You do realize 1983 is quite a while after the 14th amendment and the few hundred years of English common law leading up to the 14th? So the Brits realized their error and corrected it. We're trying (and should do) the same. So how do you propose correcting that error in the US given the impediments of the constitution and current US caselaw? Or is your answer to just ignore those legal impediments and pretend they don't exist? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:30:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Elect Trump (for all his faults), he'll appoint probably 3, maybe 4 SCOTUS' who will read the law as it is. If one parent is not a US citizen, the children are not.Subject to the jurisdiction and all. If this doesn't work, change the damn Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:31:40 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Elect Trump (for all his faults), he'll appoint probably 3, maybe 4 SCOTUS' who will read the law as it is. If one parent is not a US citizen, the children are not.Subject to the jurisdiction and all. If this doesn't work, change the damn Constitution. Except that's not the law and it never has been. Trump's idea of basically re-running "Operation Wetback" and making all the actual illegals - with or without their anchor babies - leave the country, is fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:23:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you read the other 400 years worth of law before that? And no, they didn't really fix anything as a practical matter. "Anchor babies" born in the UK are still entitled to stay there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think? Only by fools and socialists. And the 14th Amendment, and every case that's ever addressed it in this country, and a few hundred years of English common law leading up to that. Fools and commies. All of them. English law you say??? From what I can find, the Brits realized their error and corrected it in 1983 or thereabout. Please show me where a child born today in the UK to illegal aliens is considered to be a British Citizen before the child has spent 10 years in the UK. Did you read the other 400 years worth of law before that? And no, they didn't really fix anything as a practical matter. "Anchor babies" born in the UK are still entitled to stay there. Talking about daft. One of the major points of the revolutions was the change from subjects to citizens. Historical facts seem not to be within your grasp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 8:42:46 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talking about daft. One of the major points of the revolutions was the change from subjects to citizens. Historical facts seem not to be within your grasp. No he is right, that is how our legal system works and what it is based on. Actually read cases like DC v. Heller, you have references back to English Common Law, Magna Carta, quotes from Blackstone's Commentaries, etc. Don't be so ignorant of what your laws are based on. Jus Soli is as established as Habeas Corpus. Whether you like it or not, when SCOTUS takes up something like this they are going to consider more than stuff written after 1787 in the US. Want to get rid of Jus Soli, convince congress to change the law, go through the challenges in the courts let SCOTUS rule on it(I'll bet a silver ounce they rule Jus Soli). Then get a Constitutional Amendment approved if you really want to change it when SCOTUS rules against you. OR get rid of the Welfare state and solve the real problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:09:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the children of illegal invaders have birthright citizenships why was no case brought before SCOTUS during Operation Wetback? So the original premise of the title of the thread SCOTUS HAS NOT adjudicated this issue, leaving Article 1 Section 8 in full effect. Great Holy Jesus, this is like trying to have a conversation with a dolphin. 1. Operation Wetback was an organized border enforcement effort 60 years ago where we caught and deported people who had entered illegally. Not people who were born here. I'm gonna guess that's probably why there were no cases brought involving birthright citizenship in the wake of it. Once again you are posting incorrect information. You are beyond reason, but for anyone who actually cares, look up Operation Wetback. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
