DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on August 20, 2015, 01:21:15 PM
-
That seems to be the part folks like xo continually ignore, in the clear wording of the 14th amendment...as in SETTLED LAW.
Illegal immigrants are NOT subject to our jurisdiction. There's a whole host of legal parameters that Citizens and LEGAL Immigrants sre subject to, that ILLEGAL immigrants are not. Among them include that they can not vote, nor can they serve on jury duty. Yes, they're supposed to follow what laws are in place, but being they broke the law to come here in the 1st place, and as such are NOT completely subject to our jurisdiction, is precsiely why this issue needs to be clarified thru subsequent legislation, or a court case in front of the Supreme Court.
It's also why the ongoing reference of the Ark case is moot, since the individual in that case WAS subject to the jurisdiction of this country, because they were.......wait for it.....A LEGAL IMMIGRANT. Thus no need to rehear that case, nor any need for a Constitutional amendment
-
Wong was a legal citizen, because he was born in the US.
He was NOT an immigrant, because he was born here: no one born here can be an immigrant.
Everyone born here is a legal citizen, other than diplomat's children.
I would think that anyone in California, where there are LOTS if Chinese would know that a Chinese person named Wong Van Ark would have the surname WONG, as in China, as in Japan and Hungary and many other places, the surname comes first. So he is Mr. Wong, not Mr. Ark.
Next time check with the local Chinese restaurant and you can conform this.
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
With this one, the Force weak is.
-
And Ark's parents were LEGAL Immigrants, thus subject to the full Jurisdiction of this country, which is consistent with the 14th amendment's wording. We're talking about the parent, xo, not the child
-
The 14th amendment says NOTHING about the parents of anyone born in the US.
-
Where the hell did the baby come from?? Immaculate Conception?? A Yellowstone Geyser just spouted a baby?? The 14th was SPECIFIC in trying to protect children that had just been given birth by newly freed slaves.....AS IN THEIR PARENTS. The role of the Parents is implicit within the 14th, when you acknowledge who is being subject to the jurisdiction thereof It's not the baby, its the parents.
And per the clear wording of the 14th, any child born to parents who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country, in turn, is granted automatic citizenship to this country. That would include any and all LEGAL Immigrants/Foreigners
-
Where the hell did the baby come from?? Immaculate Conception?? A Yellowstone Geyser just spouted a baby?? The 14th was SPECIFIC in trying to protect children that had just been given birth by newly freed slaves.....AS IN THEIR PARENTS. The role of the Parents is implicit within the 14th, when you acknowledge who is being subject to the jurisdiction thereof It's not the baby, its the parents.
And per the clear wording of the 14th, any child born to parents who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country, in turn, is granted automatic citizenship to this country. That would include any and all LEGAL Immigrants/Foreigners
I think you are in error , in that anyone that is located on US territory is subject to US jurisdiction. The visit may be brief , but during the time that the person is in the jurisdiction , that person is "subject".
-
Subject to laws, but not jurisdiction, as i provided in a pair of examples.....No Jury Duty, No Voting. And don't get me started on Sanctuary Cities
-
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jurisdiction+definition
I think our disagreement is in the meaning of the word, jurisdiction.
A non citizen can be within the jurisdiction of the USA easily and often, if they have legitimate business in the USA it behooves them to learn the laws of the nation and the state and city(s) they will be in because there may be things legal at their home and not here.
I understand that it is popular for Japanese tourists to visit gun ranges and rent firearms for an experience that they can't have at home.
If you are a Nudist you might enjoy the beaches of Germany.
Entering the differing jurisdictions closes one rule book and opens another.
ju·ris·dic·tion
/?jo?or?s?dikSH(?)n/
noun
noun: jurisdiction
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway, leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
"an area under French jurisdiction"
•the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
•a system of law courts; a judicature.
plural noun: jurisdictions
"in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
•the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court
-
This is just babbling, sirs.. You may continue to babble.
But you are wrong. It will take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. And not even that could be retroactive, so there is no legal way that anyone born here prior to the amendment being enacted could be deported.
-
Of course it would take a constitutional amendment to "end birthright citizenship". That however HAS NEVER BEEN WHAT I'VE BEEN REFERRING TO, and as such wouldn't require such a Judicial effort. SCOTUS merely needs to better clarify the current Federal statutes as it relates to the 14th, which would continue to bestow birthright citizenship, to ANY child born to those who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country......that being LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nor would that be retroactive. It would simply take effect upon the date of the ruling
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/more-chinese-hiring-us-surrogates-for-babies/vi-BBm1KkA
Science outruns the law .
-
Suppose an undocumented immigrant runs a red light. The cop stops him and gives him a ticket.
He goes to court and says "I do not have to ay this ticket, because I am NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the US government".
So of course, because sirs is right, the judge says "You're right, you aren't, you got me there!"
How likely is this scenario?
Anyone in this country is under the jurisdiction (ie the Legal system) of its laws.
Perhaps the Ambassador of Belarus would not have to pay the fine, okay. But he is clearly a diplomat, and diplomats are exempt.
When I lived in Mexico, my friend Thierry Brachet, who despite the name and the fact that he was half Greek and half French, was a Mexican citizen. He drove an old Land Rover, and he never got a ticket for parking or driving in Mexico City, because his old Land Rover had Diplomatic Plates from the Belgian Embassy, where Thierry's brother worked.
-
ANY criminal, be it a rapist, murderer, kidnapper, or tresspasser, that commits a crime within our borders, is within our jurisdiction of prosecuting them.
That's not the same thing the 14th is referencing, when a person is subject to the jurisidiction thereof. It implicit to anyone legally here, who has standing to be here, and may be mandated to perform functions of the citizenry, that a criminal would not be able to perform, because they are in fact, a criminal
-
.....this is again why SCOTUS should be presented a case, that make this point abundantly clear, as it relates to who specifically the Founders intended jurisidiction to be encompassing, so that the ongoing abuse of the 14th can be ceased
-
The Founders had nothing really to say about who is a citizen. They may not have thought of their slaves as citizens or of Indians not taxes as citizens, but anyone who was not an Indian or and African born here was clearly a citizen, because that was English Common Law and it is the basis for all our laws.
In 1785, the US was underpopulated and they were certainly not in the mood to turn down anyone.
The 14th Amendment said if you are born here, you are a cirtizen, period. It did not say the words "slave", "former slave" , "Black:, "Negro, "Colored Person" or "person of African descent".
And then the Wong case said nothing at all about the nationality of Wong's parents. It simpley said "Wong was born here: despite Chinese exclusion act, Wong stays: Wong is American." How come Wong American? WONG BORN HERE!
Everyone born here, American!
First you say that the Courts do not even have to hear the case. Now you think that they have to.
I see this as a sign that you know you have lost the argument. OOOO! That must hurt!
-
You can throw rationalization after rationalization after rationalization, all you want. The wording of the 14th is clear. The Wong case was consistent with that wording, since the parents were LEGAL foreigners, and completely subject to the jurisidction of this country's mandates for LEGAL foreigners. What's being done in its present format is granting citizenship to children of illegal foreigners, who have no standing or obligations to this country, as in they are not subject to our jurisdiction, outside of whatever laws they may have broken......which incidentally, crossing here illegally was their 1st criminal offense
That's why SCOTUS needs a case to rule on, in order to put this no-where-near-settled issue to rest
-
Nowhere in the Wong decision is the nationality of Wong's parents mentioned. He was ruled to be a citizen because and ONLY because he was born in the USA.
The Court does not have to rule on this: they could refuse to hear it and thereby let the current situation continue: anyone born here is a citizen. Millions of people have been born here to non-citizen parents, and millions more to their children.
This is just a bit of crap that the Fox Snooze Hannity like to drone on about.
-
One more time....WE HAD NO IMMIGRATION POLICY AT THE TIME OF THE 14TH. And the Wongs were within the full jurisdiction of this Government since......wait for it......WERE LEGAL TO HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY. The fact that nationality wasn't brought up was irrelevent, since they were legal to be here, in the 1st place. He was ruled to be a citizen, since the case fulfilled all attributes of the 14th amendment
The Court absolutely needs to put this to rest, or the 14th will continue to be abused by folks like yourself. Yes, it is possible they could decline to hear any such case and let it ride....likely they won't however
-
I could imagine a judge ruling that a mother had entered the US from foreign territories by illegal means , but that her daughter came into the US from territory and with means that no one wants to make illegal.
Seriously though , how do the countries that do not recognize native birth as a claim to citizenship deal with the persons that are born with no papers or flawed papers?
I presume that these are still regarded as persons.
-
Persons?, yes......automatic citizens of their country, with all the built in rights, protections, and privileges?, not so much
-
There is a little danger , in allowing a government to decide what sort of person it will respect.
Government decisions are generally self serving to the government.
Citizens respect should be irrefutable and hard to loose for most of the people that the government serves , lest the government disenfranchise all the inconvenient.
Why do we make it so very hard to become a citizen by normal process?
It should not be harder and more trouble than having a child.
-
The Court absolutely needs to put this to rest, or the 14th will continue to be abused by folks like yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABUSED BY ME?
Precisely HOW am I abusing anything?
I am an American-born, 14th generation American. I had at least one ancestor come over on the Mayflower. Others served as Minutemen in the Revolutionary War. My father was a geneologist, and I therefore know that the last immigrant ancestor that I have arrived here in 1831, from the town of Bacup in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and settled in Pennsylvania/ ]
First you claim that the Supreme Court does not have to do anything, that all Congress has to do is pass some chickenshit law. Now you beg for the Supremes to intervene.
The ONLY WAY that birthright citizenship is going to be ended is by a constitutional amendment. It is as simple as that.
-
It's amazing this inability of a language professor to continually ignore context and try to pull out the literal card, when everyone else can see it as well.
FOLKS LIKE YOURSELF, NOT YOU PERSONALLY NOR ONLY. FOLKS LIKE YOURSELF WHO CONTINUALLY MUTATE THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED ABOLISHING THE 14TH AMENDMENT
NOR HAVE EVER CLAIMED THAT THE SUPREME COURT "DOES NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING". I merely referenced 2 options, that YES, one of those is Congress passes a law, and if by chance that law isn't appealed up to the Supreme Court, then they will not have had to do anything. NOR would that law be simply trying to abolish the 14th. It would merely be clarifying the Federal statutes as it relates to 14th's application to ILLEGAL Immigrants
14th remains alive and well, bestowing automatic citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil, to any LEGAL immigrant
-
Anyone born here is born a citizen. The Courts all recognize this. Their parents' citizenship is now and always has been irrelevant.
Accusing me is lame. You are a real twit, sirs.
Not just a figurative twit, but an actual twit.
I am retired and have no job and post here for fun. You, presumably are always online and always posting this nonsense.
Does someone PAY you an actual salary for wasting your time here?
You should be massaging vertabrae or playing with carpal tunnels. What we are doing here does not deserve any payment.
-
It is now relevant, since the 14th's intent was never a foundation to immigration policy, and its wording was implicit to all those who are here legally, as in "subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's why either the fix is made via legislatively, or more likely judicially. Simple as that
-
Seriously, how is it that you have nothing better to do than to spew your silly opinions in this obscure chatroom? Have you no real job?
I have a valid excuse: I worked from age 18 until 68 and am retired and bored.
I really should do something more constructive. But my fan is not portable and it is pretty hot here.
-
So much better if others would simply shut-up & tow the line of you superior minded folks, right?
If you're bored, you should take the time to educate yourself in matters of U.S. Politics, how Government functions, the Constitutional Seperation of powers, as well as the limitations of each branch, & capped off with U.S. History
-
I h=know far, far more than you ever will. Most of what you know is untrue.
-
Your opinion has been weighed, measured, and found wanting
-
My opinion being found wanting by you is pretty much an affirmation of its total validity.
Your knowledge of history is bass-ackwards, your knowledge of the law an Constitution is warped, and you debating skills involve logical fallacies.
-
LOL.......gotta love the projection