Are Children of Illegal Immigrants Citizens of the U.S.?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

They are not born illegally, they are simply born citizens and nationals of their parents home nation. They are born as US Nationals if born in the US to illegal parents. Not all US Nationals are US Citizens, yet all US Citizens are also US Nationals.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Syriusly]

I'd have to go through those laws that have been established and its original intent during the period the Constitution was implemented, and look at those defining characteristics of what constitutes a citizen of the United States.


United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to deal with citizenship of former slaves.

How hilarious- you quote the Naturalization Act of 1790- which was repealed- and ignore the language of the 14th Amendment- apparently believing it only applies to former slaves.

This is part of the United States Constitution- unlike your void Act of 1790-

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Very simple- there are two conditions:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Is a child in the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? Yes.

What child would not be? The child of a foreign diplomat(or an invading army).

The Constitution is quite clear on the issue.

Any child born in the United States- other than children of diplomats- is born a U.S. citizen.

"who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States"

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization
- “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)


That's what happens when people don't read before they post. Care to give it another go genius?

Sigh.

"An Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization (March 26, 1790)

• Applied only to naturalization- not natural born citizens
• Was voided by the passage 5 years later of the Naturalization Act of 1790
• Also said that this applied only to free white persons

Both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts are laws- superceded by the United States Constitution which says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Very simple- there are two conditions:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Is a child in the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? Yes.

What child would not be? The child of a foreign diplomat(or an invading army).

The Constitution is quite clear on the issue.

Any child born in the United States- other than children of diplomats- is born a U.S. citizen.

You don't get to ignore the United States Constitution.

Do try to follow along.

The naturalization act of 1790 specified conditions where an immigrant would be considered a naturalized citizen in the United States.

The fourteen amendment was created solely as a result of the civil war and slavery that was abolished later through the thirteenth amendment. The fourteen ammedment was established to give blacks equal rights to be called naturalized citizens as whites were given previously in the act of 1790.

Unless you can provide quotes and documentation showing the legislatures' intent of the time the amendment was established, slavery was the only issue the fourteenth amendment was created to resolve.

Those two conditions you posted were already presented under the act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization of 1790. Read it again.

Do try to follow.

The Constitution- as written- provides for two kinds of citizens- Natural born citizens- and naturalized citizens. Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution to write laws regarding Naturalization- but not law regarding Natural born citizens.

The naturalization act of 1790 specified conditions where a immigrant would become a citizen- or more specifically a 'white person' would become a citizen- if they are not born in the United States. When they were naturalized- their children- also immigrants would also become naturalized.

Which is all fascinating- but the Naturalization Act of 1790 was void 5 years later- and had nothing to do with Natural born citizens.

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention blacks or slaves- it specifically says 'all persons'- so once again- here is what the Constitution actually says about who is born a citizen:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Very simple- there are two conditions:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Is a child in the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? Yes.

What child would not be? The child of a foreign diplomat(or an invading army).

The Constitution is quite clear on the issue.

Any child born in the United States- other than children of diplomats- is born a U.S. citizen.

What you consistently refuse to do is deal with the actual language of the Constitution of the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

You refuse to address the actual language of the Constitution- because of course you have no way of disputing the clear and concise language that makes anyone born in the United States a citizen at birth- other than children born to diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Maybe if they aren't issued a birth license before they are born?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous – of course they were born here 'legally':

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 14th Amendment, US Cont.

 

[Syriusly]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

This is what the Constitution says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How, based upon the actual words of the Constitution- is a child born to an illegal immigrant in the United States- not a U.S. citizen?

 

[Syriusly]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

Where does the Constitution say any of that is relevant?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's like saying thieves should be able to bequeath their ill gotten gains to their descendants if they had never been caught.

Seriously? Of course not. Just because you steal a priceless painting from someone's home, does not mean you can leave it to your children and expect them to have legal ownership over it. That would never fly in the art world.

What would you recommend doing with the children of illegal immigrants then? Have them deported?

Have them go home with their parents naturally.

Derp.

If they aren't minors any longer, I would assume they are citizens of their parents nation. If not, well, naturally, currently they are citizens as it stands, you can't make retroactive laws. So I guess they have to stay.

People's actions are predicated on how law is written at the time of their behavior. It's obviously no fault of the kids that are here. But the parents need to go. It will be nice for the State getting to suck the children dry of their financial resources trying to get the parents back into the country though, won't it?

But obviously it is a bad law that is causing unintended and ill advised affects. D.C. should deal with it.

This is also as ignorant as it is ridiculous – US citizens can't be 'deported,' nor can they be compelled to leave the country with their parents.

It's hard to tell which is more offensive: the ignorance or the bigotry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

Irrelevant.

Again, a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, the immigration status of his parents has no bearing whatsoever on his citizenship.

 

[Kat]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

Where does the Constitution say any of that is relevant?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I didn't say it did. I merely gave my opinion.

 

[Kat]

They are, but I don't necessarily think they should be. After all they were born here illegally. Illegals are coming in droves to have children here. Why is that? To suck off the tit of the government?

How can someone be born illegally? Answer that one.

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

Irrelevant.

Again, a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, the immigration status of his parents has no bearing whatsoever on his citizenship.

Again, I was giving my own personal opinion. That's it.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

This is what the Constitution says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How, based upon the actual words of the Constitution- is a child born to an illegal immigrant in the United States- not a U.S. citizen?

They are not recognized as being here by the federal govt, basically they have no legal domicile here and as such are not really here even though they have come into our country. They are not born "and subject to our jurisdiction" in any political form since their parents have no legality, even though by simply being here they do have a municipal rights.

Wong Kim Ark is explicit as to whom and how the 14th is applied, there is no clear and concise language in the 14th citizenship clause. "And subject to the jurisdiction" requires more than just being subject to civil law.

 

[Syriusly]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

This is what the Constitution says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How, based upon the actual words of the Constitution- is a child born to an illegal immigrant in the United States- not a U.S. citizen?

They are not recognized as being here by the federal govt, basically they have no legal domicile here and as such are not really here even though they have come into our country. They are not born "and subject to our jurisdiction" in any political form since their parents have no legality, even though by simply being here they do have a municipal rights.

How are they 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

• The parents can be arrested by the United States
  
• The parents can be deported by the United States
• The children can be removed from their parents custody by Child Protective Services in the United States.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- which just confirms the obvious.

See Plyler v. Doe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

This is what the Constitution says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How, based upon the actual words of the Constitution- is a child born to an illegal immigrant in the United States- not a U.S. citizen?

They are not recognized as being here by the federal govt, basically they have no legal domicile here and as such are not really here even though they have come into our country. They are not born "and subject to our jurisdiction" in any political form since their parents have no legality, even though by simply being here they do have a municipal rights.

Wong Kim Ark is explicit as to whom and how the 14th is applied, there is no clear and concise language in the 14th citizenship clause. "And subject to the jurisdiction" requires more than just being subject to civil law.

Welcome to the forum, enjoy exhibiting your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Unkotare]

The 'interpretation' of some dimwit on the internet ^^^^^^^ obviously has no force of law. Someone has been letting liquid "reign" too much.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have my own views but I want to hear what you guys think first.

There are NO laws that declare children born to illegals to be US Citizens. The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of US Law (Wong Kim Ark). It is only policy (7FAM1111) where in the President has attempted to recognize them as such. Policy is easily changed with a new President.

This is what the Constitution says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How, based upon the actual words of the Constitution- is a child born to an illegal immigrant in the United States- not a U.S. citizen?

They are not recognized as being here by the federal govt, basically they have no legal domicile here and as such are not really here even though they have come into our country. They are not born "and subject to our jurisdiction" in any political form since their parents have no legality, even though by simply being here they do have a municipal rights.

Wong Kim Ark is explicit as to whom and how the 14th is applied, there is no clear and concise language in the 14th citizenship clause. "And subject to the jurisdiction" requires more than just being subject to civil law.

Welcome to the forum, enjoy exhibiting your ignorance and stupidity.

Exhibiting my ignorance and stupidity? I suggest you start reading the laws and history starting in 1606 to the present. I also suggest you read the WKA decision and show in it where Justice Gray deems anybody born here from illegal parents is also born a US Citizen. If you can do that ( to this date nobody has been able to do such) you might then have your claim validated, until then the only ignorance here seems to be yours since you have no idea about the Citizenship Clause what-so-ever.

Take the challenge so I can put you in your rightful place, in the corner of the classroom with a dunce cap.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The 'interpretation' of some dimwit on the internet ^^^^^^^ obviously has no force of law. Someone has been letting liquid "reign" too much.

What law grants children born to illegals, citizenship? The 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act (Wong Kim Ark).

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

 

[Unkotare]

Go ask the US Supreme Court, dimwit.