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

[Unkotare]

There is nothing so dangerous as...

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution- apparently this is a new concept to you- is the Supreme law of the United States.

What the 14th Amendment did do was codify American common law- which was descended from British Common law

From Wong Kim Ark:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And the first statement of Wong Kim Ark notes that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen- because of the 14th Amendment

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

 

[Syriusly]

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.

From Wong Kim Ark:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And the first statement of Wong Kim Ark notes that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen- because of the 14th Amendment

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

 

[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.

From Wong Kim Ark:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And the first statement of Wong Kim Ark notes that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen- because of the 14th Amendment

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Nice quote but why did you not bolden this part of the last paragraph?

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

WKA parents had a legal domicil here that was recognized by the US Govt. The context of foreigner in the WKA case is one that has entered the US via our laws.

Again, you fail.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

From Wong Kim Ark:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And the first statement of Wong Kim Ark notes that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen- because of the 14th Amendment

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Nice quote but why did you not bolden this part of the last paragraph?

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

WKA parents had a legal domicil here that was recognized by the US Govt. The context of foreigner in the WKA case is one that has entered the US via our laws.

Again, you fail.

Sigh- yes- the Wong Kim's did have a permanent domicil.

But Wong Kim doesn't say that is required.

Once again- look at the language of the 14th Amendment

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 know you prefer to ignore the Constitution- but those are the simple words- with only two requirements:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Born subject to the Jurisdiction

And Wong Kim Ark says that


The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And this is followed by Plyler v. Doe- which says that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

In order for you to rationally argue that the child born to an illegal alien in the United States you have to explain how that child is not within the jurisdiction of the United States- even though the Supreme Court confirmed in Plyler v. Doe that he is.

 

[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.

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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

 

[Syriusly]

I have to get some sleep.

I look forward to seeing how you avoid dealing with the explicit language of the United States Constitution tomorrow.

 

[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.

From Wong Kim Ark:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And the first statement of Wong Kim Ark notes that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen- because of the 14th Amendment

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Nice quote but why did you not bolden this part of the last paragraph?

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

WKA parents had a legal domicil here that was recognized by the US Govt. The context of foreigner in the WKA case is one that has entered the US via our laws.

Again, you fail.

Sigh- yes- the Wong Kim's did have a permanent domicil.

But Wong Kim doesn't say that is required.

Once again- look at the language of the 14th Amendment

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 know you prefer to ignore the Constitution- but those are the simple words- with only two requirements:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Born subject to the Jurisdiction

And Wong Kim Ark says that


The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And this is followed by Plyler v. Doe- which says that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

In order for you to rationally argue that the child born to an illegal alien in the United States you have to explain how that child is not within the jurisdiction of the United States- even though the Supreme Court confirmed in Plyler v. Doe that he is.

It doesn't state domcil is required? It was part of the ruling and was part of the question the court answered. SMFH Plyler v Doe does not confirm anything beyond the civil jurisdiction of the child who entered illegally into the US. What you are quoting from Plyler is nothing more then a footnote which is nothing more then mere dicta and has NO bearing, holding, or precedent when it comes to a child born here to illegals. Plyler is nothing more than a State case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have to get some sleep.

I look forward to seeing how you avoid dealing with the explicit language of the United States Constitution tomorrow.

The 14th is nothing more than declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 CRA. Maybe you can explain why prior to 1866 only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

WKA

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.

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that

all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1; 14 Stat. 27.

The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and, on June 16, 1866, by joint resolution, proposed it to the legislatures of the several States, and on July 28, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proclamation showing it to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of States. 14 Stat. 358; 1 Stat. 708.

The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

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

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101. But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.

and further down

By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have to get some sleep.

I look forward to seeing how you avoid dealing with the explicit language of the United States Constitution tomorrow.

Since you earlier referred to the Exchange in WKA from Plyler, here is the section from WKA

7 Cranch 138, 139.

The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption "from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found" were stated as follows:

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were [p686] not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign counties are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.

7 Cranch 144.

In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.

Jurisdiction in this context merely means subject to civil law.

 

[Unkotare]

Ok, this loon is officially out there with the nut who insists the moon is man-made and all the planets are hollow.

............

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

I really can not help it if you flunked out of American history. Contrary to your knowledge of our country, the fourteenth amendment pertains to the ending of slavery and providing blacks equal rights through the establishment of the thirteenth amendment.

The fact you have not produced any evidence of the legislatures original intent to mean anything but pertaining to the end of slavery is all I need to see regarding your supposed "knowledge" on the subject

If however you can prove the legislatures of that time was referring to illegal immigrants and anyone else other than slavery, I would again like to see that evidence .... not your unsupported "OPINION" of what you think it ought to mean.

 

[Unkotare]

All these 'historians' and 'constitutional scholars' here,

 

[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?

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.

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship. The actual clause of establishing citizenship within the amendment is only reflective of Congress's reversal of a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

Historically the fourteenth amendment was also used in an attempt to give women equal rights through use of the equality clause, That attempt of interpretation would be rejected, as the legislation was not written to address the rights of anyone but African Americans through addressing the case above. Which is why women had to pursue the own course of creating a constitutional amendment in granting those rights among women.

 

[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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

So you think that a 17 year old girl in school is not within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because

• She cannot vote
• She cannot be conscripted
• She cannot have possession of a firearm or knife

Even if she is an American citizen- if she has a child- it isn't an American citizen?

Of course your 'theory' is all nonsense- rejected by the Supreme Court.

The reason why an illegal alien cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm(not even sure that is true) is because they are subject to the jurisdiction of American laws.

Again- Plyler v. Doe:
This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

So you think that a 17 year old girl in school is not within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because

• She cannot vote
• She cannot be conscripted
• She cannot have possession of a firearm or knife

Even if she is an American citizen- if she has a child- it isn't an American citizen?

Of course your 'theory' is all nonsense- rejected by the Supreme Court.

The reason why an illegal alien cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm(not even sure that is true) is because they are subject to the jurisdiction of American laws.

Again- Plyler v. Doe:
This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

My theory is non-sense and has been rejected by the SC? LMFAO

Plyler has no bearing on the Citizenship Clause, it is nothing but dicta. Your quote is nothing but dicta and refers to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, to which the only Constitutional Protections they receive are the 5th and 14th Due Process Clauses and the 14th Equal Protection Clause (As your quote points out). The DPC and EPC of the 14th is directed at the state and not the person.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

So you think that a 17 year old girl in school is not within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because

• She cannot vote
• She cannot be conscripted
• She cannot have possession of a firearm or knife

Even if she is an American citizen- if she has a child- it isn't an American citizen?

Of course your 'theory' is all nonsense- rejected by the Supreme Court.

The reason why an illegal alien cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm(not even sure that is true) is because they are subject to the jurisdiction of American laws.

A 17 yo girl that enters the country via EWI is within the jurisdiction of the state she is in, being within that state places her within the civil jurisdiction of the US. She is subject to state and Federal Law under an implied license via The Exchange per Plyler. That doesn't grant her any political rights, nor does it recognize her as legally residing or being legally domiciled within the US. If she were to have a child here by another EWI, that child is only considered to be a US Citizen via US Policy right now due to the Presidents policy changes in 7FAM1111. Now the paragraph that 7FAM1111(d)(2) uses to justify that claim has no wording in it to actually do so.

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

You do understand that nothing in (a) or (b) even relates to the WKA paragraph that was used and how both actually contradict the very paragraph which states the parents must be domiciled in the US/Resident in the US.

 

[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?

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.

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

So you think that a 17 year old girl in school is not within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because

• She cannot vote
• She cannot be conscripted
• She cannot have possession of a firearm or knife

Even if she is an American citizen- if she has a child- it isn't an American citizen?

Of course your 'theory' is all nonsense- rejected by the Supreme Court.

The reason why an illegal alien cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm(not even sure that is true) is because they are subject to the jurisdiction of American laws.

Again- Plyler v. Doe:
This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

My theory is non-sense and has been rejected by the SC? LMFAO

Plyler has no bearing on the Citizenship Clause, it is nothing but dicta. Your quote is nothing but dicta and refers to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, to which the only Constitutional Protections they receive are the 5th and 14th Due Process Clauses and the 14th Equal Protection Clause (As your quote points out). The DPC and EPC of the 14th is directed at the state and not the person.

As Wong Kim Ark pointed out- and which you are choosing to ignore

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Plyler v. Doe states specifically that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States- far from being dicta- it is a crucial element of the decision.
Wong Kim Ark says that 'within the jurisdiction' and 'subject to the jurisdiction' the same thing.

And yes- the 14th Amendment says that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those born not within the jurisdiction of the United States- and that only includes diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They can not vote, they can not be conscripted, they can not be in possession of a firearm or knife, they only have 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Due Process protections and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause State protections. They hold NO political status, only civil status.

So you think that a 17 year old girl in school is not within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because

• She cannot vote
• She cannot be conscripted
• She cannot have possession of a firearm or knife

Even if she is an American citizen- if she has a child- it isn't an American citizen?

Of course your 'theory' is all nonsense- rejected by the Supreme Court.

The reason why an illegal alien cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm(not even sure that is true) is because they are subject to the jurisdiction of American laws.

A 17 yo girl that enters the country via EWI.

According to your claim- a person who is not allowed by law to vote, or be conscripted or have possession of a firearm or knife- is not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

According to your claim- a 17 year old girl- born in the United States to parents born in the United States- whose ancesters came over on the Mayflower- would not be within the jurisdiction of the United States.

That is how ridiculous your claim is.

Jurisidiction has nothing to do with the right to vote- or be drafted- or be able to legally posess a gun.

As a matter of fact- if the person is not within the jurisdiction of the state- the state cannot forbid that person from doing any of those things. If a person is subject to the laws of a state- the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the state.