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

[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 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.

Where does it say 'must be domiciled in the U.S.'?

 

[Liberty777]

Just on welfare assitant programs for illegals n their children we spend a crazy amount. Im sure the left is dreaming up another policie as we speak. We can't continue to support any n everyone that is a fact. I don't c why this is even an argument.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

I haven't ignored anything. Nobody has denied that illegals are within the jurisdiction of the state or the US, however the term jurisdiction has many different meanings. The Citizenship Clause requires the parents to be domiciled/Residing within the US "and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". Just because they are subject to civil law does not mean they have political rights per WKA. Plyler has no bearing on the WKA case or the Citizenship Clause. The portion of which you cite from Plyler is nothing more than dicta, it is not holding nor is it precedent, it is merely the opinion of the Justice, it is not a crucial element of the decision. To understand your cited paragraph you must understand the case of The Exchange.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

NO, according to my claim- a person who is not allowed by law to vote, or be conscripted or have possession of a firearm or knife - they have NO Constitutional Rights, they only have the few Constitutional Protections I have stated and even your own cite in Plyler states, 5th and 14th Due Process and 14th Equal Protection, all of which are directed at the state and not the person.

A 17 year old girl born in the US from ancestors that came over on the Mayflower would be born a US Citizen by the very simple fact that her ancestors became US Citizens at the signing of the US Constitution. Your analogy shows your ignorance of actual history.

Jurisdiction has everything to do with it. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. So what civil law grants children born to illegals citizenship since the 14th Amendment is nothing more than declaratory of existing law? You have yet to answer this very simple and fundamental question. (I already gave the answer earlier).

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Where does it say 'must be domiciled in the U.S.'?

Do you not see the bolded portions? including children here born of resident aliens and 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.”
Do you not understand the words born of resident aliens or the children born of parents domiciled within the US? SMFH

 

[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.

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.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"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.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

 

[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

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.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery. I've included documented case evidence that's reflective of my argument, while you still choose to dodge the issue, You can site your opinions all you like, it's easier to do when you can't back them.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"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.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Where does it say 'must be domiciled in the U.S.'?

Do you not see the bolded portions? including children here born of resident aliens and 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.”
Do you not understand the words born of resident aliens or the children born of parents domiciled within the US? SMFH

And again- where does it say- as you claim: 'must be domiciled in the U.S.'?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

NO, according to my claim- a person who is not allowed by law to vote, or be conscripted or have possession of a firearm or knife - they have NO Constitutional Rights,.

A 17 year old American citizen girl in her school fits that exact same description- she cannot vote, she cannot be conscripted, and she cannot possess a firearm.

Why do you think she has no Constitutional Rights?

 

[Syriusly]

[. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. .

Meaning no disrespect- but you are pulling that out of your posterior.

The courts make no reference to 'complete jurisdiction' or 'limited jurisdiction'- as both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe recognize- there is only 'jurisdiction'

Show me where either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe makes a reference to 'limited jurisdiction' versus' complete jurisdiction.

Go for it.

 

[TNHarley]

Kids are, currently.
I don't agree with anchor babies, but what can ya do? I would support amending that.
When the kids are born they should give the illegals two choices
1. you go home with your kid
2. you go home without your kid

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

Is this the best you can do, just parrot after someone's responses as if you're in the third grade? Seriously dude, grow up a little if you can't handle the forum.

 

[dani67]

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

no

 

[Syriusly]

Jurisdiction has everything to do with it. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. So what civil law grants children born to illegals citizenship since the 14th Amendment is nothing more than declaratory of existing law? You have yet to answer this very simple and fundamental question. (I already gave the answer earlier).

Texas tried to argue that 'jurisdiction' didn't really mean 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws

The majority of Justices rejected that argument.

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.

Justice Berger noted in his dissent:
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

What Liquid is trying to argue is that 'jurisdiction' within the 14th Amendment- actually means two different things- within the same paragraph- that jurisdiction written in red- means something different from the jurisdiction written in green.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally- the Supreme Court has recognized without comment that children born to illegal aliens are by birth, American citizens

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

Is this the best you can do, just parrot after someone's responses as if you're in the third grade? Seriously dude, grow up a little if you can't handle the forum.

I am arguing the facts- and you can't handle the facts

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

When and where have I avoided the USC? The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law per Wong Kim Ark, that law is the 1866 Civil Rights Act per Wong Kim Ark.

And they may receive a US Passport that says they are nothing more the US Nationals or they may receive a US Passport that says they are both a US National and a US Citizen. The State Department can deny US Passports as well, which in turn leaves Nationality and Citizenship status in question.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Jurisdiction has everything to do with it. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. So what civil law grants children born to illegals citizenship since the 14th Amendment is nothing more than declaratory of existing law? You have yet to answer this very simple and fundamental question. (I already gave the answer earlier).

Texas tried to argue that 'jurisdiction' didn't really mean 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws

The majority of Justices rejected that argument.

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.

Justice Berger noted in his dissent:
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

What Liquid is trying to argue is that 'jurisdiction' within the 14th Amendment- actually means two different things- within the same paragraph- that jurisdiction written in red- means something different from the jurisdiction written in green.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally- the Supreme Court has recognized without comment that children born to illegal aliens are by birth, American citizens

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

The Citizenship Clause is a Federal level issue, the Equal Protection clause is directed solely at the state level. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Again, I strongly suggest you comprehend the case of the Exchange from 1812 that explains that a person found within the jurisdiction of a state is subject to its laws through an implied license.

INS vs Rios-Pineda is nothing more than quoted dicta.

Who are you getting your arguments from? Elizabeth Wydra or James C Ho? I'm guessing Ho who has NO authority other than expressing his opinion. Wydra is also nothing more than an attorney, both in the same realm as Orly Taitz. SMFH