Fight over the 14th Amendment

Aug 29, 2012 Full story: The Kaleidoscope 115

For years, New Jersey barred U.S.-born college students from receiving state financial aid if their parents were in this country illegally.

Full Story
nym8387

Brooklyn, NY

#61 Aug 31, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you feel free to add to the Sc decision. the only problem is that birthright by land is how it has always been. the 14th took racism out of the equation.
how about this definition of alegiance from the sc
btw you conveniently only posted one page of the record.
[The fourteenth 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 all 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
(won kim)
let me repeat it for you,
"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
how about these words from howard when he introduced the 14th,
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born
within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws."
"They became such in virtue of national law, or
rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as
being subjects or citizens of that country"
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
i dont see anything about the status of the parents. besides, are you going to argue that the child born here is not subject to our laws.
I read all this and its so clear to me that it only apply to the children of u.s. citizens or legal residents. But whatever you say it won't matter the law will be fixed so that it only apply to people who are lawfully in the country. If the illegal immigration law is enforced this wouldn't even be an issue.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#62 Aug 31, 2012
nym8387 wrote:
<quoted text>I read all this and its so clear to me that it only apply to the children of u.s. citizens or legal residents. But whatever you say it won't matter the law will be fixed so that it only apply to people who are lawfully in the country. If the illegal immigration law is enforced this wouldn't even be an issue.
so what part of "or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States" do you think excludes children born to people who reside here undocumented or illegal?

wishful thinking does not make it so.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#63 Aug 31, 2012
You love to pull things out of context. The Wong Kim Ark decision was about a person born to foreign nationals in the US legally.

The SCOTUS has never actually addressed the case of a person born to foreign nationals here illegally. It will, though, because this isn't going away, as much as the left might wish it would.

I notice you dropped the 'point' that aliens were not included in the classes of citizen whose children were *not* intended to birthright citizenship. That is the crux of the issue. The intent was never to allow the children of aliens birthright citizenship.

That some judge somewhere failed to read The Congressional Record and ruled counter to the stated intent of the 14th doesn't surprise me. It'll come up for discussion again, rest assured. Too many people are starting to notice.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you feel free to add to the Sc decision. the only problem is that birthright by land is how it has always been. the 14th took racism out of the equation.
how about this definition of alegiance from the sc
btw you conveniently only posted one page of the record.
[The fourteenth 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 all 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
(won kim)
let me repeat it for you,
"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
how about these words from howard when he introduced the 14th,
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born
within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws."
"They became such in virtue of national law, or
rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as
being subjects or citizens of that country"
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
i dont see anything about the status of the parents. besides, are you going to argue that the child born here is not subject to our laws.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#64 Aug 31, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what part of "or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States" do you think excludes children born to people who reside here undocumented or illegal?
wishful thinking does not make it so.
Look at the legal definition of domiciled. A person has to declare a place their primary residence, do things like register their estate, pay income taxes and the like.

If they're here illegally and living under the radar, how are they accomplishing those things?

It strikes me that you're straining really hard to legitimize that which isn't legitimate.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#65 Aug 31, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go, you do understand jurisdiction. there is no law that we can prosecute them for without the permission of their own country. now if you claim that illegals have the same status your nuts. however we know that you don{t claim that but somehow you think that they are not under our jurisdiction.
The difference is, there's no treaty between nations governing people who sneak into the country illegally. The very notion is absurd! Of course, these are foreign nationals and the absence of a treaty is only indicative of the fact that they're not supposed to sneak in!

Sheesh!
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#66 Aug 31, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what part of "or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States" do you think excludes children born to people who reside here undocumented or illegal?
wishful thinking does not make it so.
You give Alabama a bad name. You moved there from Califoria didn't you? LOL!!!
barry

Rainsville, AL

#67 Sep 1, 2012
Free is free wrote:
You love to pull things out of context. The Wong Kim Ark decision was about a person born to foreign nationals in the US legally.
The SCOTUS has never actually addressed the case of a person born to foreign nationals here illegally. It will, though, because this isn't going away, as much as the left might wish it would.
I notice you dropped the 'point' that aliens were not included in the classes of citizen whose children were *not* intended to birthright citizenship. That is the crux of the issue. The intent was never to allow the children of aliens birthright citizenship.
That some judge somewhere failed to read The Congressional Record and ruled counter to the stated intent of the 14th doesn't surprise me. It'll come up for discussion again, rest assured. Too many people are starting to notice.
<quoted text>
no, i didn't drop aliens. let's just verify where you are getting aliens from. aliens in the 14th are clearly related to foreign ambassadors and dignitaries.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#68 Sep 1, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
You give Alabama a bad name. You moved there from Califoria didn't you? LOL!!!
i see that instead of answering the question you went to insults. perhaps you have no answer.
and to answer your question; no i moved here from mexico :)
barry

Rainsville, AL

#69 Sep 1, 2012
Free is free wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is, there's no treaty between nations governing people who sneak into the country illegally. The very notion is absurd! Of course, these are foreign nationals and the absence of a treaty is only indicative of the fact that they're not supposed to sneak in!
Sheesh!
what does a treaty have to do with it?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#70 Sep 1, 2012
Free is free wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at the legal definition of domiciled. A person has to declare a place their primary residence, do things like register their estate, pay income taxes and the like.
If they're here illegally and living under the radar, how are they accomplishing those things?
It strikes me that you're straining really hard to legitimize that which isn't legitimate.
perhaps you ought to ask the supreme court what they think;

"A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912)"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

so you see i'm not straining at all.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#71 Sep 1, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>perhaps you ought to ask the supreme court what they think;
"A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912)"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
so you see i'm not straining at all.
Actually, we can't trust what the Supreme Court thinks. It's obvious to anyone with any common sense that the Constitution was written for American Citizens and not illegal aliens. Why have any immigration laws at all if an illegal can be treated like a citizen? Why be an American citizen if an illegal has more rights than you do?

Countries have fallen when they forget who the hell they are. Why isn't there a United States of South America? They don't want it is why. Don't be a dumbazz and one day wake up when it's too late.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#72 Sep 2, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>what does a treaty have to do with it?
The presence of the *other 2* classes (ambassadors and ministers) of people whose children are not granted automatic citizenship is governed by treaty between nations. That makes sense, because they're *supposed* to be abroad.

The presence of aliens isn't governed by treaty, because they *are not supposed to be here*. What other way would a country deal with them than by enforcing its own laws? They are subject to our laws only because we have to do something with them.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#73 Sep 2, 2012
OK, first you said it wasn't even there; now that you admit it's there, you want to say that it relates to the other 2 classes of person whose children aren't granted citizenship. Not gonna split hairs with you; it's a third class of persons and I'm not deviating from that.

Whatever. The subject of children born to foreign nationals here illegally gonna come before the Supreme Court and the USA will eventually implement a sane citizenship policy.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, i didn't drop aliens. let's just verify where you are getting aliens from. aliens in the 14th are clearly related to foreign ambassadors and dignitaries.
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#74 Sep 2, 2012
All that says is they can't be arbitrary about it! The legal definition of domiciled still applies; by that definition, many illegal aliens don't make the cut.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>perhaps you ought to ask the supreme court what they think;
"A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912)"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
so you see i'm not straining at all.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#75 Sep 2, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we can't trust what the Supreme Court thinks. It's obvious to anyone with any common sense that the Constitution was written for American Citizens and not illegal aliens. Why have any immigration laws at all if an illegal can be treated like a citizen? Why be an American citizen if an illegal has more rights than you do?
Countries have fallen when they forget who the hell they are. Why isn't there a United States of South America? They don't want it is why. Don't be a dumbazz and one day wake up when it's too late.
now that's the answer. we can't trust the supreme court. your right. not anymore than we can trust the president or the congress. but non the less that is why the law stands as it is. it is the law. congress passed it, the president signed it the states ratified it and the supreme court defended it or at least defined it based on legal precedent and the law as it is written.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#76 Sep 2, 2012
Free is free wrote:
<quoted text>
The presence of the *other 2* classes (ambassadors and ministers) of people whose children are not granted automatic citizenship is governed by treaty between nations. That makes sense, because they're *supposed* to be abroad.
The presence of aliens isn't governed by treaty, because they *are not supposed to be here*. What other way would a country deal with them than by enforcing its own laws? They are subject to our laws only because we have to do something with them.
so you think that there is four classes of people there? you need to go back to fifth grade english class. if there was four classes of people there would be a conjunction [and] but there is none. "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" foriegners and aliens are adjectives discribing a specific group of people "who [may] belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
these are the people governed by treaty. by treaty they are not subject to our jurisdiction. any other alien is not covered by treaty and is completely subject to our jurisdiction.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#77 Sep 2, 2012
Free is free wrote:
OK, first you said it wasn't even there; now that you admit it's there, you want to say that it relates to the other 2 classes of person whose children aren't granted citizenship. Not gonna split hairs with you; it's a third class of persons and I'm not deviating from that.
Whatever. The subject of children born to foreign nationals here illegally gonna come before the Supreme Court and the USA will eventually implement a sane citizenship policy.
<quoted text>
you can hope, and maybe get lucky but you have precent and the english language against you.
i'm not sure what or who i was responding to when i questioned the word alien but the point i was trying to make is that the word itself is not found in the 14th.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#78 Sep 2, 2012
Free is free wrote:
You love to pull things out of context. The Wong Kim Ark decision was about a person born to foreign nationals in the US legally.
The SCOTUS has never actually addressed the case of a person born to foreign nationals here illegally. It will, though, because this isn't going away, as much as the left might wish it would.
I notice you dropped the 'point' that aliens were not included in the classes of citizen whose children were *not* intended to birthright citizenship. That is the crux of the issue. The intent was never to allow the children of aliens birthright citizenship.
That some judge somewhere failed to read The Congressional Record and ruled counter to the stated intent of the 14th doesn't surprise me. It'll come up for discussion again, rest assured. Too many people are starting to notice.
<quoted text>
you're right about the context of won kim but this phrase as accepted by the sc applies universally to any situation as it makes no reference to the status of the parents.
""Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
how about these words from howard when he introduced the 14th,
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born
within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws."
"They became such in virtue of national law, or
rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as
being subjects or citizens of that country"

and then you certainly can't say that howard's words are out of context.
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
i dont see anything about the status of the parents. besides, are you going to argue that the child born here is not subject to our laws?
Free is free

Albuquerque, NM

#79 Sep 3, 2012
You're posing the same arguments over and over. I've already addressed this and you're not listening.

I'm done. We'll see what happens (and it will happen) when this comes to the courts again.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you're right about the context of won kim but this phrase as accepted by the sc applies universally to any situation as it makes no reference to the status of the parents.
""Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States"
how about these words from howard when he introduced the 14th,
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born
within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws."
"They became such in virtue of national law, or
rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as
being subjects or citizens of that country"
and then you certainly can't say that howard's words are out of context.
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
i dont see anything about the status of the parents. besides, are you going to argue that the child born here is not subject to our laws?
El Cid

Austin, TX

#80 Sep 3, 2012
Juan wrote:
There is no fight. Anyone born on U. S. soil is a citizen, it's as simple as that. It's been that way for over 200 years and it's not about to change now.
We are fighting the same battles that blacks fought back in the 50's and 60's.
Your ignorance is unending Juanita. It has not been that way for 200 years and certainly illegal aliens cannot even compare to american citizens. Illegal aliens are all criminals who demand rights denied them due their criminality. Black American citizens were denied their rights due to their race.
The only right an illegal alien has is to be put in chans and deported back their home country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illegal Immigration Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
California's reaction to Obama's impending immi... 14 min scirocco 19
Obama's plan: 'Deport felons, not families' 18 min RustyS 31
Obama's Amnesty Pushes Blacks Aside 50 min Lawrence Wolf 142
Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sues Obama Over Im... 1 hr Le Duped 6
What to Expect in Obama's Immigration Order 1 hr Uncle Sam 10
Boehner weighs expanding suit over Obama execut... 1 hr Le Duped 212
Obama to detail his executive action on immigra... 1 hr barefoot2626 79

Illegal Immigration People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE