Barring Citizenship To Children

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

@Bama Yankee "If the parents aren't citizens, the children shouldn't be either."
Wait. How are we defining citizenship if it's not based on the country where you were born or where you completed the rigorous application process? Are you really suggesting that a child's parents have to be born in the US in order for a child to be a US citizen? In which case, doesn't that mean that your parents parents have to be from the US in order for you to be considered a US citizen? Or will this only apply to kids born in 2010 or before 1996? Should we re-erect the old Chinese Exclusion Act but substitute Latinos? Bet you there's an undocumented worker lurking in your past somewhere. In which case, when will the anti-immigrant McCarthyistic hysteria stop?

At least the parent has to enter this country LEGALLY not ILLEGALLY. Some of your parents parents entered this country legallly through Ellis Island and registered. Many were turned away. The Federaly Immigration and Nationality Act did not exist them. Now we have to have limited and controlled immigration because we do not have the resources to take care of 30 million people. The cost is too much to the american taxpayer.
We are no longer into nation building but nation survival.

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 | 79 Comments | More Updated 8/10/09 The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:

[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Other States, like Kentucky, made the condition of citizenship dependent on either parent:“…every child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.”

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_s...

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle:“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.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

hallie wrote:

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle:“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.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Pefectly clear and stated as intended. Any who disagree have a very diabolical agenda.

It is beyond cruel and inhumane to make newborn babies with Mexican Parents......American citizens. They have the right to be proud citizens of their own Country. It is completely unfair to the Mexican parents.

Heaven forbid "sons and daughters of" illegals "end up in the Senate as Domenici. What an awful group to end up in. No, one should get automatic citizenship if their parents are both illegal. What of those who came here legally, took the test and received their citizenship the honest way. Those coming over the border just to have their children, this should stop. The hospitals know who they are.

okimar wrote:

<quoted text>
Not if we don't get the bit out of Obama's teeth and stop his Progressive agenda in November. You ain't SEEN how bad it can get.

You blame different crowd. You need no education to realize that repubs "drove the car in to ditch" and blame must stop with them.

Slavic Baptist wrote:

<quoted text>You blame different crowd. You need no education to realize that repubs "drove the car in to ditch" and blame must stop with them.

Better in the ditch than off a f##kin cliff the way THIS Administration is going.......

Name for me just one, just ONE piece of legislation THIS Administration has passed that has anywhere near the support of the majority of Americans. Do this and I'll retract what I said.

The Stimulus...67% of Americans do NOT approve

The Bailouts...57% of Americans do NOT approve

The Health Care Bill...66% of Americans do NOT approve

Suing Arizona...73% of Americans do NOT approve

Shutting down Oil Drilling in the Gulf...53% of Americans do NOT approve

The job approval rating of Barack Obama...only 41, just 41% of Americans approve. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead and tell us how Reagan was in the 40s in his first term, we know this but guess what? Reagan didn't slip from 63% approval ratings down to 41% approval ratings either did he!!! Nope, not even close to that kind of plumit.

Slavic Baptist wrote:

<quoted text>You blame different crowd. You need no education to realize that repubs "drove the car in to ditch" and blame must stop with them.

No,PROGRESSIVES drove the car in the ditch. PROGRESSIVES know no party. It is an ideology of elitism,NOT a party. Do yourself(and others)a favor and find a library,you know-a big building with LOTS and LOTS of books. Read up on Wilson and the early Progressive Movement in America. You just MIGHT be surprised and shocked at what you find. For instance,most people don't realize Wilson and his fellow Progressive ilk ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws that reduced Blacks to almost a second class citizenship status thru segregation.

Slavic Baptist wrote:

<quoted text>You blame different crowd. You need no education to realize that repubs "drove the car in to ditch" and blame must stop with them.

I don't recall any previous President before Obama openly siding with Illegal Aliens over American citizens while citizens were being murdered by illegal Aliens?

Can you provide a reference for your comment? Or, was it simply pathetic partisan crap?

END JOBS to ILLEGALS wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post!
When the mother is Mexican the kid is Mexican NOT a United States citizen!
.

Stupid post. That reasoning is stupid. Of course the kid is Mexican but also can be an american citizen if the mother is an american citizen.
LMAO

Joe Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Pefectly clear and stated as intended. Any who disagree have a very diabolical agenda.

since Jefferson was one of the founders of the constitution, his words show their intent when writting the 14th amendment.

Pro illegals only see and hear part of the 14th amendment( anyone born in the U.S. is an american cititen) and they conviently ignore the

"subject to the jusisdiction thereof"
"not subject to any foreign power"
"parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty"

it cannot get any clearer

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

@Bama Yankee "If the parents aren't citizens, the children shouldn't be either."
Wait. How are we defining citizenship if it's not based on the country where you were born or where you completed the rigorous application process? Are you really suggesting that a child's parents have to be born in the US in order for a child to be a US citizen? In which case, doesn't that mean that your parents parents have to be from the US in order for you to be considered a US citizen? Or will this only apply to kids born in 2010 or before 1996? Should we re-erect the old Chinese Exclusion Act but substitute Latinos? Bet you there's an undocumented worker lurking in your past somewhere. In which case, when will the anti-immigrant McCarthyistic hysteria stop?

Although you present a good argument, the revision doesn't need to be retroactive... in fact, it couldn't be. But clarification needs to established for future generations. I don't see where that would hurt anyone. The Chinese Exclusion Act really doesn't hold water in this case. And, please, don't put all Latinos in the mix because I'm Puerto Rican diaspora. I'm here as a born US citizen.

Undocumented workers of the past are just that... undocumented workers of the past. The situation doesn't need to be part of our present or future.

The revision would state at least one of the parents must be US-born. I don't see a problem with that revision.

The problem is in the courts. A law was passed several years ago restricting immigrant children and their immigrant parents from receiving public education and welfare in California. The court overturned it.

hallie wrote:

<quoted text>
At least the parent has to enter this country LEGALLY not ILLEGALLY. Some of your parents parents entered this country legallly through Ellis Island and registered. Many were turned away. The Federaly Immigration and Nationality Act did not exist them. Now we have to have limited and controlled immigration because we do not have the resources to take care of 30 million people. The cost is too much to the american taxpayer.
We are no longer into nation building but nation survival.

You do not seem to understand the intent as originally written i am giving you links that was given to me by a professor of law.

1st Page.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship...

2nd page

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutio...

3rd page.explaining the intent.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.p...

Take the time to study and come back and comment.

The Arguments
Errant Position #1: The term "citizen of the United States" as used in the 14th Amendment, means the same thing in the opening verse of the U.S. Constitution.
Truth: The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, does not have the same meaning as the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment.

The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.
Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase "people of the United States", and its pre-Civil War synonym, "Citizen of the United States" (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.
you or I or the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).
That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.
Because the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court.[see Dred].
A constitutional amendment may change a mechanism or methodology of a constitution, but it can never change the meaning the framers had in mind when they wrote the document. Those who wish to dishonestly apply the 14th Amendment to people concerning whom it was never intended, will try to persuade you that even though the phrase more..........

continued..........

"Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed and permanent meaning for all time, the 14th Amendment somehow changed what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that phrase. That proposition is obviously absurd and can only be promoted by people who are either ill-informed or dishonest.
Since the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment, quite clearly does embrace people of African decent, brought here for the purpose of slavery, and their posterity, this "citizen of the United States" must be a new and different term, separate and distinct from that used in the opening stanza of the US Constitution. And it is!
* Citizen of the United States (as used in opening of the US Constitution):
Any free white male who was a citizen of any of the original 13 states, and any free white male who is a citizen of any state thereafter admitted to the Union.
* citizen of the United States (as used in the Amendment):
Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state (at that time), not a citizen thereof.
In short, the 14th Amendment created another [new] class of citizen. This new type of citizen was not created by the well-settled and long existing rules and tradition of international law as relating to citizenship, such as is the case for men who gained their state citizenship by birth upon the land. This new class of citizen gained his citizenship by the citizens of the "original class of citizenship" agreeing to establish a new class of citizenship and gifting that new class of citizenship (by the Amendment) to a certain designated "class of persons" who, at that time, were without any form of citizenship.

No rational American thinks that rewarding illegal aliens for sneaking into our Country makes any sense whatsoever.

What kind of motivations define those who think illegals have RIGHTS. It is lunacy and the action of traitors.

Errant Position #2: Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 of Title 42 of the United States Code prove that the 14th Amendment applies to all Americans.

Truth: People who make this argument are not only wrong, but none too bright. Their pet theory can only pretend validity if §1983, 1985, and 1986 exist in a vacuum, which of course, they don't.

Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 are within Chapter 21, which is succinctly entitled "Civil Rights". As the California Supreme Court plainly stated:

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

As all Americans should know, our "inalienable rights" are not "given by law", but according to the organic law of the United States, i.e. the Declaration of Independence, are given by God and are not subject to interference by the government.

Since Americans claiming the original class of citizenship have "inalienable rights", what rights have 14th Amendment citizens? The answer is as clear as it is unfortunate: mere civil rights.

Proponents of this erroneous argument begin at §1983. They conveniently forget that chapter 21 begins with §1981. Isn't it odd that the proponents of this erroneous argument happen to skip the first three sections [1981, 1981a & 1982] of the Civil Rights chapter? Not really, because if they directed your attention to the beginning sections of the chapter, their argument would immediately collapse.

42 USC 1981(a): All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.

Clearly "persons" are being distinguished from "white citizens". That is because the term "person" as used in §1981 is the same "person" as in the 14th Amendment, who is the same "person" as in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman's Bureau Act, all of which deal exclusively with one "class of person", which is - Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state is not a citizen thereof.

It is also crystal clear that §1981 gives "persons" that which "white citizens" already had/have. Certainly Congress didn't write §1981 to give "white citizens" what they already had before §1981 was ever conceived!

more..........