Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

The place for general political discussion.

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby Homer » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:04 pm

Stratego wrote:
Philly2 wrote:Second, we are talking about naturally born United States citizens being deported, just cause their parents crossed a border they weren't supposed to.

You wouldn't revoke someone's drivers license cause his parents have multiple DUI's.

You wouldn't make someone file as a sex offender cause his parents got caught hanging out in playgrounds looking for random kids to play doctor with.

You wouldn't take a gun away from someone because his parents held up a bank and shot the security guard.

But you want to deport people who were born here because of something their parents did before they were born.


You don't get a doctorate just because your parents faked a doctorate. US Citizenship should be a reward, not something automatic. To become a US citizen, you should have contributed to the country. Immigrant babies have not yet contributed to the country. Imagine someone getting a citizenship by simply being 'born'.


Have you gone completely bat shit crazy?

Only become a citizen if you have contributed to the country?? So basically no child in America would be a US citizen, and would be denied a US passport, making them prisoners in their own country. Good God man.
Image
User avatar
Homer
Senator
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby a777pilot » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:07 pm

again......


When all is said and done, the fact remains, that the legal status of those born in the United States of parents that are here illegally has never been decided by the Supreme Court. It needs to be. The 14th Amendment does not address that issue. If the Court says they are citizen, then we will all have an answer. Till then we are only expressing our opinions.....not fact.
To err is human. To forgive divine. Neither of which is Marine Corps policy.
User avatar
a777pilot
Mayor
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby exploited » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:40 pm

a777pilot wrote:again......


When all is said and done, the fact remains, that the legal status of those born in the United States of parents that are here illegally has never been decided by the Supreme Court. It needs to be. The 14th Amendment does not address that issue. If the Court says they are citizen, then we will all have an answer. Till then we are only expressing our opinions.....not fact.


What do you mean the 14th Amendment doesn't address it? First sentence:

"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."

The SC won't take up the issue because it doesn't need to: children born in the US to non-citizens have been granted citizenship since the Amendment was passed, and there is no other way to interpret that text. Why even include "or naturalization" otherwise?
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20736
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2145 times
Been thanked: 1680 times

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby Spider » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:56 pm

Stratego wrote:
Philly2 wrote:Second, we are talking about naturally born United States citizens being deported, just cause their parents crossed a border they weren't supposed to.

You wouldn't revoke someone's drivers license cause his parents have multiple DUI's.

You wouldn't make someone file as a sex offender cause his parents got caught hanging out in playgrounds looking for random kids to play doctor with.

You wouldn't take a gun away from someone because his parents held up a bank and shot the security guard.

But you want to deport people who were born here because of something their parents did before they were born.


You don't get a doctorate just because your parents faked a doctorate. US Citizenship should be a reward, not something automatic. To become a US citizen, you should have contributed to the country. Immigrant babies have not yet contributed to the country. Imagine someone getting a citizenship by simply being 'born'.


Preach, Johnny Rico!

Image
Every dark cloud has a silver lining. But lightning kills hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it.
User avatar
Spider
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 11265
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Out in the sticks.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 1005 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby a777pilot » Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:19 pm

exploited wrote:
a777pilot wrote:again......


When all is said and done, the fact remains, that the legal status of those born in the United States of parents that are here illegally has never been decided by the Supreme Court. It needs to be. The 14th Amendment does not address that issue. If the Court says they are citizen, then we will all have an answer. Till then we are only expressing our opinions.....not fact.


What do you mean the 14th Amendment doesn't address it? First sentence:

"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."

The SC won't take up the issue because it doesn't need to: children born in the US to non-citizens have been granted citizenship since the Amendment was passed, and there is no other way to interpret that text. Why even include "or naturalization" otherwise?


Well, they, the SC has taken up a very similar case once before. It involved the citizenship of a person returning to the United States from China, born here in the USA of two Chinese citizens living here in the USA legally. The issue of those born here of those NOT here legally was not addressed. Yes, this was after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
To err is human. To forgive divine. Neither of which is Marine Corps policy.
User avatar
a777pilot
Mayor
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby Spider » Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:23 pm

The 14th doesn't stipulate any legal requirement for the parents whatsoever. It simply states that you have to exit the birth canal while on this side of the imaginary line, regardless of who or what your parents are. Anyone on this side of that line is subject to US jurisdiction, since of course the US exercises sovereignty over it.

Its very simple, and you're working hard to obfuscate it.
Every dark cloud has a silver lining. But lightning kills hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it.
User avatar
Spider
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 11265
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Out in the sticks.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 1005 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby exploited » Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:24 pm

a777pilot wrote:
exploited wrote:
a777pilot wrote:again......


When all is said and done, the fact remains, that the legal status of those born in the United States of parents that are here illegally has never been decided by the Supreme Court. It needs to be. The 14th Amendment does not address that issue. If the Court says they are citizen, then we will all have an answer. Till then we are only expressing our opinions.....not fact.


What do you mean the 14th Amendment doesn't address it? First sentence:

"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."

The SC won't take up the issue because it doesn't need to: children born in the US to non-citizens have been granted citizenship since the Amendment was passed, and there is no other way to interpret that text. Why even include "or naturalization" otherwise?


Well, they, the SC has taken up a very similar case once before. It involved the citizenship of a person returning to the United States from China, born here in the USA of two Chinese citizens living here in the USA legally. The issue of those born here of those NOT here legally was not addressed. Yes, this was after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.


That's true they did address that. But again you see that they decided on the side of allowing it:

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[1]
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20736
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2145 times
Been thanked: 1680 times

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby a777pilot » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:58 pm

Yes, that is the case, but the Court used the reasoning of Mr. Wong's lawyers that his parents were here legally, so he was under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Who knows what the Court might have said if his parents were here illegally. That issue still needs to be addressed.
To err is human. To forgive divine. Neither of which is Marine Corps policy.
User avatar
a777pilot
Mayor
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby exploited » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:19 pm

a777pilot wrote:Yes, that is the case, but the Court used the reasoning of Mr. Wong's lawyers that his parents were here legally, so he was under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Who knows what the Court might have said if his parents were here illegally. That issue still needs to be addressed.


He was always under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. That is quite specifically what the court ruled:

The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli).
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20736
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2145 times
Been thanked: 1680 times

Re: Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act?

Postby Thor » Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:52 pm

I believe one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in United States history is the intentional misapplication and misuse of the 14th Amendment to make anchor babies U.S. citizens. It ought to be done away with.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
-William Ernest Henley
User avatar
Thor
Citizen
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 7:50 pm
Location: Southern California
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest