CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:14 pm
 


martin14 wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
. It might be worthwhile to test the Supreme Court by passing legislation restricting citizenship grants to see whether the court would attempt to graft it to Wong Kim Ark, which would keep the effort in the legislative arena where it belongs.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ng_Kim_Ark

Finished reading it an hour ago. Interesting stuff.


Interesting indeed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20516
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:15 pm
 


Meanwhile this just in from the always reliable TDS:



Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:09 pm
 


Another point of view about birthright citizenship:

Quote:
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14692
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:44 pm
 


Let me put it this way Bart. If it's so easy to repeal constitutional amendments, then the next Democratic will repeal the Second Amendment. And we all know the ruckus that would cause...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20516
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:44 pm
 


:D



Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1833
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:59 pm
 


xerxes wrote:
Let me put it this way Bart. If it's so easy to repeal constitutional amendments, then the next Democratic will repeal the Second Amendment. And we all know the ruckus that would cause...

The Democrats basically have already long ago repealed the Second Amendment in most of their hubs. Look at the history of Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, etc. The most violent, trashy, shitholes in the U.S. have always been Democratic controlled "gun free zones".


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33212

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:53 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Another point of view about birthright citizenship:






Tricks, you should watch this.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:09 am
 


I try not to get my information from youtube videos, you should try it. I haven't had time to respond between school and work, but I'll try.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:20 am
 


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-222060

Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President?

Caveat: This is based off assumptions, conjecture, and some leaps of logic.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:50 am
 


xerxes wrote:
Let me put it this way Bart. If it's so easy to repeal constitutional amendments, then the next Democratic will repeal the Second Amendment. And we all know the ruckus that would cause...


It's not a repeal, it's an interpretation that's supported by previous acts of law and by the author of the amendment himself.

And here I will call you on your hypocrisy because the Democrats have long insisted that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard...an institution that did not exist until more than a century after the amendment was ratified. :idea:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:52 am
 


Tricks wrote:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060

Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President?

Caveat: This is based off assumptions, conjecture, and some leaps of logic.


The President can ignore it because the Constitution makes clear that the authority to question the President lies with Congress and the US Supreme Court.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:03 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Tricks wrote:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060

Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President?

Caveat: This is based off assumptions, conjecture, and some leaps of logic.


The President can ignore it because the Constitution makes clear that the authority to question the President lies with Congress and the US Supreme Court.

It also makes it clear virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, but I don't see republicans giving a flying fuck about that.

Also, it's never been ruled on one way or another. So you can't make that claim before it goes before USSC. If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren't ratfucks like Trump, they'd recuse themselves like the DC judge did.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:04 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
xerxes wrote:
Let me put it this way Bart. If it's so easy to repeal constitutional amendments, then the next Democratic will repeal the Second Amendment. And we all know the ruckus that would cause...


It's not a repeal, it's an interpretation that's supported by previous acts of law and by the author of the amendment himself.

And here I will call you on your hypocrisy because the Democrats have long insisted that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard...an institution that did not exist until more than a century after the amendment was ratified. :idea:

What previous acts of law is that? And the author doesn't determine the scope of the amendment, the government does. A Government that specifically brought up the possibility of foreign children being born here, and worded it this way for a reason.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:07 am
 


Tricks wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:

It's not a repeal, it's an interpretation that's supported by previous acts of law and by the author of the amendment himself.


What previous acts of law is that?


Quote:
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.


:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:09 am
 


Tricks wrote:
And the author doesn't determine the scope of the amendment, the government does.


Indeed. And President Trump is the Constitutional Executive of that same government and Congress is the Constitutionally delegated authority that issues laws that inherit authority from the Amendments. [B-o]


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 7113 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 467  468  469  470  471  472  473 ... 475  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.