Left-Wing, Right-wing, or Central?

[colourwheel]

 

Back to my point, being born in the United States does not guarentee citizenship as provided by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Jus sanguinis.

 

Then prove it. Show just one case where SCOTUS has ruled against or denied someone as being a citizen who was born in the U.S. My guess would be you wouldn't be able to find one because no such case exist. This is settled law.

Edited August 29, 2015 by colourwheel

[Lisnpuppy]

Well...it is decided only in the sense of until the next case is heard. Decided until it is decided again? Sounds like a Yogi Berra quote.

 

There are arguments on what exactly the lawmakers meant by "under the jurisdiction." Various SCOTUS (in dissenting opinions or asked off-the-clock so to speak) and other lawmakers, Secretaries of State, etc have said to settle it one way or another an amendment is needed. There has been no less that 5 attempts (more maybe) of lawmakers introducing legislation to begin the process of making this more clear (and say illegals' children are not citizens at birth) but none of these have gotten far at all. I'm not sure that it would get the necessary vote from the State's needed to pass an amendment.

 

Incidentally, most do not view the previously discussed case as final because the court was not presented with the question of "under the jurisdiction" and very neatly avoided the issue. I suspect it will indeed take an amendment.

[Aurielius]

@Lisn

I suspect there are enough 'red states' too ratify an amendment but I doubt that given the current mix in Washington DC that they will get the chance unless there is party change in the WH. and a retention of a congressional republican majority..big ifs...but who knows.. since this is the most chaotic pre-election I have ever seen. I would not bet the farm on any outcome, at least not at this juncture.

[dpgillam]

What Trump is "guilty" of saying are the same generalizations that have been said for 6 decades, and his detractors work very hard to ignore his noted efforts to point out not everyone entering illegals fills the complaints he makes. He has, every time he makes his complaints, admitted that there are some decent ones criminally entering as well.

 

But of the comments he made on illegals that American Latinos are still crying and whining about:

 

we are waiting for the trial of a mexican who murdered a woman in San Francisco, who has already been deported several times for committing violent crimes while in the country illegally. No vaguely sane reason has been offered as to why he killed her.

 

78 illegal aliens stand charged of 418 cases of rape against children, in North Carolina, in August2015 alone. All of these individuals have a court date scheduled for, or were arrested for, child rape in August.

 

Juan Galindo,an illegal alien man raped and killed a 1-month-old female infant in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 2010. The scum possesses a criminal history that includes drug charges, driving under the influence, and a prior sexual assault of a minor charge, and had been previously deported from the US.

 

Sixto Lopez Laines, an illegal alien from Mexico, is to serve 26 life sentences. The 31-year-old was convicted on September 19, 2007 for the rape, forcible sodomy and object sexual penetration of his stepdaughter. She was nine when the horror began. There were at least 26 offenses, but officials believe there were many more than that. To quote, "Not only was the stepfather's DNA found inside the girl's vagina, she was pregnant by him.”

 

And this is a smattering of the examples. So, there are no “lies” in Trump's complaints of illegals that come here and rape and murder our citizens. Our courts have the documentation as a matter of public record. Our prisons have the living proof of filth thrown out of this nation repeatedly for breaking its laws, that come back to commit the most inhumane of horrors.

 

As for Hillary, “what difference does it make” that our Ambassador was killed in Libya? Considering that evidence has been repeatedly found since showing that the massive supply of weapons stored for no logical reason has dissembled its way to the hands of Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces across the middle east, the very same forces obama orders the military to aid in some countries while killing in other countries, it begs the question was this an illegal CIA gun-running operation? Much of the evidence suggests that the State Department was deliberately and knowingly trading weapons and supplies for hostages, just like the Iran/Contra scandal of the '80s, for which Reagan was not impeached only because his Alzheimer's gave a legitimately plausible defense. And effectively ended his actual leadership of the country.

Which leads us to a serious question: was Hillary committing treason of her own will, trading weapons to declared enemies during time of war? Did obama know? Was she under orders as some have suggested? Did obama actually do it and she was “just the cover-up”? If, as she claims, there was nothing at all, why destriy ALL the evidence that would have immediately exonerated her?

 

What does it matter that she seems to have been keeping government secrets on an unsecure server, and trading secrets with businessmen that were in the employ of people even our president has finally had to admit are enemies we are at war with? You mean, aside from being one of the basic definitions of treason, one of the few capital crimes left in our country?Clinton is “getting heat” because it is only her word, and her tantrums that no one believes her, that she didnt, at the very least, attempt to set obama up to be impeached. At worst, she appears to have committed treason, and directly implicated her boss (obama) of either supporting, colluding, or himself committing treason. With only her word that she didnt, and any evidence that would support her claim having been destroyed by her staff.

 

THAT is the problem Hillary currently faces from anyone educated, intelligent, and non-partisan. And it is legitimately a serious problem. How do you convince people that you are not a traitor after they just caught you destroying all the “proof” that you are not one?

As for the 14^th amdnedment. The automatic citizenship clause was put in because it was the only thing republicans could think of to ensure that all former slaves would be allowed freedom as citizens. There wasnt intent for it to continue past that generation, though the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. However, there has been gross misunderstanding over the actual rulings of the SC; in essence, anyone born anywhere in the world to a US citizen is, by extension, a US citizen. If either of your parents were born in The US, or outside the nation only on orders from the US Government, then you are considered “Native Born”. So the children of diplomats and soldiers, born over-seas, are still considered “native US citizens” because it was not “by choice” their parents were away from home. The children of anyone who is loyal to a foreign government, even born on US soil, in NOT a citizen, though they can seek to become one after age of majority. If one of your parents is the Canadian Ambassador, even though you're born here, you are not a citizen. (actually, in the case of allied nations, like Canada or England, you would be considered Dual-citizenship, and required to surrender one at age of majority) If you are born overseas simply because your parents are sent there by the company, and you are born, you are a US citizen, but not “Native Born”. Even if only one of your parents is a US citizen, and the other is native to that nation, you are still a US citizen.

 

This is important because Cruz was born in Canada; his parents were part of private industry, though his mother is a US citizen by birth. So He is a US citizen, from birth, and there is no attempt to remove that. But he is not “Native Born”. Which should mean he is inelligible to run.

 

But, by removing the citizenship from the 14^th amendment, most of the questioning from detractors runs from straw-men (they know better) to ignorance (they honestly dont know what they are talking about) to outright idiocy (people lying to stir up emotions because they know their position is BS)

 

If it is removed, what will happen? Anyone born with one US citizen as a parent (no matter how that parent became a US citizen) BY DEFAULT is a US citizen as well, and that cannot be taken away. Nor is it being suggested that it should. Any suggestion to the otherwise is lunacy from bigoted morons trying to control your thinking.

 

An “anchor baby” alludes to the real, actual law, combined with human compassion, rather than the moronic lies people are too stupid to confirm. Two people, who's simply being within the borders of this nation is a crime, pop out a kid. That child, under current law, has the right to stand as sponsor for their citizenship, once he becomes a legal adult. (By law, only adults can do “legal stuff” without an assigned guardian doing it for them)

 

So, mommy and daddy pop out a baby. Under current law, the woggy-wart is a citizen, but mommy and daddy arent. Law says they get a free ride back to whatever $h!t-hole they escaped, and warned not to return. Do we keep the woggy-wart (and dump it in a government orphanage), or ship it to whatever $h!t-hole mommy and daddy crawled out of? And of we ship it, do we recognize its citizenship, so that when it turns 18, its allowed back, unable to speak the language, grossly under-educated (not that our public schools are doing much better anymore), with none of the immunizations we demand all children get to start school, and so being a walking plague-bearer? Or do we say that little woggy-wart is whatever citizenship mommy and daddy are, and if he wants to become an American, he's gotta follow the law?

 

Is force-deportation possible? Actually, its incredibly easy. One minor change to the current laws would have most illegals self-deporting. The whistle=blower act grants you a 10% bounty on all fines, fees, and other penalties the government assesses to a company you turn in for criminal violations.

The penalty for hiring an illegal is $10,000 per illegal.

Let the whistle-blower act apply to reporting of illegal employment (Democrats made sure it didnt back in the 70s) and add a byline that only US citizens capable of proving such are able to collect. Within 5 years, the problem will self-correct. Most people would be quite eager to collect a grand for each illegal wrongfully employed.

 

For the die-hard idiots: The National Guard is a State run militia that answers to the Governor. It is independent of the Federal, and must remain so, under many of the sophistries democrats use to bend laws and deny the civil rights blatantly spelled out in the Constitution. However, each member of the Guard must maintain a certain level of training: pilots have to fly so many hours, grunts spend so much time in field maneuvers, and so on. Any governor, at any time, could simply retask his state's National Guard and Air Guard to aid Local Law Enforcemnt (LLEO) in the collection, detainment, and transportation, of illegals outside of his state's borders. It would be a minor thing to use the cargo planes that haul paratroopers to haul large groups of hispanic people back to mexico.

 

Lisnpuppy -

Section 1. 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.

 

 

You are correct to quote the section of the 14^th. It is the noted part that is contested, to bring question of relevance. As is brought up by the Supreme Court case of US v Wong Kim Ark, The SC's majority (6-2) concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. Law. Illegals, by definition, refuse to obey. Nor do they consider themselves subject to “the jurisdiction [of the United States]”, or they would self-deport. Logically, as they fail one of the two very simple, very clearly defined requirements to be a citizen, they cannot become one.

 

One of the commonly (and quite deliberately) overlooked facts of that case is that Wong had left to visit China previously, and been allowed back into the US, recognized by Customs and Emigration as a citizen. He already possessed a “certificate of American birth” recognizing him as a citizen, as much as was allowed under the standing treaties with China of the time. Then two of the 3 Chinese Exclusion Acts, forbidding emigration of Chinese citizens to the US, was passed, as much at the insistence of bigots in America as at the insistence of the Chinese government, who was “concerned” at the number of citizens seeking to travel to America at the time. Port officials in San Fransisco refused to recognize Wong's certificate, based on the afore-mentioned Exclusion Acts, at which point a large number of very wealthy Chinese celebrities who held similar certificates, “suggested” the Supreme Court hear case to decide if such certificates were legally binding. Though nothing was proven, much circumstance evidence suggests obscenely monumental amounts of cash and illicit favors exchanged hands to ensure the Court would “just happen” to rule “the right way”.

 

As far as the “inviolability” of this decision, there have been a large number of times with Cuba and Chine where under the strictest interpretation of the law, the people we “found” would be US citizens, born on our soil, and the parents would be “anchored” here to care for them. But the nature of diplomacy and politics made it easier for Bill Clinton's government to simply declare all the family “illegals” and ship them back to their country-of-origin. It depends on personal beliefs if one chooses to blame Democrats as a whole for Clinton's actions, blame the man himself, or find ways to try and justify (or even glamorize) his actions.

 

As a civic duty, I feel I should point out the method of amendment the government doesnt want you to know of. A proposed amendment, supported by 60% of States, passed by their governors and approved by their State Senates, becomes an approved amendment, untouchable by Congress or the Supreme Court.

 

apologies for the repeatred edits.

Im used to an older form of board, where I hasd to use tags; much time spent correcting things :D

Edited August 29, 2015 by dpgillam

[sunshinenbrick]

Could it just be that governments and corporations just want to keep people they can use and get rid of ones they can't?

[colourwheel]

Seriously if people are trying to get into specifics about the 14th Amendment focusing on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to support their claim about ones birthright in this country. One would then have to then start taking everything else literally in the constitution as well....

 

How about we take a look at the 2nd Amendment...

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically mention the word "Guns" or "Fire Arms".

 

Literally all the 2nd Amendment says is "the right of the people to retain possession of and carry our upper limbs".

 

Yet you don't see people trying to make this argument because it's completely ludicrous... Just like it's ludicrous to try to make some kind of literal interpretation of the 14th Amendment to find a way to deny anyone who is born in america their citizenship.

Edited August 29, 2015 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

 

 

The 14th amendment doesn't make any distinctions in parentage for birthright citizenship. Children of foreign nationals, whether they are here legally or not, CAN and DO get american citizenship. That is a fact, and easily proven to be so with a simple google search.

Hey You is correct, a simple perusal of United States vs Wong Kim Ark will illuminate the facts...it's settled case law. Being a strict constitutionalist I have to abide with the precedents set by the seven wise men whether I like what they decided or not.

I've been wrong before. Water off a duck's back as I do not want the responsibility or headache of having to be right all of the time. :ermm:

 

Edit:

I recant. After a little research I'm under the impression the Ark case is not a precedent for children of illegal aliens who do not have permanent residence. In Ark's instance he was the child of Chinese immigrants who domiciled in the United States. For children born to illegal aliens who live in this country permanently, Ark's case law would indeed apply. It would not apply to the 'anchor babies' or illegal aliens who do not reside in the United States. Back to my point, being born in the United States does not guarentee citizenship as provided by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Jus sanguinis.

 

So far as I know, the only folks that AREN'T subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, are diplomats. Whether you are here legally or not, you are still under the jurisdiction of US law. Else, coming here "illegally", wouldn't be illegal.

[Lisnpuppy]

Colour, I have to point out the section we are discussing has been argued over and over and over again. Though the Courts (SCOTUS) do not make it habit, they do often try to infer the meaning of the writers of the Constitution or its amendments. However it does not always happen but when it does it is usually when the language is very ambiguous. After the Wong Kim Ark case there was discussion about the Courts very bizarrely saying on one had they would not infer and on the other they did in fact infer meaning (but sidestepped the issue as it was not one specifically asked in the case-so they could ignore it). In fact the lawmaker of the amendment was still around at this time.

 

But outside this case people argued it all both ways and said if we took the strictest interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the people at the time it was written may have been suddenly deprived of their citizenship.

 

It is a very weird and confusing issue. It is not clear cut, it is very ambiguous and has been interpreted in different ways.

 

And yes, Dp you are correct in that the States can call a Constitutional Convention to ratify amendments. The Constitution states:

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

 

However this method has never been used and I can't see it happening at this point (though it is not impossible) and there is no one not wanting anyone to know, it is right there to read and always has been. It isn't like it was written by the Culper Ring and was hidden from sight.

 

As for the rest of your post, I have to read it more and reply tomorrow. It is late and I wish to give your post the thorough reading and response it deserves.

 

@Aur-I don't think you can expect all red states or blue to vote down the line on this issue. There are a few conservative states that are far from what is seen as the "problem area" of immigration, mostly the American-Mexican Border. As such the do not have always the same zealof reform.

[MotoSxorpio]

I hate facebook, twice.

[MotoSxorpio]

I was going to b&@*$ and moan about Wurs and his/her epic liberal vs conservative approach, but its sickening me.

 

If I'm called a liberal one more time...ugh.