Birthright Citizenship Act-What are your thoughts?

[rocket88]

The Federalist Blog » Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

Because clearly, the opinion of a blogger holds more legal weight than the Supreme court.

I'm going to have to go back and read where in the Constitution it says that the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional law is a Conservative blogger.

 

[teamosil]

And? Reservations were treated as sovereign nations.

Alien sovereign = alien sovereign

Yeah. He was born in another sovereign nation where US laws did not apply. That's different than being born in the US where US laws do apply to you. On top of that, again, it was overruled.

Already dealt with.

The Federalist Blog » Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

So that's nice that the blogger thinks Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, but the Supreme Court certainly hasn't ever given any indication that they intend to reverse it or anything, so I guess that's that.

 

[Red Flag]

I think the "well-regulated militia" is like "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's a little vague.

I see. So the problem is your ignorance and lack of research.

An example of making the militias regular is the Militia Act

See also: Federalist 29

 

[Red Flag]

Because clearly, the opinion of a blogger holds more legal weight than the Supreme court.

I'm going to have to go back and read where in the Constitution it says that the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional law is a Conservative blogger.

The ultimate arbiter of CotUS is the People. The People can decide do away with COTUS altogether if they so wish, as they did with the Articles.

Short of that, the arbiter of COTUS is the text itself.

As for your appeal to SCOTUS... Buck v. Bell and Dredd Scott...

 

[Red Flag]

So that's nice that the blogger thinks Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, but the Supreme Court certainly hasn't ever given any indication that they intend to reverse it or anything, so I guess that's that.

SCOTUS also never overturned their ruling which said forced sterilization is constitutional.. I guess that's that...

Gotta love you Statists...

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, actually the 2nd Amendment does go on to say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I think the "well-regulated militia" is like "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's a little vague. Did they say only militias? The consensus opinion is no. Did they say that the child of an illegal immigrant is not "subject to the jurisdiction?" Again, the consensus opinion would seem to be no.

Exactly. This is why we also read what the authors of those amendments say as it gives us a frame of reference and about actual intent.

If you take the 2nd Amendment too literally, who's to say I can't have a tank in my driveway? But when it was written, they had no concept of tanks or nuclear missiles. I don't think that illegal immigrants were seen as a huge problem in 1866 when the 14th Amendment was proposed (or the Border Patrol would have been established before 1924), so what was meant by "under the jurisdiction thereof" is uncertain as far as what it means given illegal immigration.

This is also why we read about the original intent of the authors....and why much in the original BoR and Constitution was left relatively vague.

 

[rocket88]

I see. So the problem is your ignorance and lack of research.

An example of making the militias regular is the Militia Act

See also: Federalist 29

So I take you're pro-gun control?

Both of these talk about command structures of militias, and the President calling on the militia for defense purposes. Not the right of the individual to own guns.

 

[DiAnna]

Add up all the nations other than the US you get a total of 149,533,400. The US has 38,355,000. That means the US is 25% of the total by your own source. So, again, I don't know where that claim came from, but it was obviously an unreliable right wing pundit that just makes things up. Even your own sources disprove it. You should be more careful about where you get information about the world because you are allowing yourself to be misled and manipulated.

It is my own damned fault that I'm back because of semantical demagoguery and my own carelessness in grabbing the wrong chart. However, I can't let you dishonestly dismiss me as manipulated by "right wing pundits". I 'm not a conservative, and resent you presuming me to be based upon my views of this single issue. I am going to clarify that on an annual basis the phrase "The United States admits more legal immigrants every year than all the rest of the nation's of the world combined" is commonly accepted as true, whether you like it or not, even at government levels.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

V. Reform Legal Immigration - Change Numbers and Categories

The United States admits more legal immigrants every year than all the rest of the nation's of the world combined. The exact number, which usually works out to around 800,000 to 900,000, is determined by a very complicated formula with multiple ceilings and caps embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act as enacted by Congress and signed by the President. The overall number depends to a considerable extent on the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens applying to immigrate. This group is admitted without numerical limitation, to the possible detriment of other categories. The complexity of this formula is not by itself particularly problematical. Those who need to understand it manage to do so. The problem is in the numbers the formula produces.

Major Trends Reshaping the Global Context - World Trends Research

o The largest migration in history is changing the face of nations. The U. S. accepts more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. In China, one hundred million people are moving from the country to the city. In the West, the European Union will need over a hundred-million immigrants in the next three decades simply to keep its population at 1995 levels, as well as to keep the current ratio of retirees to workers...

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES

According to demographer Leon Bouvier, since 1970, fully half of our recent population growth has come from immigration. The United States admits more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined. In 1990 and 1991 we admitted about 4 million immigrants5. This figure includes legalizations of people who entered illegally. Today, our immigration rate is about eight times our emigration rate. Our fertility is now at replacement level. If we ignore carrying capacity constraints and project the current rates into the future, we reach the mathematically unavoidable conclusion that our population would grow forever. But of course, no ecosystem can survive unending population growth from any species, and certainly not ours.

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immigration to the United States has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the history of the United States... As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1]

Now I am seriously finished with this deliberate misdirection of wasted time and effort, and I'm seriously finished with you.

 

[teamosil]

SCOTUS also never overturned their ruling which said forced sterilization is constitutional.. I guess that's that...

Gotta love you Statists...

Statists? I thought you were the one arguing that the government should be like hunting down people, stripping them of their rights, and forcefully deporting them to a country they have never been in... But you think I'm being the statist?

 

[teamosil]

It is my own damned fault that I'm back because of semantical demagoguery and my own carelessness in grabbing the wrong chart.

That was the right chart. You said the CUMMULATIVE total of immigrants was where the US was more than the rest of the world, you bolded cummulative, and that was what the chart listed.

But, if we want to talk about per year, all immigrants, we get 23% of the world's immigrants. Net migration statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster

However, I can't let you dishonestly dismiss me as manipulated by "right wing pundits". I 'm not a conservative, and resent you presuming me to be based upon my views of this single issue. I am going to clarify that on an annual basis the phrase "The United States admits more legal immigrants every year than all the rest of the nation's of the world combined" is commonly accepted as true, whether you like it or not, even at government levels.

So, this is a very different claim. These sources are saying "legal immigrants". That is not an accurate description of what they're talking about. 800,000 isn't the number of legal immigrants. The number of legal immigrants is much higher. 800,000 is the number of naturalizations we perform each year. That isn't total legal immigrations (which would also include legal permenant residencies, work visas, etc) and it isn't total immigration (which would include all that plus illegal immigration). In terms of naturalizations performed, that I would buy that we are roughly equal to the rest of the world combined. That basically means "equal to the EU" because many countries don't really require naturalization like we do and like Europe does. Also, for example, if you migrate from one EU country to another you are an immigrant to that country, but you wouldn't require naturalization. The whole naturalization process is more of a hurdle to immigrants that we establish than a demonstration of how open we are though, so it kind of undercuts the whole argument.

Anyways, I accept that you didn't hear it from a right wing source. But right wing sources are constantly peddling that falsehood and I think even many liberals now believe it because they spread it around so much. It isn't true. We're pretty high for immigration. About 1/4 of the world's total, but the EU's total is higher than ours, and when you add in all the other countries, it's 3 times as much as us.

 

[AdminX]

One of the proposed solutions to the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the Birthright Citizenship Act. I want to know what your thoughts are regarding this policy and what your moral reasoning is for your response if you have one.

Birthright Citizenship is the most absurd, vile, preposterous notion I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Have you lived in South Florida? I have. It's saturated with illegals of all different kinds who come here, have an average of 5-8 children with poor educational standards, and become U.S. citizens by default.

It's like saying, "hey, if you're clever enough to evade the law, infiltrate the country, and reproduce, we'll embrace your kids as pure red-blooded americans". It's like rewarding the parents who commit crimes.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

What is Aztlan, Raza, and MEChA

U.S. Immigration Laws: The Truth About "La Raza" Movement - HUMAN EVENTS



First act of war: Mexican flag flies at U.S. post office



Border Incursion In Hudspeth County - News Story - KFOX El Paso

Mexican military copter over U.S. neighborhood - San Antonio Express-News


Border patrol agent held at gunpoint - Washington Times

Illegals aren't part of any army. They want jobs. To say that they are some kind of military force is ludicrous. La Raza and other such groups are irrelevant.

I'd say a foreign nation is a 'distinct alien community'. Oh wait, foreign nation... wasn't the very things the Indians were viewed as- in fact, they still call themselves their own nations...





Nope, you just said yourself: distinct alien communities

The Federalist Blog » What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Mexico = foreign power

The Federalist Blog » What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means


Oh?

yeah.

Again, you are taking things too literally. The Indians were in their own tribes.

The Federalist Blog » Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

Care to try again?

Whether you like it or not, it covers children of illegals.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Its your opinion. I think it is wrong. It matters the historical context and intent in which the amendment was written. Think other wise, fits your avatar sig well.

No, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court. Only children born to parents in categories x, y, and z are excluded from birthright citizenship. Illegals aren't in any of these groups. The Supreme Court did not mention "anchor babies." Therefore, they are protected under the ruling. This is not complicated.

its a shame some libs can't see that.

It's a shame that you think that everyone who disagrees with you immigration is a "lib."

 

[Red Flag]

No, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The same supreme court that gave us Dredd Scott and Buck v Bell?

Sorry, Statist, but appeals to SCOTUS have no weight.

 

[mike2810]

No, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court. Only children born to parents in categories x, y, and z are excluded from birthright citizenship. Illegals aren't in any of these groups. The Supreme Court did not mention "anchor babies." Therefore, they are protected under the ruling. This is not complicated.



It's a shame that you think that everyone who disagrees with you immigration is a "lib."

Your info not mine. lean Libertarian . and you are mistaken. but your position is clear.

 

[Nevergolfpar]

Which is why I said it's not an exact precedent. But as usual, people here skip over what they don't want to read. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally. If they have, and stripped said person of citizenship, cite it. I'd like to see the SC back up the Conservative theory. Until then, the interpretation is nice, but you have to go by what the amendment actually says.

All history is revisionist. You don't get to write your own history, contrary to what George Bush thought. I know that saying "nothing short of revisionist history" is a huge insult in Con circles, but it's like saying "nothing short of breathing air." Historians are always disagreeing with each other.

That's what I am saying; in Ark the parents of where indeed here legally when their son was born. However, no citizenship was stripped, nor should it have been under the 14th. Yet libs often cite this SCOTUS decision as proof pudding that anchor babies are legal citizens of this country. In other words they are comparing legal apples to legal oranges when attempting to make this leap in logic.

When reading the 14th, the amendment is crystal clear. Attempting to argue the 14th as a legal framework to anchor babies, if not revisionist history, is then blatant and utter stupidity. So which is it...revisionist history or stupidity? I'll let you decide.

 

[rocket88]

That's what I am saying; in Ark the parents of where indeed here legally when their son was born. However, no citizenship was stripped, nor should it have been under the 14th. Yet libs often cite this SCOTUS decision as proof pudding that anchor babies are legal citizens of this country. In other words they are comparing legal apples to legal oranges when attempting to make this leap in logic.

When reading the 14th, the amendment is crystal clear. Attempting to argue the 14th as a legal framework to anchor babies, if not revisionist history, is then blatant and utter stupidity. So which is it...revisionist history or stupidity? I'll let you decide.

Again, all history is revisionist. Using that as an insult only works on your fellow Cons. Thinking that there is any absolute truth in most of history is, to use your wording "utter stupidity."

As I said, it's not a great legal precedent. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never defined "under the jurisdiction thereof." Nobody here has actually cited where they have. I've read the blog posts from the Federalist Blog. Now point to where in the Constitution, the weight of law is given to the opinions of the author of that blog.

Did you guys learn to debate from Ann Coulter or something? When all else fails start insulting people with buzzwords like "statist" or "revisionist history."

At dictionary.com, "statist" is defined as

noun
1.
an advocate of statism.

adjective
2.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a statist or statism.

Statist | Define Statist at Dictionary.com

So, "statism," then.

noun
1.
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2.
support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

Statism | Define Statism at Dictionary.com

The first definition would seem to apply to those saying "round up and deport the illegals." The second, I proudly wear. I support and believe in the sovereignty of the United States of America. I "pledge alleigence...to the Republic for which it stands" so to speak.

"Revisionist History" is pretty much all history, or at least that done by historians. Newt Gingrich, for example.

If you guys are going to toss out Conservative buzzwords as insults, at least know what they mean first.

 

[hazlnut]

Sorry, Statist, but appeals to SCOTUS have no weight.

Unless you live in the United States.... Here, their opinions are the law of the land.

Oops...:2wave::2wave:

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The same supreme court that gave us Dredd Scott and Buck v Bell?

I was simply responding to those who stated that Wong Kim Ark didn't apply to the children of Illegals.

Sorry, Statist, but appeals to SCOTUS have no weight.

Your info not mine. lean Libertarian . and you are mistaken. but your position is clear.

How does support for birthright citizenship make me a statist?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

That's what I am saying; in Ark the parents of where indeed here legally when their son was born. However, no citizenship was stripped, nor should it have been under the 14th. Yet libs often cite this SCOTUS decision as proof pudding that anchor babies are legal citizens of this country. In other words they are comparing legal apples to legal oranges when attempting to make this leap in logic.

When reading the 14th, the amendment is crystal clear. Attempting to argue the 14th as a legal framework to anchor babies, if not revisionist history, is then blatant and utter stupidity. So which is it...revisionist history or stupidity? I'll let you decide.

This is not complicated at all. Only a few categories of people can not have Anchor Babies in the US since the Supreme Court ruling; everyone else can have their kid be born a US citizen if they're born here. Illegals are in none of the aforementioned categories. The Court made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Therefore Wong Kim Ark covers them.

 

[Disputatious71]

Makes as much sense as this cartoon to have a law that says the child can allow the parents to stay in this country. Take a DNA sample and allow them back in 18 years after they are born, with a 5 year probation in case they are some Manchurian Candidate etc.

 

[ElCid]

Knew another person from Costa Rica who was pregnant. When the time came, she simply hopped on a plane, flew to New York, went straight to a hospital ER, dropped her baby (who received U.S. citizenship, of course), bundled her up, and then flew back to Costa Rica. Now, because of her daughter, she can come and go as she pleases, as the mother of an infant, U.S. citizen. WE ARE A DUMB PEOPLE.

 

[rocket88]

Knew another person from Costa Rica who was pregnant. When the time came, she simply hopped on a plane, flew to New York, went straight to a hospital ER, dropped her baby (who received U.S. citizenship, of course), bundled her up, and then flew back to Costa Rica. Now, because of her daughter, she can come and go as she pleases, as the mother of an infant, U.S. citizen. WE ARE A DUMB PEOPLE.

Canadians do the same thing. Of course we don't hear as much about that...

It's not a flawless system, but what is?

 

[Nevergolfpar]

Again, all history is revisionist. Using that as an insult only works on your fellow Cons. Thinking that there is any absolute truth in most of history is, to use your wording "utter stupidity."

As I said, it's not a great legal precedent. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never defined "under the jurisdiction thereof." Nobody here has actually cited where they have. I've read the blog posts from the Federalist Blog. Now point to where in the Constitution, the weight of law is given to the opinions of the author of that blog.

Did you guys learn to debate from Ann Coulter or something? When all else fails start insulting people with buzzwords like "statist" or "revisionist history."

At dictionary.com, "statist" is defined as



Statist | Define Statist at Dictionary.com

So, "statism," then.



Statism | Define Statism at Dictionary.com

The first definition would seem to apply to those saying "round up and deport the illegals." The second, I proudly wear. I support and believe in the sovereignty of the United States of America. I "pledge alleigence...to the Republic for which it stands" so to speak.

"Revisionist History" is pretty much all history, or at least that done by historians. Newt Gingrich, for example.

If you guys are going to toss out Conservative buzzwords as insults, at least know what they mean first.

Actually try reading the SCOTUS opinion in the Ark case, they do define "under the jurisdiction thereof'. Though when reading the case keep in mind that the parents were here legally.

However, SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on children of illegals being granted birthright citizenship. That is a fact. Instead the liberals attempt to massage history (yes revisionist) by applying the finding in Ark in their favor to so grant birthright citizenship of illegals aliens.

The bottom line is that SCOTUS needs to set legal precedence and rule on birth right citizenship of illegals aliens and not legal immigrants as was ruled in Ark. As a result Ark does not apply a legal binding precedence to our current day problem. Though progressives will attempt to push the debate in that direction to fit their agenda. This is a battle that has never been fought and needs to be, one way or the other...it needs to be settled.

So when either your side (or mine) claims that Ark is the supreme authority in this case. Truth is we are both wrong and would in fact be 'revisionist history' by any definition of the term.

 

[Nevergolfpar]

This is not complicated at all. Only a few categories of people can not have Anchor Babies in the US since the Supreme Court ruling; everyone else can have their kid be born a US citizen if they're born here. Illegals are in none of the aforementioned categories. The Court made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Therefore Wong Kim Ark covers them.

Ark does NOT cover them all. The very fact that the court made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is exactly my point. Ark revolved around the parents of legal immigrants birthing a child in the United States. It makes no mention of legal and illegal ALIENS (there is a difference). Furthermore, Ark arrived on SCOTUS docket due to the Constitutionality principle involved with Congress having passed a law restricting the Chinese immigrants from become United States citizens at the time. Congress does not have such authority and on this front, SCOTUS was correct at the time.

Your assertion that only a 'few categories of people cannot have Anchor Babies' is seriously misguided--my opinion. You derive this from English common law which basically stipulates as much. However, when at the time Congress included a 4th provision not derived from English Common law, 'Indian tribes not taxed' has not having 'jurisdiction thereof'. This fourth provision clearly now takes Ark outside the scope of English Common law and places it in the courts for for additional clarity. It is this clarity that needs to be expounded upon and why Ark is not the binding legal authority on Anchor Babies in this country. Until such time as SCOTUS rules on this, there is no law of the land which stipulates whether my side or yours is correct in this debate. I will stipulate that both sides have strong legal arguments the reality still exists that Ark does not cover Anchor Babies as much as politicians would have you believe.