johnny@. wrote:
>> Soumay Nonay wrote:
>>> johnny@. wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote in
>>>>>> news:16SdnbgdatRr0LXUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Falstaff wrote:
>>>>>>>> strabo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Falstaff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The citizenship clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment
>>>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
>>>>>>>>>>> thereof" mean? Does it mean simply having to obey the laws
>>>>>>>>>>> of the country while here? No. It is a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>> principle of law that any words in a legal text, including
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions, are not to be interpreted to create
>>>>>>>>>>> redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to
>>>>>>>>>>> absurd results. But being born in the United States, and
>>>>>>>>>>> remaining here,
>>>>>>>>>>> would automatically make a person subject to the
>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction of the laws, and the inclusion of the phrase
>>>>>>>>>>> would therefore be redundant. So, the phrase must mean
>>>>>>>>>>> something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, in the view of the authors of the 14th Amendment,
>>>>>>>>>>> as well as of the other senators who voted on it in 1867, it
>>>>>>>>>>> meant something much stronger than merely having to obey the
>>>>>>>>>>> laws of the country. It meant, owing complete and exclusive
>>>>>>>>>>> allegiance to the country - something that aliens, and by
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary extension their children regardless of where born,
>>>>>>>>>>> do not owe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The meaning of the citizenship clause as understood by the
>>>>>>>>>>> authors of it was explicitly acknowledged in the first two
>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court decisions that addressed citizenship following
>>>>>>>>>>> the ratification of the amendment:
>>>>>>>>>>> the Slaughter-house Cases, 1873, and Elk v. Wilkins, 1884.
>>>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>> in 1898, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray, writing for
>>>>>>>>>>> the majority, inexplicably threw out the holding from Elk
>>>>>>>>>>> -- a holding that Gray himself had written. In Wong, the
>>>>>>>>>>> court said that anyone, like Wong's parents, who was even
>>>>>>>>>>> transiently in the United States, owed complete allegiance
>>>>>>>>>>> to the United States. This is clearly an absurdity, made
>>>>>>>>>>> more so by the fact that by Wong's parents were barred, by
>>>>>>>>>>> treaty, from ever becoming U.S. citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is voluminous scholarly research and legal opinion
>>>>>>>>>>> explaining just how wrong the Wong Kim Ark decision is
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding birthright citizenship.
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are a few links:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/rescue.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_09_27/article.html
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those who support the current incorrect interpretation of
>>>>>>>>>>> the 14th Amendment handed down to us in the Wong Kim Ark
>>>>>>>>>>> decision do so not out of a belief that it is a well
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoned and coherent decision, but rather because they see
>>>>>>>>>>> it as useful to the furtherance of a toxic
>>>>>>>>>>> multi-culturalism that they embrace for ideological
>>>>>>>>>>> reasons. You'll look long and hard to find legal opinion
>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how the Wong decision got it right, and you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> come up empty - there is none.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Territorially based birthright citizenship is antithetical
>>>>>>>>>>> to the very foundation of the United States. The founders
>>>>>>>>>>> of the country were very clear that membership in the
>>>>>>>>>>> polity - citizenship - was to be based on consent, not on
>>>>>>>>>>> geographic accident of birth. Calling the U.S.-born
>>>>>>>>>>> children of aliens "citizens" violates the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>> notion of consent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Write your members of Congress and urge them to support
>>>>>>>>>>> legislative and judicial efforts to eliminate birthright
>>>>>>>>>>> citizenship.
>>>>>>>>>> There is only one class of persons in the US not subject to
>>>>>>>>>> the laws of the US - those with diplomatic immunity. Since
>>>>>>>>>> that does not include illegal aliens, the US born children
>>>>>>>>>> of said aliens are US citizens. That is the law. If you do
>>>>>>>>>> not like it change it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are implying that the spawn of illegal aliens are citizens
>>>>>>>>> because they don't have diplomatic immunity. Then this must
>>>>>>>>> apply to other foreigners in their own lands. After all, they
>>>>>>>>> don't have diplomatic immunity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are distorting the substance and application of diplomatic
>>>>>>>>> immunity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The law of the land, the Constitution, is clear...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "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."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clause one *plus* clause two equals citizenship. You must
>>>>>>>>> have both.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would those who wrote this part of the 14th A. have given
>>>>>>>>> foreign nationals an automatic circumvention of the
>>>>>>>>> naturalization process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They didn't. It was designed solely to legally qualify
>>>>>>>>> ex-slaves for citizenship within their respective states.
>>>>>>>>> They were native and they were subject to jurisdiction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Illegal aliens and other foreign nationals are not citizens of
>>>>>>>>> the US. They are subject to law ONLY as excepted. Registration
>>>>>>>>> of the diplomat binds him to certain rules but what
>>>>>>>>> registration excepts the illegal alien? Neither are citizens
>>>>>>>>> and neither can claim one clause or the other as a birthright.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the law of the land is the Constitution not some asinine
>>>>>>>>> court interpretation which is blatantly political and
>>>>>>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's right, the SCOTUS does not make law
>>>>>>>> Are you being stupid on purpose, or are you claiming illegal
>>>>>>>> aliens are not subject to US laws?
>>>>>>> Are *you* being stupid, or are you pretending not to understand
>>>>>>> what I have told you about the "subject to the jurisdiction"
>>>>>>> clause? It does *NOT* mean merely subject to the laws. It
>>>>>>> means something much stronger than that. It means owing
>>>>>>> complete and exclusive allegiance to the United States, and
>>>>>>> children born to aliens in the United States do *not* owe that
>>>>>>> required allegiance. We know that's what it means, because the
>>>>>>> senators debating the amendment said that's what it means, and
>>>>>>> the U.S. Supreme court acknowledged that intent of the Senate
>>>>>>> in two court cases following ratification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you trying to defend a revolutionary, extra-legal
>>>>>>> citizenship regime?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There are 3 ways for someone to become a citizen of the United
>>>>>> States:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are born here, you are an American, no matter what the
>>>>>> nationality of your parents.
>>>>> What about the legal status of your parents?
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are born abroad, but at least one of your parents is an
>>>>>> American, you'll be considered an American, too (there are some
>>>>>> exceptions).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Immigrants who have been granted permanent resident status may
>>>>>> become naturalized citizens. Ordinarily, immigrants have to wait
>>>>>> five years after receiving their green card to apply for
>>>>>> citizenship. Spouses of U.S. citizens only have to wait three
>>>>>> years."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020515dual0515p4.asp
>>>
>>> ANYONE born on American soil is an American citizen.
>>
>> That's not true, and you know it.
>>
>> The children born to foreign diplomats are not citizens of the United
>> States.
>>
>>>
>>> Wanting something different to be the case isn't going to change
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Surely you can muster up a supreme court ruling that would support
>>> your notions?
Embassy property is not American soil. And Diplomats are immune from
almost all American laws, therefore they are not subject to the jurisdiction
of this country or its states.
|