One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
To all liberals, here's your new voters.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Apr 21, 2018 13:08:28   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
You mean the laws do not apply to everybody equally?


The author of part one of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (R) MI, stated that the amendment was intended solely to confer full citizenship rights to slaves and their progeny and did not apply to foreigners or diplomatic personnel. The two SCOTUS cases I cited, both of which were rendered after ratification of the 14th confirm this.

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 13:30:32   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
PaulPisces wrote:
The Constitution does seem to be crystal clear on this issue.


One more time, Paul, read my post on this thread. Elk v Wilkins1884 stated that John Elk was NOT a birth citizen, even though born on US soil because his parents were not citizens. The 14th was ratified in 1868, well before this ruling, so does not vitiate the SCOTUS decision. This is the part when you can't get much clearer than that. The author of the 14th Amendment's first section, Senator Jacob Howard of MI stated that the amendment was meant only to confer full citizenship rights on former slaves and their families, and did not apply to diplomatic personnel or those here illegally. In US v Wong Kim Ark1898, the Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark WAS a birth citizen, because his parents, while not citizens were permanent legal residents, (as opposed to foreigners here legally on a temporary visa) and therefore "subject to the jurisdiction." Senator Howard specifically stated that diplomats and others who were not citizens are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" and are therefore any issue (children) have no claim on birthright citizenship. This is a civil rather than a criminal matter. I believe the Court's decision on "equal rights" for foreigners applies to criminal matters, although I will have to double check.

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 14:02:00   #
moldyoldy
 
Loki wrote:
One more time, Paul, read my post on this thread. Elk v Wilkins1884 stated that John Elk was NOT a birth citizen, even though born on US soil because his parents were not citizens. The 14th was ratified in 1868, well before this ruling, so does not vitiate the SCOTUS decision. This is the part when you can't get much clearer than that. The author of the 14th Amendment's first section, Senator Jacob Howard of MI stated that the amendment was meant only to confer full citizenship rights on former slaves and their families, and did not apply to diplomatic personnel or those here illegally. In US v Wong Kim Ark1898, the Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark WAS a birth citizen, because his parents, while not citizens were permanent legal residents, (as opposed to foreigners here legally on a temporary visa) and therefore "subject to the jurisdiction." Senator Howard specifically stated that diplomats and others who were not citizens are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" and are therefore any issue (children) have no claim on birthright citizenship. This is a civil rather than a criminal matter. I believe the Court's decision on "equal rights" for foreigners applies to criminal matters, although I will have to double check.
One more time, Paul, read my post on this thread. ... (show quote)


Don't try to sneak that by us, you know that is BS.
Elk v. Wilkins[edit]
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court's majority held that the children of Native Americans were
no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[47]
Thus, Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes would not automatically become U.S. citizens.[48] Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress half a century later in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which rendered the Elk decision obsolete.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark[edit]
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2018 14:13:57   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
Don't try to sneak that by us, you know that is BS.
Elk v. Wilkins[edit]
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court's majority held that the children of Native Americans were
no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[47]
Thus, Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes would not automatically become U.S. citizens.[48] Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress half a century later in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which rendered the Elk decision obsolete.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark[edit]
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Don't try to sneak that by us, you know that is BS... (show quote)



So what is your problem? That is what I just said. Illegal aliens are born within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Their children have no claim to birthright citizenship. You cannot sneak into this country with your wife, girlfriend or rent-a-puta, have a child, and expect that child to be an automatic US citizen.
Regarding US v Wong Kim Ark, a permanent legal domicile is basically the 1898 equivalent of permanent legal resident. You are legally residing in this country permanently. You are not a temporary guest here on a visa or an illegal. You are subject to the jurisdiction. Thank you, you just reiterated my point.
Speaking of which......

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 14:37:50   #
moldyoldy
 
Loki wrote:
So what is your problem? That is what I just said. Illegal aliens are born within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Their children have no claim to birthright citizenship. You cannot sneak into this country with your wife, girlfriend or rent-a-puta, have a child, and expect that child to be an automatic US citizen.
Regarding US v Wong Kim Ark, a permanent legal domicile is basically the 1898 equivalent of permanent legal resident. You are legally residing in this country permanently. You are not a temporary guest here on a visa or an illegal. You are subject to the jurisdiction. Thank you, you just reiterated my point.
Speaking of which......

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
So what is your problem? That is what I just said.... (show quote)


They are talking about embassy people, who are actually on foreign soil while in the US.

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 14:48:21   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
They are talking about embassy people, who are actually on foreign soil while in the US.


Do tell. At which embassy did John Elk's parents work?

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 15:21:27   #
moldyoldy
 
Loki wrote:
Do tell. At which embassy did John Elk's parents work?


Elk was a native American who at the time were not citizens because the reservation was sovereign territory.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2018 19:19:26   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
Loki wrote:
Moldy is wrong. In Elk v Wilkins 1884. the SCOTUS ruled that John Elk was not a US citizen in spite of being born on US soil, because NEITHER of his parents were citizens. The ruling stated that he was NOT a citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. You will note that this decision was rendered AFTER the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The rationale was that foreigners are not "subject to the jurisdiction." The court also ruled in US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen because while his parents were not citizens, they WERE permanent legal residents of this country, NOT someone here illegally or on a temporary visa.
"Birthright Citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens or temporary residents is a legal fiction.
Moldy is wrong. In i Elk v Wilkins /i 1884. the ... (show quote)



Excellent post..

Semper Fi sister
God bless America and President Trump

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 20:16:30   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
Elk was a native American who at the time were not citizens because the reservation was sovereign territory.


No, it was not. Congress had and has the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations. They cannot do this with a sovereign nation, any more than they had the power to regulate internal or external trade with Canada or Argentina.
From Wikipedia...

Decision
Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe,
EVEN ON AMERICAN SOIL, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 21:01:24   #
moldyoldy
 
Loki wrote:
No, it was not. Congress had and has the power to regulate commerce on Indian reservations. They cannot do this with a sovereign nation, any more than they had the power to regulate internal or external trade with Canada or Argentina.
From Wikipedia...

Decision
Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe,
EVEN ON AMERICAN SOIL, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins
No, it was not. Congress had and has the power to ... (show quote)


quasi-nation, not to the United States.

He was not a citizen because he was Indian. you want to argue semantics.

Reply
Apr 21, 2018 21:50:42   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
quasi-nation, not to the United States.

He was not a citizen because he was Indian. you want to argue semantics.


He was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens. There is no difference between an Indian born on a reservation and an Asian or Latino born on US soil to non-citizen parents. None. The Amendment was NEVER intended to legitimize illegal aliens.
You are the one arguing semantics. If you are born on US soil to non-citizen parents you are not a birth citizen of the US. You are a birth citizen of the home country of your parents.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2018 22:50:15   #
moldyoldy
 
Loki wrote:
He was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens. There is no difference between an Indian born on a reservation and an Asian or Latino born on US soil to non-citizen parents. None. The Amendment was NEVER intended to legitimize illegal aliens.
You are the one arguing semantics. If you are born on US soil to non-citizen parents you are not a birth citizen of the US. You are a birth citizen of the home country of your parents.


That certainly argues against all those birth hotels where new citizens are born.

Reply
Apr 22, 2018 06:28:41   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
moldyoldy wrote:
That certainly argues against all those birth hotels where new citizens are born.


If a child is born in one of your birth hotels would that child be a citizen of the moon?

No the child would be a citizen of its parents citizenship. If like your beloved Obamms his mother was an American citizen and his father was born in Kenya a British colony making him and Obamms British Musllim citizen.

Semper Fi
God bless America and President Trump

Reply
Apr 22, 2018 10:34:43   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
old marine wrote:
If a child is born in one of your birth hotels would that child be a citizen of the moon?

No the child would be a citizen of its parents citizenship. If like your beloved Obamms his mother was an American citizen and his father was born in Kenya a British colony making him and Obamms British Musllim citizen.

According to US Law (8 US Code) if one of your parents is an American citizen who resided in the US for a period of at least five years after their 14th Birthday, you are an American citizen by birth no matter where you are born. I believe this is found in 8 USC 1401. There was a big argument about this in the primary regarding Ted Cruz.

Semper Fi
God bless America and President Trump
If a child is born in one of your birth hotels wou... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 22, 2018 10:36:33   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
moldyoldy wrote:
That certainly argues against all those birth hotels where new citizens are born.


They are not citizens. At least, not of the United States unless one of their parents is a citizen of the US. (8 US Code)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.