It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TrueBrit
Are you threatening to assassinate Trump?
You cant accuse our founding fathers of sneaking across borders that didn't exist.
originally posted by: atomadelica
a reply to: enlightenedservant
I am a history major. None of this contradicts what I said in any way. Never once in my post did I say "bad things did not happen to Indians" or that injustices against Natives never took place. Nor that natives did not live in confederacies. All I have said is that the Indians were killing each other and stealing each others' land just as often as the Europeans were doing to them, with the Europeans possessing the ability to do it better then they could, simply put. I was disagreeing with the poster I was replying to's implication that somehow all of the different tribes and factions of pre-Columbian North America was any sort of unified country or nation. You are attacking a strawman.
All you have done is provide evidence of the evils of illegal immigration and nothing more. Particularly the example of the Texan Republic, in which pretty much the exact reverse of what is happening to the US today.
I suggest we not go too much further into this topic to prevent thread-drift, though.
I don't recall there ever having been a Native American "country", just a myriad of constantly warring tribes who invaded and slaughtered one other ad nauseum (and took each others' land) for a millennium before the first settler even set foot in Jamestown
originally posted by: charolais
a reply to: xpert11
Ohh ok I see.
So if a child was born to a tourist was the child automatically a New Zealand citizen, or was it an option?
The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "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."
originally posted by: imod02
Considering the people of the US seem to enjoy finding the worse possible leader and electing them twice, I wonder how long it will be before the good people of the US will have to give worship to a 100 foot statue of DT every morning, singing praise to the great leader
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
There is no need to repeal or modify the 14th Amendment
US vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) was about the child of legal Chinese immigrants, who had yielded to the jurisdiction of the USA in order to legally work on the railroads.
INS vs Rios Pineda (1985) was not about citizenship. It dealt with deportation laws.
SCOTUS has never delivered a ruling concerning the status of children born to illegal aliens.
In the end it is very simple. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means that the person has pledged allegiance to, or has at least yielded their legal standing to the regional authority. In the case of illegal aliens, they have not pledged allegiance to or yielded their standing to the USA. Children inherit the legal standing of their parents. Therefore the children of illegal alien parents do not gain any citizenship to the USA, neither the 14th Amendment nor the SCOTUS apply here. At least not yet.
And if the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of the illegal alien and anchor babies, we would truly have an illegitimate judiciary with no interest in the rule of law.