It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

8 U.S. Code Section 1401. The following shall be NATIONALS and citizens of the U.S. at birth

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Look again, the decision wasnt because of the Reservation, just that he was racially connected to the tribe at birth. "Even on American Soil" though he was born on the rez



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."[5]


en.wikipedia.org...

I am Native American, No reservations for Chickasaws, we are fully sovereign, and debt free.

We have to opt in for tribal citizenship, for this exact reason. We are US citizens first because we were here with you from the beginning.

At least thats my Tribe's take on it.
edit on 1112018 by Butterfinger because: (no reason given)

edit on 1112018 by Butterfinger because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CynConcepts

But can someone be a US Citizen without being a US National?

Would that defy natural law?


I would assume that is why the terms foreigner and alien were used as well. You cannot become a US citizen without being a US national.

If that is the case, can one lose their citizenship if it is determined they are not a US National? Ex: Treasonous acts against the state?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Seems that you are conflating being subject to the laws of a jurisdiction with being a subject of a jurisdiction (citizen).

Also, how can you claim it to be cut and dry when this issue wasn't as issue at the time of drafting it.
edit on 11/1/2018 by TheLead because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I'd like to interject and say that my interest in this subject has nothing to do with the 'anchor baby' debate.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

These are my assumptions too. And I wonder the same thing.

I think I will publish the thread I mentioned in the OP....I hope you read it!



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: luthier

Look again, the decision wasnt because of the Reservation, just that he was racially connected to the tribe at birth. "Even on American Soil" though he was born on the rez



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."[5]


en.wikipedia.org...

I am Native American, No reservations for Chickasaws, we are fully sovereign, and debt free.

We have to opt in for tribal citizenship, for this exact reason. We are US citizens first because we were here with you from the beginning.

At least thats my Tribe's take on it.


No, the historical context is that there was an agreement the laws of the tribe would supercede american law on the reservation. The tribes with the deals decided to be there own nations. If he had a child living outside of the tribe they most likely would qualify as was the case with about 7 percent of natives who lived and worked their lives outside of the tribes.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CynConcepts

These are my assumptions too. And I wonder the same thing.

I think I will publish the thread I mentioned in the OP....I hope you read it!


Looking forward to it. Please provide a link here too when you do. It will make it easier for me to not miss it. Definitely sounds interesting.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No, his kid, if born in the US while they were on vacation, would not have been a US citizen. He would have been a citizen of the Tribe.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLead

Not at all. The clause was abviously about foreign born mothers who were not citizens.


Ot was made to distinguish different sovereign power even within our soil. Natives and embassies who were not American citizens.

Both a former ambassador and a native American at the time could have children who became citizens. Depending on the paperwork derived from Congress. The constitution however, is usually above the authority of Congress when it's in doubt.

The term illegal is created by Congress as the constitution did not play out working travelers or non naturalized migration.

If Congress had made a guest worker Visa for construction, agriculture, and food service we wouldn't have the mess.

Many would love to go back without having to get caught and work for less because the prices are lower. The laws actually make that hard.


This is trump forcing Congress to work not a serious challenge.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

No, his kid, if born in the US while they were on vacation, would not have been a US citizen. He would have been a citizen of the Tribe.


That is not true. Show me that case.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The "agreements" are treaties...and the US has many treaties with foreign sovereignties, too.

ETA: I am mentioning treaties because they're relevant to My reasons for asking about nationality and citizenship.
edit on 11/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLead

And the SC court ruling we have specifically said Ark was a citizen because his parents were permanent residents of the US. Illegals do not have permanent resident status. Seasonal workers do not have permanent resident status.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheLead

And the SC court ruling we have specifically said Ark was a citizen because his parents were permanent residents of the US. Illegals do not have permanent resident status. Seasonal workers do not have permanent resident status.


Actually over 8 million illegals do in fact have permanent residence. I think it's around 5 million that own property.

The exception I could see if written by Congress would be they pass a law that helps establish what length of time being permanent is.

Even that is not nearly a sure bet.

Then you have people here legally working with Visa etc...



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I am pretty sure Occam was referring to the legal status of 'permanent resident.' IOW, a green card holder. You wouldn't be considered an "illegal" immigrant with permanent resident status.



edit on 11/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: luthier

I am pretty sure Occam was referring to the legal status of 'permanent resident.' IOW, a green card holder. You wouldn't be considered an "illegal" immigrant with permanent resident status.




Well considering green cards started around 1940 I doubt it



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

... really?


An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

and that the matter in dispute herein arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, for cause of action against the defendant, avers that he, the plaintiff, is an Indian, and was born within the United States



Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

supreme.justia.com...

How can it be proven an illegal or a seasonal worker owes no allegiance to another country?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Considering the Ark ruling came about AFTER Chinese immigration was curtailed the same idea applies.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Different terminology today, but same principle. The Supreme Court ruled at the time of his birth his parents were permanent residents and thus he was a citizen. At the time of the ruling there were illegal immigrant Chinese, so the fact the court specified that distinction is important.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

... really?


An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

and that the matter in dispute herein arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, for cause of action against the defendant, avers that he, the plaintiff, is an Indian, and was born within the United States



Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

supreme.justia.com...

How can it be proven an illegal or a seasonal worker owes no allegiance to another country?



I am well aware of this entire argument. It isn't really new. As we see with harry Reid.

I just dont think it's in anyway convincing. What could happen is congress writes a law about that specific situation and the court can address it when challenged as unconstitutional.

You still have a million other techniques it will be near impossible to fix without changing the amendment. Which in itself is a major problem since they can't even write immigration policy.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Different terminology today, but same principle. The Supreme Court ruled at the time of his birth his parents were permanent residents and thus he was a citizen. At the time of the ruling there were illegal immigrant Chinese, so the fact the court specified that distinction is important.


Lol no it is not the same concept at all...because there wasn't such a thing.

The border was totally open at this time and there were no illegals.

The only illegal immigrants in the past were forced workers when found and specific groups that threatened the us. There is question about those moves as well.

The founders were not nativist at all. They though men were given natural rights not by government but by nature.

Immigration policy is congressional authorities interpretation of the constitution telling them they control naturalization.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join