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.

 

Trump Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

page: 10
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

As it applies to the equal protection clause. Something totally different than what we are currently discussing. That ruling allows in-state college tuition to be withheld, why is that if it is saying what you are claiming? The simple answer is because it's not.




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


The 14th defines who is and is not a citizen based upon where they are born.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about naturalization, not immigration. There is a naturalization process that legally immigrating citizens go through that is not spelled out in the Constitution. My point was that one can become a citizen without being born in this country. The 14th Amendment, indeed, the entire Constitution, does not address this either way.

You do realize we can debate without being disagreeable for disagreeable's sake?


If your interpretations were correct there wouldn't need to be an Executive Order attempting to change what the amendment says.

No Executive Order can change what any part of the Constitution says, and this one, I guarantee you, will not say anything along the lines of "The 14th Amendment is hereby changed to say..." I thought we had agreed that an Executive Order cannot change the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Executive Order can say that the Executive branch will no longer choose to allow naturalization of those not under the jurisdiction of the United States. That's not changing the Constitution. That's setting policy outside the Constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that people who break our laws must be rewarded with citizenship of their children due to a geographical accident, that's a different story.

I don't think they will rule that way, based on precedent.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
There is policy, not legal precedent. Please show me the legal precedent that gave illegals birthright citizenship.


The wording of the 14th.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




That ruling allows in-state college tuition to be withheld, why is that if it is saying what you are claiming?


What I'm claiming is, the ruling stated that there was no distinction, as it applies to the 14th Amendment's "jurisdiction" issue, between those who enter the country legally and those who enter the country illegally. They are all under the jurisdiction, regardless of how they entered the country, and protected under the 14th Amendment.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

There is nothing explicit either way...


The amendment is pretty clear, the wording shows that as long as you are not the child of foreign diplomats and are born here you are a citizen.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

All of it is relevant to illegals as the only people it states are precluded from coverage of the 14th are "children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."

Since we're asking questions, do you believe that unregistered border babies (children of Canadian parents born on US soil) don't actually belong to any country?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No distinction as it applies to the equal protection clause. Try again.

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term.


Want to know who else can go to Public school, the children of diplomats, even though they are not under the jurisdiction of the US for citizenship. But they do enjoy the equal protection clause of the 14th as it relates to jurisdiction.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sorry, I asked you to state exactly what part of that ruling applies to illegals. If you can't do it simply state there is no part I can show relates to illegals. Vague "all of it" answers are actually non-answers that tend to be used when actual answers can't be supplied.

I think they belong to Canada. If Canada's laws need to be fixed then that should happen. Why in the world would Canadian parents not have a baby with Canadian citizenship, sounds like a broken system that needs to be fixed.

So I looked it up.

Canadian Citizenship — Children Born Abroad
The proof of Canadian citizenship for a Canadian born abroad is a Canadian citizenship certificate. A child born outside Canada to a Canadian parent and meeting certain requirements is a Canadian citizen.

www.canadainternational.gc.ca...=Canadian%20Citizenshi p%20%E2%80%94%20Children%20Born%20Abroad,requirements%20is%20a%20Canadian%20citizen.

They are Canadian citizens.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From Yick Wo v. Hopkins in regards to the Equal Protection Clause:


These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Since the "jurisdiction", as in "and subject the jurisdiction of", is the operative qualifier for citizenship, and since the court ruled that there was no distinction between legal and illegal entry as far as jurisdiction issues are concerned, children born of parents who entered illegally are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA and the State, and therefore are citizens.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not if the parents don't register the child with the Canadian government. Or if the child is not living in Canada on their 24th birthday.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not if the parents don't register the child with the Canadian government. Or if the child is not living in Canada on their 24th birthday.

So they gain Canadian citizenship as long as it is applied for, what is the problem, how are they now nation-less again?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Which is why status does not matter in terms of k-12 and right to a speedy trial. Diplomats do not convey citizenship, they do get to send children to public schools for the same reason illegals can.
edit on 28-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No distinction as it relates to the equal protection clause. The same reason they get a right to a speedy trial. Having the right to a speedy trial does not make you a citizen. Your claim they are the same thing is hilarious.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




No distinction as it relates to the equal protection clause.


That's not what they said. They said that there was no distinction...with respect to 14th Amendment jurisdiction...


"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Your own excerpt denies your claim:


These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Nationality is citizenship. Therefore, the court actually ruled that their decision does not imply citizenship.

BTW, some of us would like to read more. Can you link what you just quoted? Thanks.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, you are half quoting and taking out of context.

BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.


It's the same reason illegals get the right to a speedy trial. Equal protection clause.

Stop misquoting and taking out of context rulings and you will be more well informed.


Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase.

To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


Has nothing to do with citizenship, it's equal protection that extends to everyone.
edit on 28-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. Nationality is citizenship. It says that anyone on US soil is under the jurisdiction of the US regardless of nationality or legality. Thus, anyone who births a child on US soil is under US jurisdiction. Thus, according to the 14th Amendment, that could has US citizenship bestowed upon it at birth.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




immigrationforum.org...


The court said that undocumented aliens are covered under the 14th Amendment. The whole 14th Amendment. Not part of it, all of it.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




immigrationforum.org...


The court said that undocumented aliens are covered under the 14th Amendment. The whole 14th Amendment. Not part of it, all of it.


Sorry, I quoted the court. Try again.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join