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: 14
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




During the Cold War, if we caught a KGB agent working in the USA, what would we do with them?


Arrest them for espionage?



Maybe Mexico would end up having to help pay for the wall after all?


I don't think the bulk of the migrants at the southern border are Mexican. I think they're from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and beyond.




posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, when it comes to the equal protection clause. It's the same reason diplomats can send their children to school and use our roads.

Native Americans also have no plausible distinction under the 14th and are under the jurisdiction of the State according to that ruling. We know for a fact their babies were not US citizens prior to 1924. Even off reservation the 14th did not convey birthright citizenship to them, yet that ruling affirms they are indeed under the jurisdiction of the State as the equal protections clause applies. Please explain why Native American babies born on US soil, even off reservation, did not qualify for US citizenship under the ruling you keep posting.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are right, they are not Mexican mostly. They are not from El Salvador, etc.., that is where SOME are from. Many are also from Eastern Europe, China, SA, South Korea, and India.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...


...is also pretty clear, the authors of the Amendment made it known that it's in reference to foreign diplomats.


Naturalization is not covered in the Constitution.


I need to tell you that this thread is about birthright? Well, it is and birthright is covered under the 14th.



That's the thing: you are not taking it literally. You are redefining the word "jurisdiction"...


Am I? What is the definition of the word in the context of the Amendment as contextualized by the authors?


ETA: Using your logic someone like myself who received Italian citizenship automatically at birth since my mother was born there is under another country's 'jurisdiction'.



edit on 29-8-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except it doesn't. Ask native Americans before 1924 if it meant that.


The were considered a separate nation within the United States, similar to how San Marino is in Italy.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: CeeWillee
and foreign nationals, if you read the debate in the Senate surrounding its passage.


The debate is no long relevant if the dissenters were not in the majority to prevent its passage.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except it doesn't. Ask native Americans before 1924 if it meant that.


The were considered a separate nation within the United States, similar to how San Marino is in Italy.

And when they step off the reservation they are not in that nation anymore.


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.

Without regard for nationality. How would that not apply to Native Americans within US territorial jurisdiction? It does.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

And when they step off the reservation they are not in that nation anymore.


That was the case then, they are now all United States citizens.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

And when they step off the reservation they are not in that nation anymore.


That was the case then, they are now all United States citizens.


Not because of the 14th, they have birthright citizenship due to a SEPARATE law in addition to the 14th. You just proved my point that illegals would quite possibly require a separate law, just as Native Americans did, because the 14th does not grant birthright citizenship to everyone born on US soil regardless of circumstances.

Yet Native Americans, who did not enjoy birthright citizenship, would still be protected while in the US by virtue of the equal protections clause of the 14th. Their children, without the 1924 act, would STILL be able to go to k-12 due to the 14th amendment and them being under the jurisdiction of the state, even though they are not under the jurisdiction of the state as it pertains to birthright citizenship.

If that were not the case we would not have the 1924 law, it would not be needed. But it was needed.

This is the ruling Sookie keeps preaching as gospel.

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.


How would that not give Native Americans birthright citizenship if that ruling had to do with birthright citizenship? Without regard for nationality, how would Native Americans not also enjoy that?
edit on 29-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

You just proved my point that illegals would quite possibly require a separate law...


Did I? Then you and your law degree should file a brief with the Supreme Court.

You guys are arguing 100+ years of case law when the reality is much more different than what you're saying.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I have no standing to file anything. You have yet to show me ANY case law on the subject yet keep referring to 100+ years of it. Show me cases where illegals were granted birthright citizenship by the courts.

I love how when I use actual case law you run from it and head back to "100+ years of case law makes me right".


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.


Without regard for nationality, how would Native Americans not also enjoy that?



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no standing to file anything. You have yet to show me ANY case law on the subject yet keep referring to 100+ years of it. Show me cases where illegals were granted birthright citizenship by the courts.


Why? Ark already defined what 'jurisdiction' means. If you don't like it too bad.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no standing to file anything. You have yet to show me ANY case law on the subject yet keep referring to 100+ years of it. Show me cases where illegals were granted birthright citizenship by the courts.


Why? Ark already defined what 'jurisdiction' means. If you don't like it too bad.

Yes, it meant being here legally permanently domiciled and legally employed. I am quite fine with their definition. You appear not to be.
edit on 29-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I've quoted case law that states the 14th applies universally to anyone in the US with the exception of foreign sovereigns, ministers, and their children.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The concept of illegal immigration didn't even exist until decades after Wong Kim Ark. So how could that case preclude illegal immigrants?



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I've quoted case law that states the 14th applies universally to anyone in the US with the exception of foreign sovereigns, ministers, and their children.

And I ran with that quote and asked how, if it meant what you claimed, did it not apply to Native Americans. If a Native American was born off reservation then if you are correct they would have been a US citizen prior to 1924, although really it would have applied on reservation too.

So if it applies as you claim, why did they not get birthright citizenship having a baby off reservation?

What you actually quoted was the equal protections clause applies to everyone, and it does. According to your ruling you quoted, would a baby born on reservation but living in Texas be able to use k-12 services without the 1924 law? The answer is yes. Would they get birthright citizenship? The answer is no. Do diplomats get birthright citizenship for their children? No. Are they able to go to public k-12 school? Yes.
edit on 29-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The concept of illegal immigration didn't even exist until decades after Wong Kim Ark. So how could that case preclude illegal immigrants?

So how could it include them? Your argument means it can not include them as they did not exist at the time.

I will explain how it can preclude them though. The ruling defined immigrants with permanent resident status as being eligible for BRC. Are illegals permanent residents? The answer is no, they are not. You are able to see what immigrants are permanent residents and which are not. Thus, anyone without permanent resident status is reasonably excluded from the Wong Kim Ark ruling.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Yes, it meant being here legally permanently domiciled and legally employed. I am quite fine with their definition. You appear not to be.


Are you? You seem to think the Supreme Court hasn't ruled repeatedly on birthright.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Yes, it meant being here legally permanently domiciled and legally employed. I am quite fine with their definition. You appear not to be.


Are you? You seem to think the Supreme Court hasn't ruled repeatedly on birthright.

You are welcome to quote their definition and explain how their definition fits illegals. I keep asking, you just keep saying the case law is all there trust you it's 100+ years of ruling that is all pro-illegal BRC. Well sorry, not going to trust you. Give me the case law, give me their definition, explain how it includes illegals. I explained precisely why Wong Kim Ark reasonably excludes illegals.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So the only argument you have against birthright citizenship is that people were racist against Native Americans (read: alive when the US government committed state sanctioned genocide against Native Americans?)

Here's a question for you. Do you believe a child born in Texas in 1846 should have received birthright citizenship?




top topics



 
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join