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: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Don't forget the US Supreme Court has already ruled and implied anchor babies are not US Citizens. Their ruling stated that immigrants who are not US citizens but are here legally domiciled and legally working grant citizenship. The parents of anchor babies do not meet that criteria.


If that was true, we wouldn't have so many immigrant children who are US citizens, because they were born here, while their parents are getting rounded up and deported.

If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion and Trump wouldn't be threatening birth right citizenship.

And yes, Trump's immigration policies target brown people, even if you all don't want to talk about that.


edit on 27-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: Duderino

Every post you make is just so ironic.

Did you ever stop to realize your "likeness" is conservative and would revolt at the nonsense you spew?


Very much no. Jeff Bridges very much is not a Conservative. He has done his best to be positive and engage in division, but he has campaigned for Democrats, supported various liberal causes, said he did not vote for Trump and recently said Trump's Presidency has inspired him to be more individually active in causes around Climate Change, World Hunger, Poverty etc.

Hilarious you think him a republican.



“A lot of where Trump’s leading us is disappointing to me, and rather than wallowing in my disappointment and throwing up my hands, I’m saying that we’ve gotta get to work,” Bridges tells me.
“Come on guys, let’s create the kind of world that we see. If you don’t wanna go in that direction, then come on, let’s head in the other direction. I’m using it to inspire me to take action.”

www.countable.us...

The Dude does not abide Trump.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



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


Read it again.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Time and time again illegal immigrants are above being subject to US jurisdiction.

US law dictates people have to obey US law.

So closing the loophole( which is outright ignoring soverign US LAW) is completely constitutional.




posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


This was covered already, the people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats and their families who have immunity.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
You know what....

That actually sounds like a twilight zone episode...]

A whole town full of my children from all over the world(when I was in the service).

A town full of so many wonderful children of mine....yet equally filled with all the women I impregnated and left......

That's good TV right there....


You think pretty highly of yourself, don't you? LOL



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Surrendered to another country... not tried or sentenced by the US for violating the laws of another country as you said.


I said no such thing. This is what I said:
"Sometimes, we extradite aliens to be tried for breaking their own country' laws."

Again, reading comprehension is necessary for a quality discussion.



Immigrants caught crossing the border are immediately deported unless they know the magic word "asylum."


Well, I know that the Obama administration used to do that, under their "catch and release" policy, and people complained that that's why his deportation statistics are so much higher that Trump's. I have no evidence that the Trump administration does that, but I'm open to considering any source you may present.

But, that's not the issue.

You have made the claim that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I argued that if that was true, illegal immigrants would not be charged with breaking US laws, like driving under the influence, or murder. If they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States they wouldn't' be tried in the US courts and wouldn't serve their time in US jails. But the are, so we do.

I brought up extradition because you seemed confused. We extradite criminals who are here, but have committed crimes in other countries, to be tried in that country...usually after they've been through Due Process in this country for any crime that they might have committed here.



edit on 27-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Again, reading comprehension is necessary for a quality discussion.

Yes, on that point I will agree.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm through with you. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck


Comprehend.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, stop watching fake news. Your claims have no basis in fact. Just becomes something has become practice does not mean it is a right. What I quoted were facts, not supposition like your post.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


This was covered already, the people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats and their families who have immunity.

I have a dog named Marty.

Therefore, any animal which is not named Marty must not be a dog.

Diplomats receive special immunity from US law due to their positions with their respective governments. That is mostly historical custom. It exists to ensure that a country will not hold diplomats for ransom (as was done in the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the 70s). They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not because of their diplomatic immunity, but because of their citizenship. They have not agreed to continually abide by the laws of the United States; their VISA and passport are evidence of a temporary agreement for purposes of temporary residency only.

Diplomats make up a small subset of those who have not subjected themselves to US jurisdiction, just as dogs named Marty make up a small subset of all dogs.

For any person to be subject to the jurisdiction of a country and not be considered a slave in that country, that person must have performed an action to indicate their acceptance. When a person is born to US citizens, the actions of the parents confer onto the child and make it a citizen. That's why even abroad, a child born to US citizens is still a citizen... it is not the location of the birth but the parents' acceptance of jurisdiction conferred onto the child. A naturalized citizen undergoes a procedure and takes an oath to indicate their acceptance.

An illegal alien has done nothing to indicate their acceptance of jurisdiction. Breaking a law is not sufficient; breaking a law to enter the country in the first place would indicate more of a non-acceptance of jurisdiction. We have laws that allow for asylum, but those are special circumstances and do not apply to this discussion. Now, one could argue that an alien accepted under asylum laws who has a child here has agreed to jurisdiction by the application and reception of asylum status, and that child would then have birthright citizenship.

"Jurisdiction" here is not quite the same as the common use, where a Georgia State Trooper would not have jurisdiction to enter South Carolina to make an arrest. The idea is similar; the Georgia State Trooper has not been offered and accepted legal rights to exercise his law enforcement capacity in South Carolina, but the common meaning is not quite the same. Jurisdiction is more than just being able to be prosecuted; it is also being under the protection of. A person who has accepted jurisdiction of the US, aka a citizen, has an expectation to be protected by the United States should their rights be endangered, which has been agreed to by the United States. This is not true for an illegal alien. The United States has granted no such thing.

We do have exceptions to that example under Federal law, but those have been agreed to by the states.

An illegal immigrant has not asked for nor received acceptance to be placed under jurisdiction. They are not in their home country where they are citizens. They are visitors who have taken no action to indicate acceptance of jurisdiction, just as a sneak thief has no right to be on private property where the owner has not agreed for them to be there. They do not have jurisdiction; the property owner does.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The Supreme Court seems to have 100+ years of saying you are incorrect.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And yet, my claims have a basis in reality, while your claims are betrayed by that reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not really.

Elk v. Wilkins states:

The decision of this point, as both parties assume in their briefs, depends upon the question whether the legal conclusion, that under and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, is supported by the facts alleged in the petition and admitted by the demurrer, to wit: The plaintiff is an Indian, and was born in the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and city of Omaha.


This is what the court had to say:

The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. They were in a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian. Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any State. General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.

Illegal aliens, because they do not possess Social Security Numbers, cannot be directly taxed either, and they do form "distinct political communities" which are addressed by specific rather than general legislation.

Furthermore:

The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States. They were never deemed citizens of the United States, except under explicit provisions of treaty or statute to that effect, either declaring a certain tribe, or such members of it as chose to remain behind on the removal of the tribe westward, to be citizens, or authorizing individuals of particular tribes to become citizens on application to a court of the United States for naturalization, and satisfactory proof of fitness for civilized life


This case, despite its age (1884), has not been overturned and is therefore still legal precedent. I am sure I can find others if I had the inclination to do so.

That legal interpretation of the court in Elk Vs. Wilkins is exactly what I have been stating. A person not already a citizen cannot by their own virtue declare themselves to be subject to the jurisdiction on the US without US acceptance of such jurisdiction, nor have illegal aliens even made such an attempt in the first place. Their children are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and not covered under the 14th Amendment.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Indian tribes were treated as a separate country at that point even though the residents technically resided within the confines of the United States. Their treaties exempted them from it's jurisdiction.

Come on now, you should know better. All you're basically doing is saying, 'This is what I think the 14th is about', when in reality the Supreme Court has ruled for well over 100 years on what it actually is about. If you were correct there wouldn't even be a discussion about changing birthright citizenship, now would there.










edit on 27-8-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen




Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

Bold is mine.

I'd have to say, on the face of it, that this move would be unconstitutional.


A foreigner, whilst in the US, is not sbject to US juristiction.

The SC way back in the 19th century ruled that the qualifying statement about juristiction was meant to exclude "“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”. Subsequent to that American Indians were denied citizenship because their allegiances were to tribe and not the USA. That decision required a new law to overturn it, The Indian Citizenship Act in the 1920's. The 14th Amendment was not enough.

The language in the 14 Amendment was based on the 19th Century Civil Rights Act - "“all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power”.

Subsequent cases, e.g Wong Kim Ark, seem to give support for the other side of the argument.

I guess if the Govt. is now investigating all potential avenues they will base any EO on sound legal standing.
I think whatever the outcome, it's a win for the US. Either the anchor baby issue is ended OR it becomes fully settled.





A foreigner, whist inside the US borders is absolutely subject to our jurisdiction. . are you saying that foreign individuals do not have to abide by our laws?



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TheRedneck


Indian tribes were treated as a separate country at that point even though the residents technically resided within the confines of the United States. Their treaties exempted them from it's jurisdiction.

Come on now, you should know better. All you're basically doing is saying, 'This is what I think the 14th is about', when in reality the Supreme Court has ruled for well over 100 years on what it actually is about. If you were correct there wouldn't even be a discussion about changing birthright citizenship, now would there.


The only way he (Lord Marmalade) is going to be able to change anything about birthright citizenship is through the courts (uphill battle as precedent has already been set in United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898) or through a constitutional amendment. Any executive order of this nature will (rightfully) be tossed from court.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


This was covered already, the people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats and their families who have immunity.

I have a dog named Marty.

Therefore, any animal which is not named Marty must not be a dog.

Diplomats receive special immunity from US law due to their positions with their respective governments. That is mostly historical custom. It exists to ensure that a country will not hold diplomats for ransom (as was done in the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the 70s). They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not because of their diplomatic immunity, but because of their citizenship. They have not agreed to continually abide by the laws of the United States; their VISA and passport are evidence of a temporary agreement for purposes of temporary residency only.

Diplomats make up a small subset of those who have not subjected themselves to US jurisdiction, just as dogs named Marty make up a small subset of all dogs.

For any person to be subject to the jurisdiction of a country and not be considered a slave in that country, that person must have performed an action to indicate their acceptance. When a person is born to US citizens, the actions of the parents confer onto the child and make it a citizen. That's why even abroad, a child born to US citizens is still a citizen... it is not the location of the birth but the parents' acceptance of jurisdiction conferred onto the child. A naturalized citizen undergoes a procedure and takes an oath to indicate their acceptance.

An illegal alien has done nothing to indicate their acceptance of jurisdiction. Breaking a law is not sufficient; breaking a law to enter the country in the first place would indicate more of a non-acceptance of jurisdiction. We have laws that allow for asylum, but those are special circumstances and do not apply to this discussion. Now, one could argue that an alien accepted under asylum laws who has a child here has agreed to jurisdiction by the application and reception of asylum status, and that child would then have birthright citizenship.

"Jurisdiction" here is not quite the same as the common use, where a Georgia State Trooper would not have jurisdiction to enter South Carolina to make an arrest. The idea is similar; the Georgia State Trooper has not been offered and accepted legal rights to exercise his law enforcement capacity in South Carolina, but the common meaning is not quite the same. Jurisdiction is more than just being able to be prosecuted; it is also being under the protection of. A person who has accepted jurisdiction of the US, aka a citizen, has an expectation to be protected by the United States should their rights be endangered, which has been agreed to by the United States. This is not true for an illegal alien. The United States has granted no such thing.

We do have exceptions to that example under Federal law, but those have been agreed to by the states.

An illegal immigrant has not asked for nor received acceptance to be placed under jurisdiction. They are not in their home country where they are citizens. They are visitors who have taken no action to indicate acceptance of jurisdiction, just as a sneak thief has no right to be on private property where the owner has not agreed for them to be there. They do not have jurisdiction; the property owner does.

TheRedneck


The court has ruled against literally everything you have stated here dating back 100 years. You are basing this on your own warped opinion.. not in reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

Wong Kim Ark stated birthright citizenship was granted due to the parents being permanently domiciled (legal) and having legitimate business in the US. How does that help illegals again?



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And yet, my claims have a basis in reality, while your claims are betrayed by that reality.


I made no claims at all. I stated facts.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Alternative facts.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen




Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

Bold is mine.

I'd have to say, on the face of it, that this move would be unconstitutional.


A foreigner, whilst in the US, is not sbject to US juristiction.

The SC way back in the 19th century ruled that the qualifying statement about juristiction was meant to exclude "“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”. Subsequent to that American Indians were denied citizenship because their allegiances were to tribe and not the USA. That decision required a new law to overturn it, The Indian Citizenship Act in the 1920's. The 14th Amendment was not enough.

The language in the 14 Amendment was based on the 19th Century Civil Rights Act - "“all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power”.

Subsequent cases, e.g Wong Kim Ark, seem to give support for the other side of the argument.

I guess if the Govt. is now investigating all potential avenues they will base any EO on sound legal standing.
I think whatever the outcome, it's a win for the US. Either the anchor baby issue is ended OR it becomes fully settled.





A foreigner, whist inside the US borders is absolutely subject to our jurisdiction. . are you saying that foreign individuals do not have to abide by our laws?

Sorry, that is not an adequate answer. Native tribes were subject to US law, but were not subject to US jurisdiction. That is why the 14th did not apply to them.

Elk v. Wilkins


Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are 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.


So Indians were geographically born in the US. They were subject to US laws as well. But they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Similarly in Won Kim Ark, the SC ruled the fact they were permanent residents and had legitimate business in the US they became subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Illegals neither have permanent residence in the US (nor do tourists), and they can not legally engage in business (nor can tourists).

So you are in fact the one who is mistaken. If what you claimed was true the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would not have been needed.




top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join