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: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So quoting the SC is now an alternative fact? I guess in the world of an #NPC programmed for #OrangeManBad and nothing else it would be.




posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

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.


I would be willing to see your sources of the SC ruling an illegal is subject to the jurisdiction of the US per the 14th amendment. Maybe I missed it.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


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.

Is Guatemala not treated as a separate country? Mexico? Honduras? Even though their citizens may technically be present in the US without approval?

The law is not specific to any one person or group. All are treated equally. The fact that the plaintiff in the Elk vs. Wilkins case was Native American is literally not mentioned in the decision, only in the background. The decision lists why he cannot force the United States top accept him as under jurisdiction, and those reasons are applicable to all.

We are past the days of Jim Crow when laws could be targeted at a specific people. I am amazed you would argue otherwise.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Is Guatemala not treated as a separate country? Mexico? Honduras? Even though their citizens may technically be present in the US without approval?


Are they residing as a separately negotiated nation within the United States? Rhetorical.

It still leaves you with the same situaiton as before. If you are correct, why does Trump need to EO this? Also rhetorical.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

I looked up the Wong Kim Ark case. I was unable to find the exact ruling, but I did find excerpts, one of which is at Wikipedia:

"a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China"

These conditions do not apply to illegal aliens crossing the border. Wong Kim Ark's parents were not citizens, but were permanent legal residents who were actively engaged in legitimate business in the United States and were therefore subject to US jurisdiction. As I alluded to before, someone whose parents are here legally may well have a claim under he 14th Amendment, but those who are here illegally do not.

You speak of reality, but so far I seem to be the only one posting and analyzing actual court decisions.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Assuming that the Wonk Kim Ark decision denies birth right citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants is an alternative fact.

Tell you what, I'll admit you're correct in the precedence you're claiming this case sets, if you can show me one case where a child, found to be born in the United States, was denied birth right citizenship because his undocumented parents lived in temporary housing, or were homeless, and/or didn't own a business or were not gainfully employed at the time of the child's birth.


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



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Are they residing as a separately negotiated nation within the United States? Rhetorical.

Not really rhetorical. They are residing, illegally, in the United States and are citizens of a separately negotiated nation. The only difference is that nation is not itself within the bounds of the United States.

So I believe the answer to your "rhetorical" question would be mostly in the affirmative.


It still leaves you with the same situaiton as before. If you are correct, why does Trump need to EO this? Also rhetorical.

Also not rhetorical. An Executive Order is not law, nor does it affect the Constitution. Its an order given by the President to specify actions within the Executive branch that are consistent with the Constitution and Federal law.

Therefore an Executive Order is needed whenever an administration believes the present actions being taken by the Executive branch are in need of change, not when the President wants to violate the Constitution. Violation of the Constitution is simply not within the pervue of the President.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

a better solution would be to send the child back home with his/her parents. then when the child turns 18, that young adult can come to the U.S. as a citizen.

the parents would have no part in this other than taking the child back home.

this would support the 14th amendment and limit the number of people coming into the country.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Is Guatemala not treated as a separate country? Mexico? Honduras? Even though their citizens may technically be present in the US without approval?


Are they residing as a separately negotiated nation within the United States? Rhetorical.

It still leaves you with the same situaiton as before. If you are correct, why does Trump need to EO this? Also rhetorical.

The EO simply changes policy, not law. The government can give citizenship to people even if they do not meet the requirements for birthright citizenship. That has been the policy.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Assuming that the Wonk Kim Ark decision denies birth right citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants is an alternative fact.

Tell you what, I'll admit you're correct in the precedence you're claiming this case sets, if you can show me one case where a child, found to be born in the United States, was denied birth right citizenship because his undocumented parents lived in temporary housing, or were homeless, and/or didn't own a business or were not gainfully employed at the time of the child's birth.


I made no assumptions. I stated facts. You are the one making assumptions. You are assuming and claiming that because a case about legal immigrants granted citizenship that illegals get it too.

It's hilarious that the only one of us doing what you are complaining about is you.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

You can't deny a citizen residence in the US. This is why we have the problem we have. The better solution is to get this to the SC to make a ruling on the matter.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



You are the one making assumptions.


Me, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who gained their citizenship through the 14th Amendment, while their parents remain undocumented non-citizens.

More recently:


Texas officials had argued that illegal aliens were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "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." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."


en.wikipedia.org...


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



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04





The EO simply changes policy, not law.


Any such executive order would have to declare that the children of undocumented aliens, and their parents, are not within the jurisdiction of the United States.


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



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you admit you are making assumptions after saying how bad they are. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It would state that no citizenship is granted as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, yes.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My "assumptions" are based in the reality of the American citizenship of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children born on US soil of undocumented parents.

Yours are not based on any known or demonstrable reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Policy and law are two different things. The US can give citizenship if they want to even if they do not qualify under the 14th amendment.

Question, what happened to a Native American born off reservation before 1924, instant citizenship? The answer, is no. They had several options to gaining citizenship, but being born on US soil off reservation was not one of them, because being on US soil did not convey jurisdiction.

Why are you so against this being sent to the US Supreme Court for clarification?
edit on 27-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Oh, this is too rich.

ATS Right-wingers: Guns are my constitutionally protected right and you can't touch the constitution.

Also ATS Right-wingers: Altering the 14th Amendment is perfectly fine and here, check out these gymnastics routines that'll get you to see it more clearly as well!

Baaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha this is my favorite thread in months!!!



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Why are you so against this being sent to the US Supreme Court for clarification?


Where did I say that? Why are you always jumping the shark?

I said that any executive order denying birth right citizenship to children born of undocumented children would have to declare them and their parents "not under the jurisdiction of the United States", to get around the jurisdiction provision of the 14th Amendment.



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



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Not really rhetorical. They are residing, illegally, in the United States and are citizens of a separately negotiated nation.


Then it isn't the same as they are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The only difference is that nation is not itself within the bounds of the United States.


Also not rhetorical. An Executive Order is not law, nor does it affect the Constitution.


Nor can it violate the Constitution.

It still doesn't address my point, if there isn't birthright citizenship then why does there need to be an EO to eliminate it?




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join