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.

 

49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship: CNN poll

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The difference being that I come from a country that consistently rates in the top three in quality of life surveys. There is no question that my life is better now then it ever was in America. But for someone who just used their life savings to make it across the border, not so much.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 

All you did was state the requirements that define a "natural born citizen." For a child to be granted natural born US citizenship, the parent must at least a US citizen, either born or naturalized. A person may also be "subject to the US," by living, working or being born inside of US jurisdiction...That is, inside a US Possession or Territory (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Philippine Islands or District of Columbia) or a US Enclave (lands ceded to the US government by a State, as per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17).

This is different with State jurisdiction & when you're dealing with the State or Federal Government, jurisdiction means EVERYTHING. Of course, the Fed jurisdiction I mentioned above is the ONLY places where the Feds can do anything, subject to the US Constitution. So the 14th Amendment is actually defining a "second class citizenship" that is inferior to the true Birthright Citizenship inside of State boundaries! US citizenship specifies only a limited number of Rights being protected & the rest of our enumerated Rights are not applicable!

The government cannot lawfully create or bestow or even lawfully define Natural Rights, they can only grant privledges & US citizenship is a privledge, not a birthright. As the Obamacare Bill was being pushed through Congress, there was a lot of talk about "medical care being a right" was just plain baloney-propaganda...An outright LIE! A person must enter into some kind of contract or agreement to obtain US citizenship. This is the whole core behind Federal Immigration.

The States have their own Immigration Laws, even before the US government was created! (The States created the Feds? You betcha'!) These are the Laws that would have jurisdiction OVER Fed Immigration Laws, within the States' own boundaries. The US Government has, historically, grown far, far too big for its britches & consistently violate the People, the States & even the Constitution...You cannot trust such a government to abide by the laws.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Now I'm confused.

I was making two different statements/suggestions

1- Amend the rule so that citizenship isn't bestowed upon a child at birth unless the mother is here legally and

2- Remove the natural born citizen eligibility requirement for the presidency. There is a great deal of confusion about the "natural born citizen" definition as it applies in that situation, mainly because it's never been challenged before the Supreme Court. A good legal case could be built that John McCain wasn't eligible. Link (Granted #2 is off-topic to this thread)


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
Amend the rule so that citizenship isn't bestowed upon a child at birth unless the mother is here legally

That's what is meant by the 14th Amendment where it includes the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If the mother is either a legal immigrant, naturalized citizen or happens to give birth on US Territories, Possessions or Enclaves, then she & the child ARE "subject to the jurisdiction."


Originally posted by yeahright
Remove the natural born citizen eligibility requirement for the presidency.

From my research about the Constitution & the original intent & purpose on the minds of the Constitutional Framers, I'd have to say that would be a bad idea. It all stems from the idea that it's not a good idea to let anybody into Public Office that could demonstrate "divided loyalties."

Note the Titles & Nobilities Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8), the somewhat stiffer requirements on Congressional Officers (Article 1, Section 1, Clause 2), then look at the President's requirements (Article2, Section 1, Clause 5) & then the varioius Oaths of Office (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 9 & Article 6, Clause 3) that lawfully binds ALL Officers under the Constitution: That's right...Lawfully bound UNDER it. Not equal to or greater than.

In the Articles of Confederation & the Journals of the Continental Congress (at that time, the Supreme Law of the Land until the Constitution was ratified), the State governments made it plain that the higher the office, the more assurance there would be needed for loyalty to America in our Officers, instead of loyalty to any other Power or Interest. In short, those requirements are there IN LAW for a very good reason.

The Constitution isn't a menu from which to pick & choose (even though our current Government Officers do just that), it functions as an interlocking, synergistic whole, more than equal to the mere sum of its parts.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I think it's ironic that some people seriously want to modify the constitution to remove rights, instead of granting them....


Thank God it takes 2/3's vote of both house and senate as well as the ratification of 3/4's of all US states to modify the constitution.

"flag burning, illegal immigrants, homosexual marraige, terror babies, taxes." The politicians must laugh when they wake up in the morning and go to their closet to pull out their latest boogey men to scare their voters into voting. "Let's gets conservative voters all up in arms and pissed to change something they have no power over....hahahaha"



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


What is this of intent?

We have no idea of it's intent. If it had an intent it would have been written into the amendment!

It doesn't "Aid illegal immigrants." How foolish is that? The parents can still get kicked out, but the children stay. And those are American Citizens. When will you learn to deal with it



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Choronzon
 


First of all, the Constitution does not give us any rights, rather it prevents government from impeding our god given and self evident rights. Furthermore, to amend the Constitution to dissallow illegal aliens from planting babies here, is hardly affecting the rights of US citizens. I would even venture to say that our rights are being hurt by not doing so.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Unless you're a Native American, everybody here has at one time descended from parents who weren't citizens.

If the proposed amendment was in place two hundred years ago (when my ancestors got here) I wouldn't be a citizen today.

Duhhhhhh

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Did your ancestors illegally immigrate? Furthermore, the only reason why the "citizenship clause" was added, was so that children of African American slaves could easily assimilate into society after the fall of slavery.

Sure, everyone's ancestors (to include Native Americans), migrated here at one time or another but the difference is that most people did it legally and dollowing the right processes, just like with everything else we have to do in life.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The fact remains, as Airspoon's posted

that approx. HALF of all Americans want their government to curtail the insupportable levels of immigration

And although the US media draws a lot of criticism and deservedly so in many instances

I'm PROUD of that media for releasing TO the public, the fact that 50% of the US public wants a halt to immigration, beginning with illegals and their 'anchor babies'

Good on you, US media


Further, the fact that without prevarication, 50% of Americans have said NO to the population growth via in this instance illegal immigrants is a sign that the American public has had enough !

Don't blame Americans

People across the globe are saying exactly the same thing

So politicians --- ignore the will of the people and it will be at your own cost

Starred Airspoon's posts as I came across them

and will now work backwards through the thread and also star any I might have missed



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 



1- Amend the rule so that citizenship isn't bestowed upon a child at birth unless the mother is here legally and


You'd have to tighten that up a bit. Case in point: a pregnant woman from Spain or wherever is here visiting her sister when she gives birth. Imo, the child is of Spanish citizenship.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

From my research about the Constitution & the original intent & purpose on the minds of the Constitutional Framers, I'd have to say that would be a bad idea. It all stems from the idea that it's not a good idea to let anybody into Public Office that could demonstrate "divided loyalties."


If you can tell me how a person who is a "natural born citizen" is less inclined to "divided loyalties" than one who isn't, I'd love to see that argument. The whole process is designed to vet the candidates and let the public make the determination. I see no compelling reason in this day and age to disqualify someone for the presidency solely upon the criterion of their place of birth, which is something you have -0- control over.

I'd like to see more concern over "divided loyalties" when it comes to corporate interests, and there are only a couple of million examples of that happening, with both parties.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
If you can tell me how a person who is a "natural born citizen" is less inclined to "divided loyalties" than one who isn't, I'd love to see that argument.

It seems to me that there's some sort of confusion between actual Birthright Citizenship & the 14th Amendment version of US citizenship & it starts with a confusion of the actual lawful jurisdiction involved.

Birthright Citizenship is what is the Common Law & the upholding of Natural Rights is all about, according to the State Constitution in effect in the place of birth: US citizenship is defined wholly by the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment & establishing what US jurisdiction lawfully includes. The US Cosntitution defines not only the limited Powers delegated to the US, but also the limit of US enforcement according to jurisdiction.

The States had already defined what constitutes State Citizenship (some merely require being resident for a certain time period, or specific location of birth within State boundaries, etc. State Citizenship varies somewhat from State to State) even before the US Constitution was ratified.

The Code of Federal Regulations & the Federal Register (which makes the explicit distinction between Natural Citizenship (with a captial "C") compared to US citizenship (with a lower-case "c") can explain the limits of US jurisdiction better than I can here, but it boils down to Possessions, Territories & Enclaves. Another, more thorough, explanation of the limits of US jurisdiction can be found here, at the Supreme Law Firm.

Possessions & Territories are specifically named to include (with no other specified expansions!) Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Philippine Islands & the District of Columbia. US Enclaves consist solely of lands within State boundaries that have been lawfully ceded to the US, according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 (to establish Post Roads) and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (limited to 10 miles square & for specific purposes included therein). That's it! US jurisdiction is geographically limited to NOT include all other land within State boundaries, as established within the State Constitutions!

Birthright Citizenship consists of a natural birth that is within State boundaries, but NOT within US boundaries. Birthright Citizenship is indeed a lawful Right, whereas the 14th Amendment citizenship is a priviledge granted by the US Government.

The confusion, I think, is that those who advocate repealing "birthright citizenship" from the US Constitution seem to confuse the difference between the true Birthright Citizenship (by being born within State boundaries) with the Naturalized citizenship defined by the 14th Amendment...They seem to think that the two different terms (that denote the differences in jurisdiction) as being interchangable, when they are distinctly different. therefore, calling for the abolition of "birthright citizenship" is the (quite probably honest mistake) isn't possible because Birthright Citizenship is a Right of Natural Law, not bestowed by the US government. They should instead be calling for the repeal of US citizenship instead, because that is the "government-issued" priviledge & is tied with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" & can only uphold the Rights specifically stated within the 14th Amendment.

This is the reason why I originally said that calling for the repeal of Birthright Citizenship is a mistake.

The US Constitution specifically calls for all Federal & State level government employees to be US citizens...This is where divided loyalties comes in. A person must contract or otherwise enter into an agreement to become an official US (14th Amendment) citizen: Dual (or multiple)-citizenships or any other demonstratable loyalties to foreign organizations (such as the European-originated BAR Association for lawyers, for one example) cannot be allowed. This disqualification appears specifically under the Titles & Nobilities Clause that I've mentioned before.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


That's an outstanding point. To determine one's loyalty based upon his place of birth is silly to say the least. However, it is harder to trace backgrounds with people who haven't been here their whole lives, or with people who have large families/relationships outside of the US, I would presume. This would especially ring true for those from the third-world or countries not particularly friendly with the US.

With that being said, I find that some of the most loyal and proud Americans, are those that have immigrated here (legally, as I don't know too many illegal immigrants) from somewhere else. I have yet to meet a naturalized citizen who doesn't absolutely love this country, though sadly I can't say the same for many people who were born here.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Wow, looks like 49% of our population are just tools.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Oh here we go. The Neo Nazis (er I mean Cons) are gaining control.

So oh short sighted fools. Why on Earth would you want to destroy this amendment? You do know that this Amendment ALSO prevents states from stomping all over your other fundamental rights right? Like your precious 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? Get rid of the 14th Amendment, and States can legally and constitutionally outlaw GUNS! All this to get rid of the illegals babies?

What? To get the illegals? Really? You want to give up our freedoms to get at the illegals babies?

I mean what is a baby going to...



OMG! OMG! HITLER BABY! KILL IT, KILL IT WITH FIRE!

I now see what you neo cons mean, those Hitler babies are just awful, sprouting up everywhere. Thank god the Neo-Cons are here to strip us of our civil liberties in order to save us from the horrors that are the "Hitler Anchor Babies!" (DUNN DUNN DUNN!)



Hey, conservatism is all about upholding states rights and less power to the federal government. So why is this at all surprising to you?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
i'm not on top of this one-but just because you were born here wouldnt make you a citizen right?. so how do we establish citizenship then? the only reason i'm american is because i was born here- as far as i know.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by p51mustang
i'm not on top of this one-but just because you were born here wouldnt make you a citizen right?.

Like all things that concern the law & who is authorized to enforce the law, it's a matter of jurisdiction.

You would be an American Citizen, yes...But a citizen of the United States is a different jurisdiction as defined for the 14th Amendment.

As long as you weren't born on a specific, limited US Possession, Territory or Enclave & have not passed through any Federal Naturalization process, you would not be "subject to" the Federal government.

If you were born in any State, but not on any land that the State had ceded to the US government, you do automatically possess American Citizenship, as a Citizen of one of the States within the Union.

Obtaining a US citizenship is something like being born into your family on their own property, but then you accept an offer of "adoption" by your neighbor. Once you accept that offer, you become a part of that new family. But you can never truly give up the family you were born into, but you become "subject to" the new "house rules" in practice in your new home.

By accepting US citizenship, you live by the rules established within the 14th Amendment, which specifies only a bare few of the Rights that you held before.

The US government has quite a few "legal traps" that put people through some form or another of "Naturalization." The two primary traps in use are:
1: Having your birth certificate registered, instead of duly filed & recorded at the Hall of Records in the county you were born.
2: Another trap is the application for a Social Security card.
There are a lot of other such traps, but these two are the most widespread. Most people wind up falling into the unknowingly & that's the sad part.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join