Neil N. Blowme
Verified User
The part that is misunderstood is "jurisdiction". It simply doesn't make sense that a child born to a person here illegally is automatically a citizen.
Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
Read the Elk v Wilkins decision. Ask yourself what the difference is between the son of two American Indians prior to 1924 and the son of two Guatemalans today. Stop trying to dodge the issue.
People here illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their country. They cannot vote here or serve in the military in this country but most can in their country.
READ the SC Elk v Wilkins decision.
Neil N. Blowme
Verified User
Agree. The sole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure full citizenship rights to ex-slaves and descendants. Children of people here illegally wasn't the intent.
So you are not well informed on the subject. If Native Americans were citizens because they were born in the US then Congress would not have had to pass the Snyder Act to grant them citizenship. The 14th was passed to grant the children of slave citizenship not the children of parents from foreign countries. American Indians were considered citizens of sovereign nations prior to 1924. Two illegals from Guatemala are consider citizens of a sovereign nation. They cannot vote here nor serve in our military. The kids of an American Indian before 1924 were not considered citizens (See Elk v Wilkins)
Wong was considered an American because both of his parents had permanent legal residency. The 14rh grants permanent resident like the slaves citizenship because they are here legally. Invading armies aren't here legally and illegal immigrants are not here legally. Their kids are not citizens.
Tobytone
Verified User
Wow, you're really struggling to understand this. No President has ever challenged Birthright Citizenship with an Executive Order until Trump decided to take a stand against the open borders crowd. And all you keep bringing up is this ancient case from 125 years ago like it settles everything. Newsflash, in 1898, the child's parents were here legally, not illegally crossing our borders like it's some free-for-all.
Immigration was a whole different ballgame back then. It wasn't until 1929 that we finally made it a crime to sneak in anywhere but at designated points. That's a big difference, but I guess nuances are lost on those ready to side with insane policies that put us all at risk. As I've been saying, we'll just have to wait and see how this goes. Maybe it's time to consider supporting policies that are pro-America for once.
That is an easy one. Guatemalans don't owe allegiance to an Indian tribe that has a reservation in the US. Elk was born on a reservation.
That is false. Read US v Kim Wong Ark. A child of two Chinese parents that hold allegiance to China is a US citizen when born in the US.
Wong makes clear that foreigners in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Agree, they were not subject earlier because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations.
As a point of interest, I would think the 1885 law would add some murkiness to the 1898 case. That, because partial jurisdiction was granted, there was nothing to prevent expansion to full federal jurisdiction.
Here legally or not is not the issue. The issue is "subject to the jurisdiction" Wong clearly lays out that there are very limited classes of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Those are Indians not taxed, foreign sovereigns, foreign ministers and diplomats and foreign troops. All other persons in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
From Wong
The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption "from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found" were stated as follows:
"When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.
...
the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute,
Wow. You really need to learn some history. Look up the Chinese exclusion act.
Slavery was settled law of the land for a good bit too until it wasn't.
Women not voting as well.
People wake the fuck up and smell the coffee every so often.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Good points. Wasted on Brad, I expect.
Tobytone
Verified User
Run from you? ROFLMAO, you wish. I'm finally back to work, so you'll just have to wait for my insights. I know it's hard for libtards to grasp, but there's nothing I love more than excelling in my industry, especially leaving all the lazy, entitlement-minded libtard drones in the dust, obviously, in real life more than in this echo chamber of idiocy.
This site? It's overrun with brain-dead drones like you. Some are retired with all the time in the world, many are just sponging off mommy and daddy, living off some trust fund, sucking on welfare, or government workers that sit on their asses and surf the web, maybe a few actually contribute to getting things that matter done. Typical libtards, all talk and no work ethic.
It's tough to peg which category you fall into with so little to go on, but if I had to guess, you're probably still in your parents' basement. So, what exactly am I supposed to be running from? Your baseless accusations or your towering intellect?
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
He's past retirement age living on an old sailboat after the court gave his ex the house and most of his assets.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
It was mentioned early on in this thread, by Toby, that this was a ruling by activist judges ... because the Chinese exclusion act prevented the parents from obtaining citizenship.
The Dissent already posted is a rebuttable to the opinion of the majority.
And IMO, "Temporary Allegiance" is not a sound argument for "Permanent citizenship". If the parents are only here temporarily, it makes no sense.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the 1885 "limited jurisdiction" over Indians should be enough for them to be included, as well as the fact that the tribal nations did not have full sovereignty over Indian territories.
Last edited:
Tobytone
Verified User
Dude, give up the act already. 'I knew all about this case long ago because I've studied it at length' yeah, right, you're just another AI warrior like everyone else. The problem is, you can't seem to pound a simple concept into your thick skull. The very different detail from 1898 that you're missing is the whole illegal entry part, especially when we're talking about criminals with no background check.
It's glaringly obvious to those with half a brain that if for example, some mass-murdering psycho bitch and her whole family of thieving, raping, killing lunatics just waltzes over the border, plops out a baby on the sand, and bam, they're all magically citizens of the greatest nation on Earth, ready to start their criminal behavior and fraudulent filings for countless benefits. You think that's a ridiculous example, right? That's because you don't think, it's not the usual but definitely one real scenario that has and does happen.
Does that make sense to you? Because to anyone with common sense, it's absurd. Most of us think that when this ridiculous policy is finally challenged with these arguments, sanity might just prevail. The current policy is an insult to those who follow the rules and a clear and present danger to every American's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any chance you'll ever get it through your head?
Wrong, Wong Ark's parents had permanent domicile in the US they were not temporary residents. illegal Aliens are not permanent residents as Trump is currently proving.
.
Nope
