AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
So you agree that those born on American soil are US citizens as per the Constitution.
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP
- Thread starter Dachshund
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
As of right now, yes. But the choice in terms of a US citizen born children born to illegal alien parents should be one of two outcomes:
1. The parents are deported and their children go with them. The child can reenter the US on their 18th birthday as an adult and US citizen.
2. The parents are deported and their children become wards of the government and placed in a foster home allowing them to grow up in the US as US citizens.
So, which do you prefer, keeping families together or breaking them up? After all, this shitty situation was caused entirely by the parent's decision to be criminals.
Why? Kids have no relationship to anything when they are kids. Therefore, we can send any kids wherever Trump wants. Alcatraz awaits.
If they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Illegals can't vote they can't be drafted. They aren't subject to our laws. They owe allegiance to the country where their parents came from.
Last edited:
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
That isn't what the OP is about.
You clearly disagree with him.
Those born in America are citizens.
Why weren't Indians citizens prior to 1924?
ELK v Wilkins
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Already discussed.
To be criminals? Their choice was to find a place that they could better their families' future, much like our ancestors did.
My ancestors migrated here LEGALLY. They did not push their way to the front of the line.
But you had no real answer . I'm still waiting for a rational answer from you. Why did Congress pass the Snyder Act?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
They have a relationship to their family and parents.
Why wasn't Elk a US citizen?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
They came to the US illegally! That makes them criminals! How fucking hard is that to understand?
Your response is nothing but a lame excuse. "They (came to) better their families..." Well, if they robbed a bank to have more income would that justify bank robbery? Our ancestors came in legal ways to the US. There's no comparison there.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Already answered. They considered them to be in a nation separated from America.
The reservations have always been subject to our federal laws. So what about the
subject to the jurisdiction thereof qualifier?
Prior to 1924, Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States were not generally considered American citizens. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge, changed this by granting citizenship to all Native Americans born within the U.S
Attachments
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
They were not considered citizens because their nations were not considered a part of the USA.
I have read Elk v Wilkins. You should try reading it yourself. It says that Indians born in the US are in the same class as children born in a foreign country to foreign parents and children of foreign ambassadors born in the US. It also says that all black and white persons born in the US are citizens of the US.
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which therehad been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in thisCourt, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v.Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
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.
This view is confirmed by the second section of the FourteenthAmendment, which provides that
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."
Then the ruling points out that the 14th amendment specifically excludes Indians from being counted for apportionment of representatives. That sentence would exclude them from being citizens since all citizens are included in the count as well as all persons that are not Indians not taxed.
But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation in which all other persons are now included is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for aproportionate.
Trying to claim that foreign persons in the US are Indians is complete nonsense since all foreign person working in the US are subject to taxation in the US.
Would you care to tell us where in law or a court ruling "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means they can be drafted or an vote?
Women are not subject to the draft so by your argument, women can't be US citizens.
Women didn't get the right to vote until 1919 so according to your argument women would not be citizens if born in the US until 1919.
Subject to the jurisdiction means they are subject to US laws and can be indicted and convicted. Foreign ambassadors are not subject to US laws so their children are not US citizens if born in the US.