The Snyder Act and Birthright Citizenship

[ExpressLane]

So let's make a list of people who can have court cases thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction:
1) Historically, some Native American nations, but not so much anymore.
2) Diplomats
And three.... No that is about it, one and two.

Saying you are a foreigner will not get your case thrown out of court for lack of jurisdiction.

1. Prior to 1924 American Indians could be convicted of crimes but they could not be drafted or vote. After 1924 they could be convicted of crimes and they could vote and be drafted.

2. Before and after 1924 diplomats could not be convicted of crime or vote or be drafted

We needed an Act of Congress to grant people that were born in the United States even if they were born off the reservation BECAUSE they were born to two non-US citizen parents that were citizens of another Nation. A child that is born in the US but to two non-US citizen parents is a citizen of their country not ours. It would take an act of Congress similar to the Snyder Act to change that fact.

 

[Walt]

You need to dig up Dwight Eisenhower and tell him - since he deported tens of thousands of illegals born in the USA during "Operation Wetback."

Operation Wetback was deporting in the 1950's people who had arrived in WWII. That means there were children who were born in America deported with their parents. They could then re-enter the USA as US citizens as adults.

Irrelevant. It will keep you from being drafted, being eligible to hold public office, LEGALLY voting, or being eligible for birthright citizenship for your offspring.

Being a minor will also do all that... So any children of minors are no longer citizens?

By the way, foreign nations, even illegal foreign nations, can be drafted.

 

[Walt]

1. Prior to 1924 American Indians were being convicted of crimes but they could not be drafted or vote. After 1924 they could be convicted of crimes and the could vote and be drafted.

Some Native Americans were convicted of crimes, but only if there was jurisdiction. For many, there was no jurisdiction, so no way to convict them of a crime.

Geronimo could literally ride in front of police on a stolen horse, and they could do nothing about it.

 

[Walt]

but the chain migration that follows.

To sponsor a relative, a US citizen must be 21 years old. So, an "anchor baby" would first have to exist for 21 years. Then to bring in a parent from most Latin American countries has a waiting list of 10 to 20 years plus process time of several years. And finally they need to be in the USA for 5 years to get citizenship. So that is a process that close to half a century. I suppose it can be duplicated in a chain... But that is a very weak chain.

 

[ExpressLane]

So let's make a list of people who can have court cases thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction:
1) Historically, some Native American nations, but not so much anymore.
2) Diplomats
And three.... No that is about it, one and two.

Saying you are a foreigner will not get your case thrown out of court for lack of jurisdiction.

If you're were suing to be able to vote your case would be thrown out.

 

[ExpressLane]

To sponsor a relative, a US citizen must be 21 years old. So, an "anchor baby" would first have to exist for 21 years. Then to bring in a parent from most Latin American countries has a waiting list of 10 to 20 years plus process time of several years. And finally they need to be in the USA for 5 years to get citizenship. So that is a process that close to half a century. I suppose it can be duplicated in a chain... But that is a very weak chain.

My brother in law was a Palestinian he married my American sister in law. He was able to bring over several of his family members via chain migration.

Also the US is loathed to deport a parent of a US citizen. On the Texas border Hospitals have a huge problem with foreign women just showing up in labor to have a baby with ZERO prenatal care. It a drain on resources. The concept of birthright citizenship has never been fully challenged in the SCOTUS.

 

[Walt]

If you're were suing to be able to vote your case would be thrown out.

If a foreign national sues to vote, their case would not be thrown out due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Foreign nationals can vote in some local elections. Local governments are free to make their own laws about who can vote... As is the federal government.

So if the government bans women from voting, those women are still US citizens. If the government bans minors from voting, those minors are still US citizens.

 

[Walt]

My brother in law was a Palestinian he married my American sister in law. He was able to bring over several of his family members via chain migration.

I assume for him to be married, he was an adult?

To sponsor family members, you have to be over 21. There is no longer any such thing as an "anchor baby." You now need to have an "anchor legal adult", and it can take decades to bring family members in.

 

[Jarod]

That's because a child born to American parents is American, regardless of where they are born. That's the whole point. A child born to Mexican parents is Mexican, regardless of where the child is born.

But the child born to Mexican parents in America is both, under our law.

I don’t know about Mexican law.

 

[Damocles]

I do not know about what France could do, but America could and has drafted people born in France to American parents.

Cite?

It would only happen if they moved back here. Basically, imagine a baby born in France of two American parents, he stays there, speaks French, never visits the United States and never registers for Selective Service when he hits 18 because he's never lived in the US. Could he be drafted by the US?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

But the child born to Mexican parents in America is both, under our law.

I don’t know about Mexican law.

You mean under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That's why this needs to be examined by the Supreme Court to determine what the Amendment means.

 

[ExpressLane]

Read up on Elk vs Wilkins.

In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the United States, and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.

Did that mean Elk could commit any crime like bank robbery ,murder, etc. no it means he was a citizen of the nation his parents were citizens of. The US could not require him to serve in the military to defend this country. The US cannot require him to serve on a jury.

 

[Walt]

It would only happen if they moved back here. Basically, imagine a baby born in France of two American parents, he stays there, speaks French, never visits the United States and never registers for Selective Service when he hits 18 because he's never lived in the US. Could he be drafted by the US?

As a general rule, you do need to be physically present in the USA to be drafted. So if he never enters the USA, he is probably safe from the draft. Meanwhile, a French citizen resident in the USA could be drafted.

He is not safe from American taxes. America is unusual that it taxes citizens where ever they earn their money, and whatever country they are in. He would have a tough decision whether to renounce his citizenship, or to potentially pay US taxes.

There are Americans who hide their citizenship, and avoid taxes, but the second you tell the US Government you are a citizen, the IRS begins circling.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To sponsor a relative, a US citizen must be 21 years old. So, an "anchor baby" would first have to exist for 21 years. Then to bring in a parent from most Latin American countries has a waiting list of 10 to 20 years plus process time of several years. And finally they need to be in the USA for 5 years to get citizenship. So that is a process that close to half a century. I suppose it can be duplicated in a chain... But that is a very weak chain.

Ah the bullshit you post...

When an illegal drops a child they get temporary status (Green Card) and can immediately start bringing in family members.

1.2 MILLION people enter the US through Chain Migration each and every year.

How Chain Migration Works

www.rpc.senate.gov

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Operation Wetback was deporting in the 1950's people who had arrived in WWII. That means there were children who were born in America deported with their parents. They could then re-enter the USA as US citizens as adults.

That's fine by me. When they're 18, they can come back. If they're 18+ now, they can stay, their parents get deported.

If you want to whine about how you're breaking up a family, I say they should have thought of that before they committed crime in the US as non-citizens for which they're being deported.

Being a minor will also do all that... So any children of minors are no longer citizens?

False equivalence fallacy.

By the way, foreign nations, even illegal foreign nations, can be drafted.

The US doesn't draft foreign nationals and never has. Foreign nationals can volunteer for US military service and have. It might be different with some other nations, but that is irrelevant to the issue of what the US does.

 

[Walt]

When an illegal drops a child they get temporary status (Green Card) and can immediately start bringing in family members.

That is not what the link you gave said. The link you gave also reminds us that the waiting time for Mexicans getting a Green Card is 20 years, and that is only after a year or two application process. So a 21 year old waits applies for a Green Card for their parents, and hopefully gets it 21 years later. Then there is a five year process (minimum) to get citizenship. The entire process taking about half a century.

 

[Walt]

The US doesn't draft foreign nationals and never has.

Well, that is a lie. I have ancestors who were drafted as foreign nationals.

In the real world, almost everyone resident in the USA who is male between the ages of 18 and 25 needs to register for the draft.

 

[Jarod]

Cite?

It would only happen if they moved back here. Basically, imagine a baby born in France of two American parents, he stays there, speaks French, never visits the United States and never registers for Selective Service when he hits 18 because he's never lived in the US. Could he be drafted by the US?

True

He could but it would never happen.

 

[Jarod]

You mean under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That's why this needs to be examined by the Supreme Court to determine what the Amendment means.

There is not much question as to what it means, and there are not enough hacks on the court yet to pretend there is.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

There is not much question as to what it means, and there are not enough hacks on the court yet to pretend there is.

All we need is 5 and we have 6.