Posted on 08/24/2015 6:10:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Finally an accurate analysis aimple enough even o Really might understand.
This is a terrific article. It explains the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ in the legal sense very clearly. Thanks for posting it.
I don’t know if we have enough time left for that.
Despite the naysayers, amending the Constitution to rid our nation of anchor babies (and the chain migration it precipitates) is not a big deal.
The 26th Amendment (to lower the voting age) whipsawed through the states like a Category 5 hurricane.
About three months after it was introduced into Congress, the 26th was US law.
Given the current national furor, an amendment to ditch anchor babies would enjoy a similar victory.
The way I read Wong Kim Ark, the courts have decided to interpret the language as meaning merely being on our soil, and the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is read to exclude persons having diplomatic immunity.
I would add that being a law breaker would reinforce the court's opinion that those here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction.
What established the diplomatic immunity? There isn’t a constitutional requirement that there be such a thing. It was an act of Congress that did so.
Of course in today’s Calvinball feelgood regime the prevalence of sheer sense is now in danger.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States,are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. {All highlight added}It clearly makes permission to reside in the US a requirement (contrary to Brennan).
Any thoughts? I'm not a lawyer. For links and excerpts of all the above see here [Link - Post#32].
The courts definitely have part of the blame. And like the other two branches, when they practice dishonesty, they claim honesty and principle. The language of law is opaque, and the courts rely on blind trust and brute force in order to work their ways.
The proper way to handle Wong Kim Ark is to note that the question of citizenship for children of legal transients (no domicile), and those in the country illegally (whether domiciled or not) were not before the court, so whatever can be implied from language in Wong Kim Ark should not be taken as the rule of law for children of transients and those in the country illegally.
Wong Kim Ark is a long case, contains many statements, and is one of those cases that lends itself to support just about any proposition that GRANTS citizenship, depending on how one cherry-picks among the statements.
I believe that exitsed as a matter of international law, independent of statute. Not that a statute doesn't or couldn't exist, just that I believe a court would entertain the defense of diplomatic immunity, whether or not there was a statute on point. surely there are cases where the question of "diplomat or not" is tough to answer, and statutes might clarify that point.
The "legal alien of tomorrow" must be the beneficiary of some amnesty or EO, since it's doubtful there's any significant effort by the Illegal Aliens themselves to become legal.
"That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, …….. -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
It's quite contradictory that one could expect 'permanent' domicile while under the constant threat of expulsion. For that reason the concept of domicile while relevant in Ark (legal immigrant), seems irrelevant in Plyler (illegal).
Poor O’Reilly just had his rhetorical hat handed to him.
It's not an error. You are in error.
Since the illegals damage the States and their budgets more than anything else, getting 38 states to ratify a simple amendment should be simple.
Neither California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Oregon, New Jersey, nor Washington are likely to ratify such an amendment. You are full of crap.
And you should read Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion. It's a masterpiece.
What the law says is that they are citizens, because they owe full allegiance to the nation of their parents and their birth. I would prefer there was a procedure by which they became citizens at adulthood, requiring an understanding of the Constitution and the Declaration, among other things.
I can name thirteen states unlikely to ratify it off the top of my head.
This was changed when the Indian Citizenship act of 1924 was passed by Congress. The Point is, the 14th amendment explicitly allows Indians to be denied birth citizenship. If the Indian Citizenship act was repealed and replaced with an act allowing citizenship only for Indian tribes that reside within the US Borders, it would be legal.
Most Mexicans and Central/South American migrants are Indians.
Were it not for the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, they would already be excluded from birthright citizenship.
RE: The 14th amendment specifically exempts Indians (Not Taxed) from birth citizenship.
PRECISELY. As I said in another thread, it took an ACT OF CONGRESS nearly 60 years after the 14th amendment was passed to SPECIFICALLY state that Indians are American citizens.
Therefore, I conclude that the INTENT of the 14th was NARROWLY FOCUSED — towards SLAVES and their children.
Illegal immigrants were not even on the minds of the drafters of that amendment in the 1860’s.
So, we don;t need another constitutional amendment to deny children of illegals birthright citizenship. All we need is AN ACT OF CONGRESS, similar to what they did in 1924 to the Indians ( but this time DENYING citizenship, not giving it ).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.