Posted on 08/27/2015 7:23:36 AM PDT by dangus
Not going to read your rambling wall of text.
Your opinion here is starkly at odds with what has been stated by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides[.] U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The Supreme Court does not see the "difference" you claim to see. And it calls undeniable that which you are trying to deny.
Your opinion here is starkly at odds with what has been stated by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides[.] U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The Supreme Court does not see the "difference" you claim to see. And it calls undeniable that which you are trying to deny.
Indians have/had treaty rights.
American Indians have sovereignty on tribal lands. Indians off of a reservation are “subject to the jurisdiction of” federal and state law. An exception does not make a rule.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave U.S. citizenship to approximately 125,000 persons out of more than 300,000 American Indians in the U.S.
The Constitution refers to “Indians Not Taxed.” which meant reservation, tribal land-based Indians. Many non-reservation Indians had been granted state (and thus federal) citizenship prior to 1924.
One example: Greewood LeFlore was Principle Chief of the Choctaw Indian Nation and in the 1840s, LeFlore was elected Mississippi state representative and senator. He was a fixture of Mississippi high society and a personal friend of Jefferson Davis. He was elected to represent Carroll County in the state house for two terms, and elected by the legislature as a state senator, serving one term.
Oh, but there's no rambling. It merely lays out in an orderly presentation of evidence and argument why the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS blow your argument to bits.
Oh, wait. I hear laughter. It must be because you ducked out right after I said you'd duck out, thus making you look foolish like I said you would.
Hey, for once you were right in saying there would be demolished arguments and laughter on this thread. :) (So are you now going to pull out the "your not worth my time to reply" bit? You said that yesterday; then you jumped back in; now it seems you're jumping back out.)
You mean it's more of your fantasy drivel. Not going to read your fantasies either.
Irrelevant. So did many countries in the world at that time. This point does not speak to the "jurisdiction" issue.
American Indians have sovereignty on tribal lands. Indians off of a reservation are “subject to the jurisdiction of” federal and state law. An exception does not make a rule.
An exception disproves the rule. Especially when it is an exception with millions of iterations.
The Constitution refers to “Indians Not Taxed.” which meant reservation, tribal land-based Indians.
And how much more "taxed" are foreign Indians, such as the majority coming up through the Mexican border currently?
You are not going to be able to argue that Non Taxed Indians from within our border have a lesser citizenship status than do Non Taxed Indians from outside our border.
Go ahead and try. I think we could all enjoy a bit of levity. :)
In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins the Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.
So there are conflicting Supreme Court rulings on this subject.
I think you just made my point. People who aren’t citizens can be “hung, jailed and fined” because they are under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
With reference to “conscripted,” we have an all-volunteer military, however:
on the other hand, You must register with the Selective Service System, if:
You’re a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in the US, that is, you have a “green card”
You entered the US without going through the proper procedures with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In other words, you’re an “undocumented immigrant” or “illegal alien.” Sometimes this is referred to as “entering without inspection” (EWI)
You’re in the U.S. on a temporary non-immigrant visa, like a visitor’s visa, and you fail to maintain legal status for more than 30 days, such as by not renewing your visa
You’re in the U.S. on a student visa and you fail to maintain full-time student status
You entered the U.S. under the visa waiver program (VWP), which allows certain foreign nationals to enter the U.S. without a visa, and you stayed beyond the 90 days allowed under the VWP
You’ve been granted refugee status or asylum in the US, which means, generally, you’re in the U.S. because it’s unsafe for you in your homeland
You’re working in the U.S. as a special seasonal agricultural worker
You came to the U.S. under a valid non-immigrant visa but your Form I-94, which sets out the details of when you entered the U.S. and when you must leave, has been expired for more than 30 days.
http://immigration.lawyers.com/general-immigration/us-immigration-laws-and-the-selective-service.html
On a matter of Constitutional law, you're calling quotes with citations to U.S. Congressional history and quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court "fantasy?" Desperate times call for desperate arguments, don't they?
This is a classic illustration of why you are rightfully dismissed as an illogical loon. You reject anything -- even from authorities most EVERYONE ELSE considers HIGHLY RELEVANT -- as "fantasy."
But I like that you keep it up. It just so much fun making a post where I call you a "fool," "daft," "evasive," an "historical illiterate," "intellectually lazy," "incompetent" -- in short holding you up for public mockery -- and watch as you simply have to tuck your tail between your legs and slither away because you KNOW you've got no substantive reply to the points I'm making which kill your argument.
It's fun. It really is. :)
We're not going to do the dipsy doodle here. We are specifically referring to people born *IN* the United States, who's legal status was "NON CITIZEN", but yet who were still "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws.
The salient aspect of this is that the "jurisdiction" of our criminal laws is not the same "jurisdiction" referred to in the 14th amendment, else being subject to these criminal laws would make Citizens of Indians born here.
If being Subject to Criminal laws in the United States doesn't make Citizens out of Indians, it also doesn't make citizens out of foreign Indians.
If you are citing them, then a significant "fantasy" component is incorporated into their usage.
Any one who is IDIOT enough to cite Lynch v Clarke, cannot be taken seriously. The Legislature of New York overturned that stupid pile of crap.
The Elk case involved a person born into an Indian tribe. As you will note from my post #59 above, Indian tribes were considered as distinct sovereign nations subsisting within the territory of the United States. So both at the time the Constitution was enacted and through both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, Indians were a recognized exception to the general rule of birth-citizenship.
Children of foreign ministers were also a recognized exception.
Children of foreigners (immigrants) in general, however, were held to be natural born citizens. This was true under pre-14th Amendment case law (e.g., Lynch v. Clarke) and legal commentary and reflected in the debates in the 39th Congress (see post 59). This was made abundantly clear in the Wong Kim Ark case.
So there are conflicting Supreme Court rulings on this subject.
The question in WKA actually centered on a person born of foreign (immigrant) parents. The Elk case did not (it involved one born of Indian parents). Anything statement about the children of immigrant parents found in Elk is dicta and superseded by WKA, the case actually on point.
So there are not conflicting rulings on this point.
You’re talking about the history prior to 1924? Today, all American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians are U.S. citizens and all are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I don’t think the law of the land could be any clearer; anyone who is a citizen or resident of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Case law has made exceptions for persons with diplomatic immunity;
members of a foreign invadng military on U.S. soil; and persons on foreign public vessels inside U.S. territorial limits.
Both statute law and case law can be altered by new statutes, new interpretations and new judicial rulings.
Oh, how so? All you can do is make assertions. The amusing thing is that you can never substantiate your claims.
Any one who is IDIOT enough to cite Lynch v Clarke, cannot be taken seriously.
Oh? As I've documented for you, Cong. Lawrence cited it as exemplary of the "existing law" the 39th Congress stated repeatedly it was affirming with the CRA and 14A. The U.S. Supreme Court (WKA) cited it favorably 3 times.
The Legislature of New York overturned that stupid pile of crap.
No it didn't. (Oh, right, come to think of it, this is one last remaining thing you keep dragging out that I haven't had the chance to disabuse you).
In any event, the 39th Congress cited Lynch. So did the SCOTUS. What does anything the NY legislature did after Lynch have to do with the Constitutional question?
Answer that one, DumbDumb.
At that time the Indian nations were by treaty foreign nations so they were foreigners as were their children so it is on point.
The point is not about who is a citizen. The point is about who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the answer is both citizens and residents.
31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.]
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]
I would have thought that was abundantly clear. What other time subsequent to the 14th amendment were Indians not regarded as citizens?
I don’t think the law of the land could be any clearer; anyone who is a citizen or resident of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Except Indians who were born here between 1868 and 1924. They were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" in such a manner as to be Citizens.
Case law has made exceptions for persons with diplomatic immunity; members of a foreign invadng military on U.S. soil; and persons on foreign public vessels inside U.S. territorial limits.
There is a form of fallacy argument in which an opponent says something which is true, but which is not germane to the discussion, yet is presented as a rebuttal to a point. Your information about diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the fact that Indians born here were not citizens prior to 1924.
Both statute law and case law can be altered by new statutes, new interpretations and new judicial rulings.
Another thing which is true, but does not rebut the point you have been asked to address.
Give that this is your stock in trade, you ought to be thrilled to get some of it back.
No, DumbDumb. When I make an assertion (e.g., "Sen. Trumbull differentiated between U.S. jurisdiction over Indians versus that of immigrant aliens") I substantiate the assertion up with verbatim quotations and citations to the source material. See, e.g., Post #59. It's just usually the case you do backflips to ignore the evidence and strike your "nah, nah, nah . . . I'm not listening" immature 4-year old posture.
Go back to #59 and make your arguments for why my evidence is lacking. Go ahead.
Your claim that my citations are misplaced ("fantasy") isn't supported by anything. Just your wishful opinion so you can pretend to have some come-back and later claim to have kicked my *ss.
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.