Posted on 08/18/2015 6:39:22 AM PDT by xzins
It will never happen of course, because our "leaders" are either too dam! stupid to recognize Islam for what it is, or are too concerned about the politics, or both.
Read all the article...
A new thread that might be of interest ping....
Birthright Citizenship — A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts
Baloney. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are INVADERS. Since when did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend to extend birthright citizenship to the children of INVADERS?
When has ANY COUNTRY IN HISTORY done that?
If Trump adds to his immigration policy to STRIP all anchor babies of citizenship, there would be no reason to have a primary. I’ll work on his campaign.
Where do you get that?
We can deport them no matter the age of the child. The child cannot ask access for family members until the child is 18 years old. It’s not likely the parents will leave the child behind.
We get back to e-verify, however, the refusal of jobs to those here illegally and the conviction of their employers for illegal hiring.
NathanBedford has ideas on extending e-verify to make it effective. That is probably a policy that would be easier to sell. Americans are up in arms about their jobs going to illegals and legals alike. Let’s ensure legal status and current visas. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Oh...I HEAR you, my FRiend!
We should repeal the IRS too! :-)
Sorry you are incorrect.
Illegal aliens ARE SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of Congress. If you don’t believe that, then ask yourself if an illegal alien breaks a federal law, are they arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted by the federal government?
They do not become invaders until they take up arms against the US.
My sense is that Congress can acknowledge the ‘subject to’ clause of the 14th by passing legislation ending birthright citizens that includes a removal of the legislation from judicial review. In this case, it is a disagreement over the meaning of a clause, and the Founders ensured that the courts were NOT the final word on such disagreements. They gave Congress the power to restrict the reach of the Courts.
You need to read the entire article at the link. It deals with the jurisdiction issue.
Here is the concluding paragraph of the decision of the court in Ark v. United States:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html
The court clearly state that although Ark was born of non-citizen parents who were citizens of China at the time of his birth, and owed allegiance to China, he was still a CITIZEN of the United States at birth.
If the author of this opinion piece actually read the court's decision, then he lied in order to prove his point.
That makes them a de facto invading army. And just as children born of diplomats are specifically excluded from birthright citizenship, so are children born of invading armies.
They had permanent residency, so they had legal status.
So if non-citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and their children cannot become citizens at birth then what is the status of the child in question? The obvious implication is that they are not a citizen. So if they continue to live in the U.S. but never go through the naturalization process then wouldn't that mean that their children could not be citizens either?
...but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business...
Meaning the parents were here legally!
I did read the article and the author’s opinion does not agree or align with current legal precedence and jurisprudence. But that is his opinion and he is allowed to espouse his opinion.
The author asserts a false straw man to prove his point. The author asserts: Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
The fact is that the 14th creates two conditions. The first is birth or naturalization and the second is the subject to the jurisdiction clause. The subject to the jurisdiction does in fact mean the geographic boundaries of the United States, it Territories and any other land subject to the laws of Congress. This does in fact mean that a person born while in the US is in fact a citizen under the 14th.
If one does not like that standard, then change the standard to require a US citizen parent or whatever requirement you want to put in place. Do not try to dance on the head of a pin and change the meaning of words. That is a tactic of the left and is unbecoming of conservatives.
That’s the implication. That is why e-verify, controlled borders, visas, coasts, ports, etc. is so crucial.
E-Verify will criminalize any employer...and rightfully so, since they’ll be committing fraud in any number of ways — social security, pay, reporting, health benefits, ID, etc.
It was Grahamnesty in 2010 who claimed that we need to change the US constitution for this, on a Sunday show. Clearly he was up to no good, given his track record.
"But now at least one prominent Republican lawmaker wants to change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
“Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News last week. “We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”
Republicans Eye Change to Birthright Citizenship (WASHINGTON, August 3, 2010)
The authors of the 14th Amend disagree
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else” Bingham
“jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States” Sen. Howard
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.