billeisele 130 #1 June 1, 2010 The 14th Amendment addresses the issue of citizenship of people born in the US. It was ratified in 1868 when the US did not limit immigration and, thus, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. It says in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The original intent was to prevent State governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the US. These were typically freed slaves. In 1868 the US had no immigration policy so there was no need to specifically address immigration. A review of historic documents shows that the intent was to exclude certain persons, "...every person born within the limits of the US...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...", and, "A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying US law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Having said that, what now?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 June 1, 2010 QuoteFactoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,142 #3 June 1, 2010 QuoteThe 14th Amendment addresses the issue of citizenship of people born in the US. It was ratified in 1868 when the US did not limit immigration and, thus, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. It says in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The original intent was to prevent State governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the US. These were typically freed slaves. In 1868 the US had no immigration policy so there was no need to specifically address immigration. A review of historic documents shows that the intent was to exclude certain persons, "...every person born within the limits of the US...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...", and, "A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying US law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Not so clear cut as you would have us believe: Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners. As stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare U.S.-born children of foreign nationals not to be subject to the "jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent were a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. For example, Representative Nathan Deal (a Republican from Georgia) introduced the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" (H.R. 1940) in the 110th Congress, and the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R. 1868) in the 111th Congress. Neither these nor any similar bills, however, have ever been approved by Congress.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #4 June 2, 2010 QuoteThe 14th Amendment addresses the issue of citizenship of people born in the US. It was ratified in 1868 when the US did not limit immigration and, thus, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. It says in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The original intent was to prevent State governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the US. These were typically freed slaves. In 1868 the US had no immigration policy so there was no need to specifically address immigration. A review of historic documents shows that the intent was to exclude certain persons, "...every person born within the limits of the US...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...", and, "A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying US law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Having said that, what now? Factoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants My understanding is that in 1868 immigration was a matter of state law but naturalization was, even then, a matter of federal law. I'd be interested to know how federal naturalization law in 1868 handled cases where some immigrated in violation of state law. I believe the waiting period to naturalize was, even then, five years. So suppose in 1868 someone emigrated from Europe to Connecticut in violation of Connecticut state law (using a Union state as an example to avoid any legal complexities involving the former Confederate states). They then lived, illegally, in Connecticut for five years until 1873. Would they then have be able to naturalize as a US, and hence Connecticut, citizen under federal law?"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 June 2, 2010 John, are you a citizen of the US?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 June 2, 2010 QuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #7 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteFactoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that? I don't have the link but it came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. But agree, it still would be nice to have the actual link.Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 June 2, 2010 Quoteit came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. ...which tells us nothing unless you flesh out some details for us. Please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #10 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 June 2, 2010 Eh, what the hell. I'm impatient. I'll help you out. From Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp QuoteOver 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers. The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as "Hispanic" the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being "illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteFactoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that? I don't have the link but it came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. But agree, it still would be nice to have the actual link. Well then, I think you're going to have to start questioning the reputation of the source. In 2008, there were 147,684 births in Los Angeles. Of those, 92,643 where to hispanics. That's 62.73%. Now, unless you assume every single one of those was to an illegal immigrant mother, the number you've provided isn't even close. Source: http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/vsq/screen_Race_birtha.asp?cnty_cd=19&YEAR_DATA=2008&Criteria=&Res_occ=Residence&Birth_Death=Birth&Stats=2quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #13 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? What are you, the playground bully bodyguard?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #14 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? I'm not crawling in the sandbox with you. Either grow up or don't; I really don't care. Go ahead and get a last word in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #15 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? I'm not crawling in the sandbox with you. Either grow up or don't; I really don't care. Go ahead and get a last word in. I do believe that John can stand up for himself. Why do you feel the responsibility to shield him?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #17 June 2, 2010 >What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? The image of John as the "playground bully" is funny in its absurdity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #18 June 2, 2010 Quote >What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? The image of John as the "playground bully" is funny in its absurdity. As it was meant to be.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Factoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that? I don't have the link but it came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. But agree, it still would be nice to have the actual link. Well then, I think you're going to have to start questioning the reputation of the source. In 2008, there were 147,684 births in Los Angeles. Of those, 92,643 where to hispanics. That's 62.73%. Now, unless you assume every single one of those was to an illegal immigrant mother, the number you've provided isn't even close. Source: http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/vsq/screen_Race_birtha.asp?cnty_cd=19&YEAR_DATA=2008&Criteria=&Res_occ=Residence&Birth_Death=Birth&Stats=2 What? Aren't all Mexicans illegals? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #20 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFactoid: about 65% of all babies born in LA are to illegal immigrants If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that? I don't have the link but it came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. But agree, it still would be nice to have the actual link. Well then, I think you're going to have to start questioning the reputation of the source. In 2008, there were 147,684 births in Los Angeles. Of those, 92,643 where to hispanics. That's 62.73%. Now, unless you assume every single one of those was to an illegal immigrant mother, the number you've provided isn't even close. Source: http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/vsq/screen_Race_birtha.asp?cnty_cd=19&YEAR_DATA=2008&Criteria=&Res_occ=Residence&Birth_Death=Birth&Stats=2 Andy & Quade - I was aware of the old snopes info but was told the data was current, but not being able to verify it the factoid was deleted. So on to the primary issue. Should the child of an an illegal immigrant be granted citizenship?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #21 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJohn, are you a citizen of the US? Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? Why is it pullign teeth to ask a conservative to post a source as they post data? This occurred yesterday in another thread, then as with this one, another conservative ran in for misdirection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #22 June 2, 2010 Actually, I was simply asking what relevance Kallend's citizenship has to this thread, or to his post in this thread. Reasonable inquiry, I thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 June 2, 2010 QuoteAndy & Quade - I was aware of the old snopes info but was told the data was current, but not being able to verify it the factoid was deleted. Which is why I didn't use Snopes but went directly to the most current statistics available. Quote So on to the primary issue. Should the child of an an illegal immigrant be granted citizenship? Yes. It's in the US Constitution and unlike some other Amendments that can be parsed several ways, it's completely unambiguous. Quote All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ALL persons born here are citizens. You might not like it, but there it is none the less. Further, as I detailed in another post on this subject, virtually every attempt at limiting immigration since then can be traced directly to racism. I'm not proud of that, but there it is as well. It's something we should avoid at all costs. My ancestors didn't do squat in terms of getting in line or asking permission from anyone when they came here. On my mother's side (I believe) back to the time before this country existed and on my father's just prior to the Civil War. I realize the laws have changed over the years and the law is more restrictive now, but I would never deny somebody else the chance to give their descendants a better life like my ancestors gave me. It would simply be hypocritical. As for all this "rule of law" stuff people keep talking about, I have a feeling the vast majority of them don't have any idea what the phrase actually means and I'm equally sure they have no idea what "Lex inuista non est lex" means either. Lest anyone think the above paragraph is at odds with the US Constitution; the Constitution wins every time. Again, you might not like it, but there it is none the less.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #24 June 2, 2010 QuoteActually, I was simply asking what relevance Kallend's citizenship has to this thread, or to his post in this thread. Reasonable inquiry, I thought. Oh yea, it's an ad hominem. I guess it was Kallend who was asking for the source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,142 #25 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteActually, I was simply asking what relevance Kallend's citizenship has to this thread, or to his post in this thread. Reasonable inquiry, I thought. Oh yea, it's an ad hominem. I guess it was Kallend who was asking for the source. Nope. I just quoted some equally ancient wisdom that contradicted the OP's assertion about original intent of the 14th.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
