RE: Birthright citizenship. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 7:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Its actually the very first line:
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



And that first line is where the change needs to be. It needs to read:

"All persons born *to U.S. Citizens,* 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."

That would clear things up nicely.




MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 7:35:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Mr Rogers, the 14 th Amendment was written to give "full citizenship" to freed slaves.
I've read it and nowhere in there does it say you can sneak into the U.S. illegally and get U.S. Citizenship for your illegal children. It's not even a "loophole.

Its actually the very first line:
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


Well DomKen, I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the sneaking into our country illegally thing then.
Hey, here's one, how about we make a law that if a bank robber can avoid being arrested for 365 days they can't charge him *and*, he can keep the money that he stole?

As I have written, how mother gets here and under what conditions is irrelevant. All that matters is that under our current law as ruled...any person and without any other qualifications, born in the US...is a citizen...period.




Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 7:59:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightwalker

Ditto. My ancestors did things the *right* way, so I'm all in favor it. The problem with DomKen's statement is the assumption he made about "most Americans." Forgetting, I'm sure, the influx of very legal immigrants through Ellis Island. Not to mention those who came over under the previous British rule, who were made citizens of the new nation when they helped create it.


Exactly. I'm an immigrant. My father and his sister were immigrants. Both of my aunts married immigrants.

I sympathize with the situation of illegal immigrants who come from third world countries, but as someone who is trying to do everything the proper way I can't find anything that justifies letting them stay.




tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 8:45:15 PM)

My father's line was here from the beginning. My mothers came through legal immigration in Ellis.




Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 9:36:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

My father's line was here from the beginning. My mothers came through legal immigration in Ellis.


That's three people in one little thread who disprove DomKen's theory that "most" would become non-citizens if the proposed amendment change was made retroactive. Who else?




tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 9:52:46 PM)

My question is... how do you take away something that the Consitution granted?

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

•Becoming naturalized in another country
•Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
•Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
•Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
•Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
•Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
•By being convicted of committing treason

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

These are the only ways to lose your citizenship. This would have to change, along with the Constitution. I have a feeling this would come up for a national vote. Does anyone really see that passing?

I completely agree with getting rid of citizenship based upon the land you were born on. I do not agree with taking something away that so many people were granted lawfully. And, how far back do we go?




Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/9/2011 11:30:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

My question is... how do you take away something that the Consitution granted?

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

•Becoming naturalized in another country
•Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
•Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
•Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
•Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
•Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
•By being convicted of committing treason

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

These are the only ways to lose your citizenship. This would have to change, along with the Constitution. I have a feeling this would come up for a national vote. Does anyone really see that passing?

I completely agree with getting rid of citizenship based upon the land you were born on. I do not agree with taking something away that so many people were granted lawfully. And, how far back do we go?


I believe DomKen was attempting be facetious in his attempt to argue the opposite site. As though the threat of more people losing their citizenship somehow equated to new people simply not being granted citizenship.




truckinslave -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 2:00:16 AM)

"All that matters is that under our current law as ruled...any person and without any other qualifications, born in the US...is a citizen...period. "

Fourteen states attorneys general and I find that to be not a ruling but an incorrect assumption/interpretation and think SCOTUS should visit it definatively.

Would it upset you if SCOTUS ruled in favor of the original intent of the people who wrote it, debated it, and passed it? If SCOTUS overturned birthright citizenship, do you think the restoration of it would become a big political issue? Do you think candidates would rush to run on a restoration plank?

I don't think 10% of federal pols would dare even mention restoring it.




popeye1250 -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 10:43:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Mr Rogers, the 14 th Amendment was written to give "full citizenship" to freed slaves.
I've read it and nowhere in there does it say you can sneak into the U.S. illegally and get U.S. Citizenship for your illegal children. It's not even a "loophole.

Its actually the very first line:
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


Well DomKen, I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the sneaking into our country illegally thing then.
Hey, here's one, how about we make a law that if a bank robber can avoid being arrested for 365 days they can't charge him *and*, he can keep the money that he stole?

As I have written, how mother gets here and under what conditions is irrelevant. All that matters is that under our current law as ruled...any person and without any other qualifications, born in the US...is a citizen...period.



Lol, it's "irrelevant?"
So if next week China said that they're going to be sending over 200 huge ship's full of pregnant women to give birth in the U.S. you wouldn't have a problem with that???
Then India announced that they'd be sending over 2,000,000 pregnant woman next month so that their offspring would have U.S. Citizenship that'd be "cool" with you too?
The 13 th amendment ended slavery and the 14 th amendment gave those freed slaves "full citizenship", that's all.
We don't need to "amend" it we could just strike the 14 th as it's no longer neccessary.




DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 10:43:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightwalker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Do you think you would be a citizen under that rule? It is certain that most americans wouldn't.


Well I would be. Both my father and my mother's grandparents immigrated to the US legally (so my mother, and her parents, are the children of two legal citizens) How do you suppose most wouldn't be?


Ditto. My ancestors did things the *right* way, so I'm all in favor it. The problem with DomKen's statement is the assumption he made about "most Americans." Forgetting, I'm sure, the influx of very legal immigrants through Ellis Island. Not to mention those who came over under the previous British rule, who were made citizens of the new nation when they helped create it.

Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border.

In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today.




popeye1250 -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 10:47:52 AM)

"Global warming derangement syndrom."




joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 12:55:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Lol, it's "irrelevant?"
So if next week China said that they're going to be sending over 200 huge ship's full of pregnant women to give birth in the U.S. you wouldn't have a problem with that???
Then India announced that they'd be sending over 2,000,000 pregnant woman next month so that their offspring would have U.S. Citizenship that'd be "cool" with you too?
The 13 th amendment ended slavery and the 14 th amendment gave those freed slaves "full citizenship", that's all.
We don't need to "amend" it we could just strike the 14 th as it's no longer neccessary.


So your arguement is essentially a wild scenerio not based on reality, to justify your stance?

If you want to remove the 14th, I'm fine with that, as long as you equally agree the 2nd should also be removed at the same time. I personally dont wont either one removed, but since you started the wild scenerios....




popeye1250 -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 1:03:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Lol, it's "irrelevant?"
So if next week China said that they're going to be sending over 200 huge ship's full of pregnant women to give birth in the U.S. you wouldn't have a problem with that???
Then India announced that they'd be sending over 2,000,000 pregnant woman next month so that their offspring would have U.S. Citizenship that'd be "cool" with you too?
The 13 th amendment ended slavery and the 14 th amendment gave those freed slaves "full citizenship", that's all.
We don't need to "amend" it we could just strike the 14 th as it's no longer neccessary.


So your arguement is essentially a wild scenerio not based on reality, to justify your stance?

If you want to remove the 14th, I'm fine with that, as long as you equally agree the 2nd should also be removed at the same time. I personally dont wont either one removed, but since you started the wild scenerios....



Joether, so you don't consider a hundred thousand illegal alien pregnant women sneaking over our border each year a "wild scenario?"
Or that there are foreign cos that make tens of millions of dollars by running "U.S. Birth" boiler rooms?
You "cool" with that?




joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 1:25:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Joether, so you don't consider a hundred thousand illegal alien pregnant women sneaking over our border each year a "wild scenario?"
Or that there are foreign cos that make tens of millions of dollars by running "U.S. Birth" boiler rooms?
You "cool" with that?


And do they all sneak across, just for the pregnance? No other reason (work, family, avoiding hellish circumstances, etc)? I'm sure some do, but not every single one of them, not even the majority. What you stated previous, was a wild scenerio. A scenerio in which you stack the odds heavily to one side of the arguement. Would be like dueling with pistols, except one guy has just a single short pistol, and the other gun a Glock with extended mag. Who do you think is going to win that duel?

What is a 'foreign cos'? Sorry, I dont understand ultra-bad grammer/English.




DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 2:12:48 PM)

Can anyone point to an actual problem with birthright citizenship?

Just to be clear, arguments that boild down to "I hate foreigners" isn't a problem popeye.




Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 5:26:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border.

In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today.


Ummmm no. Ellis Island was an immigration processing station. So when someone was allowed to enter the US through Ellis Island, they were legal immigrants. Those who did not have their documents in order or were deemed unfit were turned away, back to their country of origin.




DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 5:31:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightwalker


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border.

In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today.


Ummmm no. Ellis Island was an immigration processing station. So when someone was allowed to enter the US through Ellis Island, they were legal immigrants. Those who did not have their documents in order or were deemed unfit were turned away, back to their country of origin.

That would be true if Ellis Island wasn't US territory. It is therefore they were here illegally. The whole point was to regularize their status, unnecessary if they were legal entrants.




Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 5:40:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That would be true if Ellis Island wasn't US territory. It is therefore they were here illegally. The whole point was to regularize their status, unnecessary if they were legal entrants.


You can try and spin it any way you like. The fact remains the same -- those allowed to continue on to the mainland US were granted legal status. Those turned away, were not. Ergo, if someone made it through from Ellis Island to the mainland, they were and are considered legal immigrants.




slvemike4u -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 7:44:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

"All that matters is that under our current law as ruled...any person and without any other qualifications, born in the US...is a citizen...period. "

Fourteen states attorneys general and I find that to be not a ruling but an incorrect assumption/interpretation and think SCOTUS should visit it definatively.

Would it upset you if SCOTUS ruled in favor of the original intent of the people who wrote it, debated it, and passed it? If SCOTUS overturned birthright citizenship, do you think the restoration of it would become a big political issue? Do you think candidates would rush to run on a restoration plank?

I don't think 10% of federal pols would dare even mention restoring it.

So you are on record as advocating an "activist" court whose role is to write and create new law ?
I will remind you of this when the court takes on a more "liberal" bent...something tells me you will than be of the opinion that the Court's purpose is to interpet the law and not to create or to re-write law.




tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 9:32:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightwalker


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border.

In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today.


Ummmm no. Ellis Island was an immigration processing station. So when someone was allowed to enter the US through Ellis Island, they were legal immigrants. Those who did not have their documents in order or were deemed unfit were turned away, back to their country of origin.

That would be true if Ellis Island wasn't US territory. It is therefore they were here illegally. The whole point was to regularize their status, unnecessary if they were legal entrants.



designated as the site of one of the first Federal immigration station by President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, Ellis Island had a varied history.

Prior to 1890, the individual states (rather than the Federal government) regulated immigration into the United States. Castle Garden in the Battery (originally known as Castle Clinton) served as the New York State immigration station from 1855 to 1890 and approximately eight million immigrants, mostly from Northern and Western Europe, passed through its doors. Throughout the 1800's and intensifying in the latter half of the 19th century, ensuing political instability, restrictive religious laws and deteriorating economic conditions in Europe began to fuel the largest mass human migration in the history of the world. It soon became apparent that Castle Garden was ill-equipped and unprepared to handle the growing numbers of immigrants arriving yearly.

The Federal government intervened and constructed a new Federally-operated immigration station on Ellis Island. The new structure on Ellis Island, opened on January 1, 1892; Annie Moore, a 15 year-old Irish girl, accompanied by her two brothers, was the very first immigrant to be processed at Ellis Island.

First and second class passengers who arrived in New York Harbor were not required to undergo the inspection process at Ellis Island. Instead, these passengers underwent a cursory inspection aboard ship; the theory being that if a person could afford to purchase a first or second class ticket, they were less likely to become a public charge in America due to medical or legal reasons. However, first and second class passengers were sent to Ellis Island for further inspection if they were sick or had legal problems.

This scenario was far different for "steerage" or third class passengers. These immigrants traveled in crowded and often unsanitary conditions near the bottom of steamships with few amenities, oftenspending up to two weeks seasick in their bunks during rough Atlantic Ocean crossings. Upon arrival in New York City, ships would dock at the Hudson or East River piers. First and second class passengers would disembark, pass through Customs at the piers and were free to enter the United States. The steerage and third class passengers were transported from the pier by ferry or barge to Ellis Island where everyone would undergo a medical and legal inspection.

If the immigrant's papers were in order and they were in reasonably good health, the Ellis Island inspection process would last approximately three to five hours. The inspections took place in the Registry Room (or Great Hall), where doctors would briefly scan every immigrant for obvious physical ailments. Doctors at Ellis Island soon became very adept at conducting these "six second physicals." By 1916, it was said that a doctor could identify numerous medical conditions (ranging from anemia to goiters to varicose veins) just by glancing at an immigrant. The ship's manifest or passenger list (filled out at the port of embarkation) contained the immigrant's name and his/her answers to numerous questions. This document was used by immigration inspectors at Ellis Island to cross examine the immigrant during the legal (or primary) inspection. The two agencies responsible for processing immigrants at Ellis Island were the United States Public Health Service and the Bureau of Immigration (later known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service - INS).

As the United States entered World War I, immigration to the United States decreased. Numerous suspected enemy aliens throughout the United States were brought to Ellis Island undercustody. Between 1918 and 1919, detained suspected enemy aliens were transferred from Ellis Island to other locations in order for the United States Navy with the Army Medical Department to take over the island complex for the duration of the war. During this time, regular inspection of arriving immigrants was conducted on board ship or at the docks. At the end of World War I, a "Red Scare" spread across America and thousands of suspected alien radicals were interned at Ellis Island. Hundreds were later deported based upon the principal of guilt by association with any organizations advocating revolution against the Federal government. In 1920, Ellis Island reopened as an immigration receiving station and 225,206 immigrants were processed that year.

http://www.nps.gov/elis/historyculture/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=294652

Its an interesting read. And those who came in through Ellis Island were indeed legal.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875