Inexcusable murder

[Unclebob]

despite the fact that the parents of an anchor baby are, absolutely, subject to a foreign power.

If you notice the nationality of the parents are never mentioned in the amendment. If one or both parents were citizens of the U.S. the amendment wouldn't apply since the baby would be a citizen through birth.
The amendment comes into play when neither parent is a citizen.
When the baby is born it is under the authority & dominion of the U.S. and has sovereign allegiance to the U.S.
Of course your interpretation and mine mean nothing at the end of the day. The only one that matters is the one from SCOTUS.
BTW am I the only one that thinks a more appropriate abbreviation would be SCROTUM. It doesn't really match the words but it just seems more appropriate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Turtle]

It's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of Congress and of Immigration and Naturalization. They spelled out precisely what "jurisdiction of" means, and it's different from what you, for some reason, want it to be. You should probably do a lot more research on this than you've done, including reading relevant opinions of Supreme Court Justices and take a close look at the 1964 Immigration Act and the subsequent court rulings regarding the Act. Anchor babies became citizens not because of the 14th Amendment, but because Congress allowed it to be interpreted that way, and they can undo it just as easily, and with a simple majority vote, actually.

 

[Ragman]

The purpose of the wall, fence or other physical barrier would be to keep undesirables out - not in - ......

Yes, I know, that is what I am saying. However, walls to keep people out, don't work. Leo used East Germany as proof they do work. The German wall was to keep people in.

If the USA has the means and ability to build and maintain nearly 48,000 miles of interstate highway they can certainly build a 1900 mile wall along the Mexican border.

Maintain the interstates? Don't make me laugh!!!! Our highways (especially those in Michigan) absolutely suck. You do drive for a living, don't you?

 

[LDB]

Success or failure of walls depends solely on those enforcing. It could easily be done. It just doesn't fit the agenda. The same could be done economically as well. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth either way.

 

[Ragman]

Success or failure of walls depends solely on those enforcing. It could easily be done. It just doesn't fit the agenda. The same could be done economically as well. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth either way.

Can you give one example of a wall to keep people out worked? I can't. Every wall in history was breached by invaders.

 

[Unclebob]

The Supreme Court has already ruled once on this issue. In it's ruling it did not specifically rule that foreigners on US soil had to be here legally. The ruling as it reads is clear that any child born on US soil is a citizen as long as the parents aren't diplomats or certain other excluded persons.
It is possible that if it ruled today it might include illegal foreigners in the excluded category. However as of today they are not excluded.
Your arguments are based on the dissenting opinion not on the actual ruling.

The following is from Wikipedia.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In a 6–2 decision[102][103] issued on March 28, 1898,[104] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[105] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[106]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[107] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[108] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[109][110][111] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception" —namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[54][112] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[73]

Quoting approvingly from an 1812 case, The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, in which Chief Justice John Marshall said, "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute"[113][114][115]—and agreeing with the district judge who had heard Wong's original habeas corpus petition that comments in the Slaughterhouse Cases about the citizenship status of children born to non-citizen parents did not constitute a binding precedent[63]—the Court ruled that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him.[116] An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."[117][118] Commenting on the Wong Kim Ark case shortly after the issuance of the Court's ruling in 1898, San Francisco attorney Marshall B. Woodworth[119][120] wrote that "the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish [by its own force] the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States".[

For the full text of the ruling here is the link.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...,36&as_vis=1&case=3381955771263111765&scilh=0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Turtle]

The Supreme Court has already ruled once on this issue.

Like I said, you should probably do a lot more research on this than you've done instead of running around looking for stuff that you think supports your position and then going, "See! Here! Look!" The Supreme Court has, ruled on this issue four separate times (1814, 1830,1875, and 1898). The Wong case does what you think it does, but not in the "Supreme Court definitive forever" way you think. The Supreme Court ruled the way they did specifically to beat down Congress for Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited any new immigrants from China, and thus was attempted to be used to refuse citizenship to Chinese people born here, as there was no such thing as an illegal alien except under the Chinese Exclusion Act. That ruling did away with the meat and potatoes of that Act.

In it's ruling it did not specifically rule that foreigners on US soil had to be here legally.

Well, no, of course it didn't. That's because there was no such thing as illegal immigration back then, no such thing as being in the country illegally. I'm pretty sure I noted that a while back in this thread. The ruling made the Chinese Exclusion Act impotent with regard to child citizenship, through a novel interpretation of the jurisdiction clause (the one you think it means).

The ruling as it reads is clear that any child born on US soil is a citizen as long as the parents aren't diplomats or certain other excluded persons.[/quote[Yes, but as I've said at least 3 times previous, all that changed with congressional legislation, several times, not once of which did the Supreme Court rule against. It began with the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, both of which introduced the concept of illegal immigration, the notion that you could be in the country illegally. They instituted strict numbers quotas, with allocations by country based upon national origins. The 1924 Act also included the Asian Exclusion Act, which severely limited immigration only to persons eligible for naturalization, and limited the criteria for naturalization. In addition to the de facto banning of East Asians, Arabs, and Indians from immigration and citizenship, and severe restrictions and limits on anyone from African countries, those same people who were excluded from immigration and citizenship also had excluded children born to them on US soil (if they happened to get here anyway). The Supreme Court refused to hear any of the cases challenging the law which was presented to them.

Between 1924 and 1952, anyone born here who were not part an an excluded group were granted automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Those born here to an excluded group were not. For example, because Indians (from India) were not permitted to immigrate here, if they were here and had a baby born while they were here, the baby was not automatically conferred US citizenship. In 1952 Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (which Truman vetoed because of the continued use of national quotes (the quota were used to hep keep America white) over Truman's veto. So, while the 1952 Act still had its national quotas, it removed racial restrictions, which also removed the restrictions of born-here citizenship to many people (like Arabs and Indians and East Asians) as long as they immigrated from an "acceptable" country.

But it was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished national origins completely, and replaced it with the an emphasis on an immigrant's skill, and most importantly today, family relationships with US citizens, or, with legal residents in the US. And it removed any restrictions on "natural born citizen" by virtue of allegiance of the child's parents, be they here legally or illegally. A new Immigration and Naturalization Act would have to be enacted into law that either specifically disallowed citizenship to people born here illegally, or introduced some new restrictions that would have the same effect, or use the original meaning and intent of "under the jurisdiction of" to mean sovereign allegiance.

It is possible that if it ruled today it might include illegal foreigners in the excluded category. However as of today they are not excluded.

If the Court ruled on it today, the law itself would have to be different than it is today. The Constitution and all of its Amendments don't just stand alone, apart from time, or even connected solely to any Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution. If you read the 14th Amendment and that's all you know about it, you'd be surprised at the Brown v Board of Education ruling, or the ruling which opened the door for Jim Crow laws. Even if you read the 14th Amendment and then those two cases, you still wouldn't understand the complex relationship without knowing what all went on in the courts (from the lowest levels on up) between the Amendment's ratification and the Supreme Court rulings. The Citizenship Clause is one that is used and applied not solely from one hard and fast Supreme Court ruling, or from what someone thinks the text means, but as a result of 4 direct rulings and perhaps a dozen indirect rulings of the Supreme Court, as well as dozens of congressional legislative actions, not only of immigration and naturalization laws, but of various programs and laws that affect and are affected by everything else having to do with citizenship.

It's a very complex set of issues, which is why it's important to learn as much about it possible if you want to understand it beyond the scope of "The 14th Amendment says so. So there." It's why, for example, a Saudi Arabian man now living back in Saudi Arabia, and a his Saudi ex-wife living illegally in the US, are among many similar cases where the 'jurisdiction of' the baby born in the US is legitimately being questioned because of the sovereign allegiance of the father to another country, a country which has "jurisdiction of" the father and the father's children regardless of where they are born.

Your arguments are based on the dissenting opinion not on the actual ruling.

Thanks for letting me know on what I base my arguments. You're wrong, though. My arguments are based on neither the dissenting opinions nor the ruling of one particular case.My arguments are based on the court rulings and the subsequent federal and state laws regarding the issue, as well as lower court rulings adjudicated and dismissed.

 

[Unclebob]

Where did I say that that ruling was the "definitive forever" ruling?
I specifically stated that they could rule differently today, or they could reaffirm their earlier ruling.
I guess you were just in too big a hurry to write a condescending and dismissive response

From the ruling:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States," by the addition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law,) the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

Since congress has no power to reinterpret the ruling by adding additional excluded classes nothing passed by congress can overturn this ruling.

It is up to the court to revisit this issue if it ever comes before the court. Until then it is the law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Turtle]

Where did I say that that ruling was the "definitive forever" ruling?

It's the summary totality of your message, a synonym akin to "etched in stone," or "it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it," is a figure of speech, a torn of a phrase.

I specifically stated that they could rule differently today, or they could reaffirm their earlier ruling.

You've specifically stated a lot of things.

I guess you were just in too big a hurry to write a condescending and dismissive response

In a hurray? No. It's after a rather long and protracted effort to get you to fully research the subject, instead of watching you look for things that support your initial statement while dismissing things that don't.

From the ruling:... snip

Since congress has no power to reinterpret the ruling by adding additional excluded classes nothing passed by congress can overturn this ruling.

And yet Congress has done precisely that very thing on 3 separate occasions, the dates and classes noted above.

It is up to the court to revisit this issue if it ever comes before the court. Until then it is the law.

Etched in stone, right? It's come before the court on 8 separate occasions, and every time the court declined to revisit it.

Like I said, it's more complicated and nuanced than you want it to be. The notion that it would take a Constitutional Amendment or another Supreme Court ruling to change things is simply not true, which history has proven.

 

[Ragman]

Success or failure of walls depends solely on those enforcing. It could easily be done. It just doesn't fit the agenda. The same could be done economically as well. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth either way.

Can you give one example of a wall to keep people out worked? I can't. Every wall in history was breached by invaders.

Crickets

 

[LDB]

I'll repeat for you. The East German fence. It kept everyone out that wasn't specifically wanted and welcomed. We could do the same and it wouldn't take a guard every ten feet with modern technologies like FLIR.

 

[Ragman]

I'll repeat for you. The East German fence. It kept everyone out that wasn't specifically wanted and welcomed. We could do the same and it wouldn't take a guard every ten feet with modern technologies like FLIR.

It kept nobody out. It kept German people in. How can you say that with a straight face.
The East German government would have welcomed anybody.

 

[LDB]

It definitely kept people out when I was there. Yes, one could enter if done properly and with permission. I never saw someone attempt to illegally enter the way they do here but we were told what would happen if one did. It wasn't worth the risk. I say it because it was true. It goes against what the progressives want everyone to believe though, that a secure border can be maintained. The big thing now is the clamor that any border of any kind is racist and wrong.

 

[Ragman]

The big thing now is the clamor that any border of any kind is racist and wrong.

Nobody ever even insinuated that. What we object to is the shoot to kill mentality some have. We are better than that. We have to be better than that.

 

[LDB]

Sorry, not anyone here but I see plenty of instances where borders are called racist and wrong. It's a new theme on the web and other places apparently. Better? It has nothing to do with being better or not. It has to do with consequences too severe to take the risk. When the consequence is severe enough nobody will take the risk so the consequence never has to be applied. It's the certainty that it will that matters and makes it work.

 

[muttly]

Increase the amount of border agents at the border. Increase it in to the multiple of thousands. Use all the advanced technology to stop them from crossing at the border. Create a more mobile operation with the additional agents to thwart specific 'hot spots' where illegal immigrants try to enter. And build a more difficult wall to penetrate. Use all of the above.

 

[Turtle]

The big thing now is the clamor that any border of any kind is racist and wrong.

Nobody ever even insinuated that.

Immigration activists don't merely play the racism card, most of the cards in their deck are racism cards. It's an easy card to play, because for most our history of immigration laws it was blatantly racist, and we didn't even pretend it wasn't. There were strict quotas based on race and national origin, with favorable numbers for white Europeans and severely limited restrictions on anyone else, including absolute prohibitions against Asians, Africans and Indians, and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones. Immigration activists, and they are highly organized, say that deportations are racist (12 million illegals and only 400,000 get deported per year, almost all of them repeat criminal felony offenders), not granting unconditional amnesty and permanent residency status to those already here is racist, having numbers quotas for total legal immigrants per year is racist, a wall along the southern border is racist, border guards at any of the borders or ports of entry are racist, you name is, anything that doesn't allow free and unfettered immigration is racist. It's the same tactic used by gays touting Gay Rights and Civil Rights (who wants to be known as anti-Civil Rights?) and labels anyone who doesn't (at least on the surface) embrace homosexuality as normal as being vilely homophobic. Thus, anyone who is against immigration in any way... racist.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (and update of previous similar acts) removed race and the prohibitions of certain countries and put in place a 170,000 per year number of visas, with quotas on country of origin based on those country's populations. n order to sell this much-less restrictive immigration policy to the American people, its proponents (Rep Emanuel Celler of NY, Senator Phillip Hart of MI (it was the Celler-Hart Bill), Secretary of State Dean Rusk, President Johnson, and the ever-popular Senator Ted Kennedy - the bills' most outspoken advocate) passionately assured the people that passage would not influence America's culture or demographics in any significant way. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions." These assertions would later prove grossly inaccurate, and it turns out (from documents and journals recovered after their deaths) they knew they were lying when they said it.

So you have all the immigration activists screaming for immigration reform, and by reform they mean no limits on immigrants, and the granting of amnesty, permanent residency, and eventual US citizenship for any illegals currently in the country. Anything less is racist.

 

[Ragman]

Immigration activists don't merely play the racism card, most of the cards in their deck are racism cards. It's an easy card to play, because for most our history of immigration laws it was blatantly racist, and we didn't even pretend it wasn't. There were strict quotas based on race and national origin, with favorable numbers for white Europeans and severely limited restrictions on anyone else, including absolute prohibitions against Asians, Africans and Indians, and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones. Immigration activists, and they are highly organized, say that deportations are racist (12 million illegals and only 400,000 get deported per year, almost all of them repeat criminal felony offenders), not granting unconditional amnesty and permanent residency status to those already here is racist, having numbers quotas for total legal immigrants per year is racist, a wall along the southern border is racist, border guards at any of the borders or ports of entry are racist, you name is, anything that doesn't allow free and unfettered immigration is racist. It's the same tactic used by gays touting Gay Rights and Civil Rights (who wants to be known as anti-Civil Rights?) and labels anyone who doesn't (at least on the surface) embrace homosexuality as normal as being vilely homophobic. Thus, anyone who is against immigration in any way... racist.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (and update of previous similar acts) removed race and the prohibitions of certain countries and put in place a 170,000 per year number of visas, with quotas on country of origin based on those country's populations. n order to sell this much-less restrictive immigration policy to the American people, its proponents (Rep Emanuel Celler of NY, Senator Phillip Hart of MI (it was the Celler-Hart Bill), Secretary of State Dean Rusk, President Johnson, and the ever-popular Senator Ted Kennedy - the bills' most outspoken advocate) passionately assured the people that passage would not influence America's culture or demographics in any significant way. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions." These assertions would later prove grossly inaccurate, and it turns out (from documents and journals recovered after their deaths) they knew they were lying when they said it.

So you have all the immigration activists screaming for immigration reform, and by reform they mean no limits on immigrants, and the granting of amnesty, permanent residency, and eventual US citizenship for any illegals currently in the country. Anything less is racist.

That's all fine and dandy, but Leo did not say immigration, he said borders.

 

[paulnstef39]

I was quite surprised to find that of the 11-11.5 Million illegal immigrants; about 6M are Mexicans. I was thinking it was a higher percentage.

 

[Turtle]

That's all fine and dandy, but Leo did not say immigration, he said borders.

So did I.

"...a wall along the southern border is racist, border guards at any of the borders or ports of entry are racist, you name is, anything that doesn't allow free and unfettered immigration is racist."