Family Split Apart by Deportation

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

That's right. Foreigners must buy their right to citizenship. That'll keep the riff raff out.

[natty bumppo 297]

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

That's right. Foreigners must buy their right to citizenship. That'll keep the riff raff out.

foreigners should be granted citizenship for the asking? no rules .. no limits?

Edited June 23, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

That's right. Foreigners must buy their right to citizenship. That'll keep the riff raff out.

foreigners should be granted citizenship for the asking? no rules .. no limits?

when one is racing to the bottom, the more help the better.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

That's right. Foreigners must buy their right to citizenship. That'll keep the riff raff out.

foreigners should be granted citizenship for the asking? no rules .. no limits?

when one is racing to the bottom, the more help the better.

Have you ever noticed that when liberals don't like the law, they declare a right denied, and then demand to have it fulfilled, even if common sense would assert that the "right" had never, or should never exist?

Edited June 23, 2009 by Sofiyya

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

That's right. Foreigners must buy their right to citizenship. That'll keep the riff raff out.

foreigners should be granted citizenship for the asking? no rules .. no limits?

when one is racing to the bottom, the more help the better.

Have you ever noticed that when liberals don't like the law, they declare a right denied, and then demand to have it fulfilled, even if common sense would assert that the "right" had never, or should never exist?

quite often - none will be happy until we're the elois

[stangguy 0]

The children are U.S. Citizens [ this is the legal problem that needs to be addressed. in few other countries is place of birth determinant. usually it is citizenship of parents that is determinant]

blah, blah, blah, blah...

This is your view, namely that children born in the US should not be granted US citizenship. It is certainly your right to pursue the Constitutional amendment that such a change would require. Petition for it, write your Congressman, write letters to the editor, run for office yourself. All fine and good.

Until that day, the law is clear - children born in the US are USCs.

This is not an insignificant matter to me personally.

My own US Citizenship derives from this fact. I was born in the US to parents who were legally, but temporarily, here. My father was completing his postdoc at a research institute in the US and shortly after I was born my parents returned to Canada and I with them. My parents are not American. My brother and sister, both born in Canada, are not American. You have your rights to speak out regarding immigration. So do I, and so do all US citizens, regardless of whether they obtained citizenship at birth or through naturalization.

I treasure my US citizenship, yet at the same time I recognize that it is mine through an accident of birth. Had I been born in Canada as were my brother and sister, I would not have this status. Nonetheless, I am every bit as much an American as you are. You, too, are American through the circumstances which gave you this status.

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

You are incorrect Sofiyaa. In United States V. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Supreme Court held that "a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth." because of the 14th ammendment.

The cases of American Indians are different because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus the 14th ammendment did not apply to them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The children are U.S. Citizens [ this is the legal problem that needs to be addressed. in few other countries is place of birth determinant. usually it is citizenship of parents that is determinant]

blah, blah, blah, blah...

This is your view, namely that children born in the US should not be granted US citizenship. It is certainly your right to pursue the Constitutional amendment that such a change would require. Petition for it, write your Congressman, write letters to the editor, run for office yourself. All fine and good.

Until that day, the law is clear - children born in the US are USCs.

This is not an insignificant matter to me personally.

My own US Citizenship derives from this fact. I was born in the US to parents who were legally, but temporarily, here. My father was completing his postdoc at a research institute in the US and shortly after I was born my parents returned to Canada and I with them. My parents are not American. My brother and sister, both born in Canada, are not American. You have your rights to speak out regarding immigration. So do I, and so do all US citizens, regardless of whether they obtained citizenship at birth or through naturalization.

I treasure my US citizenship, yet at the same time I recognize that it is mine through an accident of birth. Had I been born in Canada as were my brother and sister, I would not have this status. Nonetheless, I am every bit as much an American as you are. You, too, are American through the circumstances which gave you this status.

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

You are incorrect Sofiyaa. In United States V. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Supreme Court held that "a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth." because of the 14th ammendment.

The cases of American Indians are different because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus the 14th ammendment did not apply to them.

Sorry, you are wrong. I stated that the legislative history, the source of the law that explains its intent, did not form the amendment inorder to give birthright citizenship to anyone. It was intended for slaves only. That activist jurists, including the Supremes, such as in the case you cited, have broadened the amendment in ways that have created a birthright where there was none is the problem.

In 1866, long before Wong, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes stated: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” John Bingham, one of the original legislators behind the 14th amendment stated that Sec. 1992 meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull, another framer of the 14th amendment, commented that American Indians were excluded from citizenship on the basis that “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The same would be true of children born to parents who owed an allidence to a nation other than the US. In Elk v Wilkins, the American Indian claimant was considered not to be an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Illegals and their children are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, a fact which the Supreme Court recognized in 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. Wong, which was decided 28 years after the passage of the 14th amendment, dealt with the citizenship of children born to legal permanent residents who were not US citizens. While it served to begin the reinterpretation of the original intent of the 14th amendment framers, the subjects of the ruling were not transient, illegal, lawbreaking aliens.

Nothing that I stated was incorrect.

The legislative intent of the author of the 14th amendment was to confer citizenship on freed slaves. That is easily verifible.

The original 14th aendment definition of "those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" did not include citizens of other nations, even when born on US soil. That is demonstrated by the exclusion of American Indians born on US soil, yet subject to the jurisdiction of their government, and owing their allegiance to another nation.

Activist courts have watered down the original intent to provide a means to confer citizenship to children whose parents are subjects of other governments and whose allegiance is owed to another nation.

The Supremes someties step in it. They were forced to correct the interpretive error that brought about the ruling in Plessy v Ferguson, and other related cases. Their recent emminet domain rulings certainly circumvent the Constitution, as well. Creating anchor babies for illegals is another mistake they can also correct.

[justashooter 430]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

[Heracles 417]

You want to compare Chicago to Vancouver? Sure. I've been to both cities. Both are lovely, have great appeal to visitors and residents. Both have picturesque districts (think Gastown in Vancouver, Lincoln Park in Chicago). Both have wonderful parks (Stanley Park in Vancouver, Grant Park in Chicago). Both have lovely beaches, first rate universities (UBC & SFU, UofChicago and Northwestern). Both also have problems with crime, drugs, gangs, poverty, domestic violence, urban decay.

Only difference is Vancouver has won international award after award. Very big difference might I add. Maybe not in your 'high and mighty' opinion but the international community seems to think otherwise. So let me see, should I take scandal's opinion or take the opinion of 96% of the world that does not live here. Real tough choice there.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Constellation

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

[natty bumppo 297]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

** ... copy/paste on this site sometimes really blows

other times ... it rocks

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

** ... copy/paste on this site sometimes really blows

other times ... it rocks

You noticed? :

[natty bumppo 297]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

** ... copy/paste on this site sometimes really blows

other times ... it rocks

You noticed? :

yea ...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

** ... copy/paste on this site sometimes really blows

other times ... it rocks

You noticed? :

yea ...

Nat, I luv ya dude!

[natty bumppo 297]

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

thank you sofiyya. you have expanded on my original point quite eloquently.

charles, i am a morlock.

A picture says a 1000 words dont it?

** ... copy/paste on this site sometimes really blows

other times ... it rocks

You noticed? :

yea ...

Nat, I luv ya dude!

anyone else on vj would be puckerin and coverin up ... cause they would be expecting something ...

me ... you gonna fire up the grill ... or should I ?