Equating women with farm animals

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

Pay close attention:

Section. 1. 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.

A person is always first and foremost under the jurisdiction of their home country. It's why we usually extradite criminals we catch in the United States with countries we have an agreement to do so with. They might be here, but they are under the jurisdiction of their home country.

The same goes when you are visiting the United States. You are "within" our jurisdiction (which I'll touch on below) but you are not "subject to" our jurisdiction.

The same goes if you're a US Citizen who is visiting another country. You're still 'subject to' our jurisdiction as a US Citizen, but you're within a jurisdiction of another nation who has their own laws and rules that you must abide by as well. They can so choose to let you have the same rights as their citizens do or not depending on the nation and their laws.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now see here, it's purposefully worded differently. The wording says that if you're sitting within the United States, then we will offer you the same protections under the law as we do our citizens. So if we arrest you, you still have your 4th and 5th amendment rights.

So someone can't just break into your car without a warrant or probable cause, just like a citizen as well. You have rights that cannot be infringed upon. It we arrest you though, it's likely that we will try and deport you though, as you are not 'subject to' our jurisdiction anyway, and we really don't want you to be. It's why you're sent back to your home country and not just pushed off anywhere.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

.................

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact 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".

Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority 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."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Even if I were to give you any inch on this, an illegal immigrant border jumping and popping out a kid, does not have a permanent domicile here.

Either way, the justices in the case ignored original intent and interpreted the meaning of the amendment and its wording based on how they felt it should mean.

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

Even if I were to give you any inch on this, an illegal immigrant border jumping and popping out a kid, does not have a permanent domicile here.

Either way, the justices in the case ignored original intent and interpreted the meaning of the amendment and its wording based on how they felt it should mean.

** your original intent spin on the Constitution. Jefferson owned slaves when he helped author that "All Men Are Created Equal." Applying logic and reason to that notion is what eventually led us to giving rights to women and ending slavery. The Constitution would never need amendments if we took such a purest POV such as yours. The Founders of this country were not demigods. They were human and prone to not seeing their own shortcomings in spite of their brilliance and foresight.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[justashooter 430]

20 years is nothing to people who have been in jihad for over a thousand years.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

** your original intent spin on the Constitution. Jefferson owned slaves when he helped author that "All Men Are Created Equal." Applying logic and reason to that notion is what eventually led us to giving rights to women and ending slavery. The Constitution would never need amendments if we took such a purest POV such as yours. The Founders of this country were not demigods. They were human and prone to not seeing their own shortcomings in spite of their brilliance and foresight.

and that's why we LEGISLATIVELY change laws, not through the judiciary.

The job of the judiciary is to decide if a law/idea is constitutional based on the constitution as originally written and intended. If it passes that muster, then a law stands.

If you want to implement a law that is not constitutional, then first you must change the constitution.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

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

and that's why we LEGISLATIVELY change laws, not through the judiciary.

The job of the judiciary is to decide if a law/idea is constitutional based on the constitution as originally written and intended. If it passes that muster, then a law stands.

If you want to implement a law that is not constitutional, then first you must change the constitution.

No sh!t and the 14th Amendment clearly states who is a citizen by birth. You want to add a caveat to the very clearly written expression of the amendment that the 'original intent' wasn't to allow illegal immigrants giving birth to USC. Any legislation that attempts to circumvent that will be challenged in the courts.

[Captain Oates 911]

Immigrant is the key word there. Someone who is recognized as the United States and no longer within the jurisdiction of their home country. However an illegal crossing the border and popping our her little brat is still within the jurisdiction of her home country. She never came in here through proper channels. The same goes with "birth tourism." They are not coming here to live and immigrate, they are popping in, popping out a baby, and then leaving.

The co-author Senator Jacob specifically said that foreign born persons in the United States are not entitled to citizenship because they do not fall within its jurisdiction.

re the bolded above:

If they are still within the jurisdiction of their own country, does that mean they cannot be tried in a US court without extradition to the US jurisdiction ? eg with the acquiescence of the Mexican Government ?

We can't say they are not here for one purpose but they are here for another purpose. They are either totally here or they are not.

The law needs to be changed as the US is one of the few countries who allow physical presence to bestow citizenship.

[rika60607 215]

Yes, and as someone noticed before, there were no illegal immigrants back then... there was no process to obtain residency, people just showed up. In a way, they were all illegal immigrants by modern standards.

I would be curious though - say someone works in the US on whatever work visa for many years. They have a child. They are clearly domiciled in the US, but they are not citizens or LPRs. So, should their child be a USC? Would that family be a subject of US jurisdiction?

No sh!t and the 14th Amendment clearly states who is a citizen by birth. You want to add a caveat to the very clearly written expression of the amendment that the 'original intent' wasn't to allow illegal immigrants giving birth to USC. Any legislation that attempts to circumvent that will be challenged in the courts.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

this thread is being milked for all it's worth.

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

this thread is being milked for all it's worth.

(and before anyone jumps the gun on trying to censor this pic, it is from a billboard.)

Mothers Against Genetic Engineering in Food and the Environment

( Madge ) has displayed seven billboards in Wellington and Auckland showing a naked woman with four breasts and GE branded on her backside.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[Fandango 1,439]

'drop anchor' = contextual sense. Comparing women to cattle? Cman now. no one did that. This author is adding 2+2 and getting 6.

Also, mentioning McCain? Why? He was born on a military installation to 2 USCs. What point was the author trying to make?

Oh, emo rhetoric bs, I forgot.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No sh!t and the 14th Amendment clearly states who is a citizen by birth. You want to add a caveat to the very clearly written expression of the amendment that the 'original intent' wasn't to allow illegal immigrants giving birth to USC. Any legislation that attempts to circumvent that will be challenged in the courts.

Seriously? How about you read the words of the author where he specifically said, that a child born here to foreign parents is NOT a citizen.

1866 Senator Jacob Howard:

""Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.""

Original intent my friend.

Of course I suppose you like activist judges running our lives.

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

Seriously? How about you read the words of the author where he specifically said, that a child born here to foreign parents is NOT a citizen.

1866 Senator Jacob Howard:

""Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.""

Original intent my friend.

Of course I suppose you like activist judges running our lives.

I don't know what kind reading comprehension skills you have or how far you got in higher education, but that part is pretty straightforward and holds to this day - that children born to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not granted U.S. citizenship.

That was the argument made against Wong Kim Ark being granted citizenship because according to the Port of San Francisco,

"although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

...to which the Supreme Court responded with their ruling:

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact 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".

......

Once a fanboy, always a fanboy. Leave arguing over constitutional law to people who actually have the capacity to comprehend what they read.

Edited August 5, 2010 by El Buscador

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Once a fanboy, always a fanboy. Leave arguing over constitutional law to people who actually have the capacity to comprehend what they read.

So take your own advice.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If equating women with farm animals, I would prefer the pigs.