Posted on 04/06/2006 7:47:53 PM PDT by Porterville
There's money to be made translating this into Spanish!
= )
The term "persons" was used to extend certain rights to slaves (who came here subject to our jurisdiction) and the descendents thereof. A national of another nation is legally an extension of that nation and not a discrete "person" in this context. A nation that treats a citizen of another nation as a discrete entity and not as an extension of that nation is in breach of the other nation's sovereignty.
Not settled? True.
But is once was. For decades after the passage of the 14th, it was interpreted by the courts, including the Supreme Court, exactly as I beleive it should be.
It was only after Kim (I forget the exact name of the case) where the Supreme Court did a complete 180 on the matter and tossed all its own precedent as well as the clear legislative record.
As things stand now I'm happy to take an "unsettled". At least that leaves open the possibility of a return to honesty.
Present company excepted, thank you. =)
"Subject" had a specific, long-established meaning in law and in the relations between nations, and without that understanding the confusion of others on this thread is understandable.
Here the law makes the distinction between simply residing in the United States and being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Simply residing in the United States does not automatically put an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason mainly has to do with the fact the US Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over a resident residing within a State -- only the States themselves was given this sole jurisdictional role.
Nice article with lots of good points and a few weak ones.
But one thing about the old days was that if you just showed up on a boat you were in. It is the poverty of Europe which drove people here and it is the poverty of Mexico/Poland/Russia which brings them here as well.
That's not so. Look at the problems France is having. Those yutes running wild over there are second and third generation immigrants. Of course, there are, ahem, other factors at play, but it doesn't help that they don't have a real chance to be citizens.
Well, actually I think there should be a test for all Americans at the age of 18 if they should be granted citizenship or not -- certain, ahem, persons, like Michael Moore or Syriana Clooney, IMO don't deserve to be American citizens -- they've taken the privilege of being born in the greatest country on earth, all the advantages that gave them and have used it to sully America's image. It'd be better to have immigrants from the USSR who WANT to be Americans -- take a famous Austrian who's now one of the most patriotic Americans....
I think there are enough differences in the situations between the two countries and the two populations to make that analogy null and void.
susie
The children of Illegal Aliens are not citizens because their parents and them cannot be rewarded for the crime their parents commited against the laws of this land.
It's like letting the son of a bank robber keep the stolen money that his father gave to him.
The child has no right to profit from any illegal act.
Heh!
"Category Error"... Popular phrase these days, and with good reason - there's a lot of it going around. I made the same point earlier about a stolen lottery ticket not earning the right to claim the jackpot.
The first I heard of it was on The Time Traveler thread.
Logically we have to look at things the right way to see the correct solution.
Basic troubleshooting, to find the solution first find the cause of the problem.
Well that statement hosed your whole argument? Sovereign indeed, when your own sovereignty has been deleted.
How does your statement hold up when corrected?
A child of legal visitors (as opposed to illegal immigrants)
It matters one whit, you will be told what it means, after all the constitution is a living breathing document.
Or maybe it is just a G...D... piece of paper after all.
Well then GENIUS how come they don't go home, they are breaking the law by being here?
I have to say, Citizenship at birth is something I support.
Anything else would lean towards the European model of citienship policy, and call me an antagonist, but if the Eurotwerps do it, I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Besides we all know how well its worked out for the Euros.
That would be a major step in the right direction, but we do need to close the "anchor baby" loophole at the same time.
Even Ireland has managed to do that.
Japan does never accepted the proposition that citizenship follows naturally from birth in Japan so nobody tries it that way.
I agree with your post, that folk here illegally should exit without delay, so I guess that would qualify me as a "genius", but I don't see what it has to do with the subject under discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.