You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

I would be interested to know if the federal givernment could compel Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate.

<end clip>

Yes.

[rwarn17588]

"Subject to jurisdiction" means people who are in the United States, excluding those with diplomatic immunity.

The 14th Amendment is explicit and clear. You can turn acrobatic circles all you want, but it doesn't change the clarity of the amendment. Maybe you kids need to go back to school.

And if you're somehow convinced that anchor babies (such as conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, incidentally) in the United States are somehow here illegally, call the feds and demand to arrest and deport them. You'll hear nothing but crickets.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

"Subject to jurisdiction" means people who are in the United States, excluding those with diplomatic immunity.

The 14th Amendment is explicit and clear. You can turn acrobatic circles all you want, but it doesn't change the clarity of the amendment. Maybe you kids need to go back to school.

Please RW, for the love of Pete just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Second, if you would bother reading your own posts, YOU stated "Since people born on American soil are given automatic citizenship.." I pointed out that YOUR point was flat wrong--and now you agree with me but apparently I need to go back to school.

Oh, and nice job dodging my second point about national verses state citizenship. Jeez. Please stick to topics you have some working knowledge of. Otherwise, you look stupid.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

"Subject to jurisdiction" means people who are in the United States, excluding those with diplomatic immunity.

The 14th Amendment is explicit and clear. You can turn acrobatic circles all you want, but it doesn't change the clarity of the amendment. Maybe you kids need to go back to school.

Please RW, for the love of Pete just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Second, if you would bother reading your own posts, YOU stated "Since people born on American soil are given automatic citizenship.." I pointed out that YOUR point was flat wrong--and now you agree with me but apparently I need to go back to school.

Oh, and nice job dodging my second point about national verses state citizenship. Jeez. Please stick to topics you have some working knowledge of. Otherwise, you look stupid.

Yeah, just shut up. They hate hearing truth spoken to power.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

"Subject to jurisdiction" means people who are in the United States, excluding those with diplomatic immunity.

The 14th Amendment is explicit and clear. You can turn acrobatic circles all you want, but it doesn't change the clarity of the amendment. Maybe you kids need to go back to school.

Please RW, for the love of Pete just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Second, if you would bother reading your own posts, YOU stated "Since people born on American soil are given automatic citizenship.." I pointed out that YOUR point was flat wrong--and now you agree with me but apparently I need to go back to school.

Oh, and nice job dodging my second point about national verses state citizenship. Jeez. Please stick to topics you have some working knowledge of. Otherwise, you look stupid.

Yeah, just shut up. They hate hearing truth spoken to power.

No AA, "they" hate misinformation spewed by the uneducated. Incidentally, any time you, RW, or any other person suffering from know-it-all-itis want to challenge me on a legal issue we differ on, let me know.

[Double A]

CORRECTION: They hate hearing truth spoken to white power.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5330080.html

... construction companies and homebuilders associations... I thought they "weren't using illegal immigrants."


Posted because I'm sure DoubleA will be all over this.

Do you suppose this may just  Unravel .....?

Or will it take a little longer.?

[Chicken Little]

RWARN knows exactly what he's talking about.

quote: 14th amnd.  -- 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...

American citizenship is a birthright.  All persons without diplomatic immunity are "subject to the jurisdiction".  Iplaw is absolutely right, we have been all through this before, and he and his fine friends were wrong, then, too.

Find me a case, esquires, where a person born here, not of diplomats, was denied US citizenship because of the status of their parents.  Just. Freaking. One.

From your favorite Heritage Foundation wingnuts:

quote: Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 That is the ENTIRETY of your argument.  That, and a $1.25, will get you a cup of coffee.  That ain't law.  That's not even a challenge.  That's whining.  So, either you beagles get on it or get off of it, but stop the whining.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

RWARN knows exactly what he's talking about.

quote: 14th amnd.  -- 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...

American citizenship is a birthright.  All persons without diplomatic immunity are "subject to the jurisdiction".  Iplaw is absolutely right, we have been all through this and you fine friends were wrong, then, too.

Find me a case, esquires, where a person born here was denied US citizenship at birth.  Just. Freaking. One.

From your favorite Heritage Foundation wingnuts:

quote: Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 That is the ENTIRETY of your argument.  That, and a $1.25, will get you a cup of coffee.  That ain't law.  That's not even a challenge.  That's whining.  So, either you beagles get on it or get off of it, but stop the whining.

What are you talking about? I pointed out that RW' original post was WRONG! Right now, you are agreeing with me. If you would read though the posts on this thread before you decided it was too important instead to look stupid, you would have picked up on that.

My original point is that while U.S. citizenship may be a birthright, does that mean that the federal government can compel a state like Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. Now, if you do not have anything intelligent to say on that point, then I say shut up.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5330080.html

... construction companies and homebuilders associations... I thought they "weren't using illegal immigrants."


Posted because I'm sure DoubleA will be all over this.

Do you suppose this may just  Unravel .....?

Or will it take a little longer.?

Not a chance of this getting repealed in the legislature. Looks like English might become the official language of Oklahoma, though:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071206_1_A13_hAlaw10161

Even if 1804 was repealed in the legislature, it would immediately be resurrected in the form of an initiative petition, most likely including the provisions of "son of 1804", and easily make it on to the ballot. The referendum would sail to victory with an overwhelmingly majority. Be careful what you wish for.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


What are you talking about? I pointed out that RW' original post was WRONG! Right now, you are agreeing with me. If you would read though the posts on this thread before you decided it was too important instead to look stupid, you would have picked up on that.

My original point is that while U.S. citizenship may be a birthright, does that mean that the federal government can compel a state like Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. Now, if you do not have anything intelligent to say on that point, then I say shut up.

Probably should have quoted IP's post.  This was his argument last time.  That "anchor babies" weren't American because the Supreme Court hadn't specifially bestowed citizenship upon them.  Utter BS.

To your point, if the kid's a US citizen, why wouldn't he be entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911


What are you talking about? I pointed out that RW' original post was WRONG! Right now, you are agreeing with me. If you would read though the posts on this thread before you decided it was too important instead to look stupid, you would have picked up on that.

My original point is that while U.S. citizenship may be a birthright, does that mean that the federal government can compel a state like Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. Now, if you do not have anything intelligent to say on that point, then I say shut up.

Probably should have quoted IP's post.  This was his argument last time.  That "anchor babies" weren't American because the Supreme Court hadn't specifially bestowed citizenship upon them.  Utter BS.

To your point, if the kid's a US citizen, why wouldn't he be entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment?

Your question is at the heart of the anchor baby debate, not whether the "son of 1804" which could result in Oklahoma withholding birth certificates to children of illegals and whether such is constitutional. This was my only point, which is at the heart of the federalism.

As to your question, look at that quote from the Snowden decision in an earlier post of mine. I believe it might answer your question.

[Chicken Little]

So why would you, a conservative, want the Courts to "legislate from the bench"?  Hypocritical, don't you think?

[rwarn17588]

Oh, baloney.

There is no debate, except among those who apply contortionist theories. Such far-flung theories are not applicable in the real world.

If you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen. Period.

If you think anchor babies are somehow illegal, try to arrest them and see how far you get.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

So why would you, a conservative, want the Courts to "legislate from the bench"?  Hypocritical, don't you think?

Are you asking me this question?