Let's try a new way of discussing immigration..

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents.  This case does not address the facts at hand.  Care to mischaraterize any other caselaw?

Care to admit you've been whipped?  You've lost; you know it.  Children are accountable for the actions of their parents.  Why do you agree with this statement, IP?

You can't even take the first step, but, just so you know, you've got a whole mountain to climb after that.  Here you go:  United States V. Wong Kim Ark...all the "natural-born" goodness you would ever want to read...and it was written over a century ago.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
Care to admit you've been whipped? You've lost; you know it.

Once I actually have been I'll admit it, but you're miles away...

quote:
Children are accountable for the actions of their parents.  Why do you agree with this statement, IP?

This discussion does not focus around "accountability" it focuses around the legal status of parents and their children.

quote:United States V. Wong Kim Ark...all the "natural-born" goodness you would ever want to read...and it was written over a century ago.

And that's a misstatement (or poor reading comprehension) of the law as there are more elements which serve to establish whether someone is citizen or not.  Please provide me with case law that supports your assertion that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens.  Unless you have that, go fish.  Congress is free to write laws that challenge the citizenship of those individuals until SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional.

Just as there are exceptions to citizenship based upon a parent being a diplomat, we can clearly divine that the nationality/citizenship or status of the parent can have dramatic effects on whether we recognize a child as a citizen or not.

[Conan71]

In the justice's opinion he states the following:

"Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent residence therein at San Francisco"

Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States?  That appears to be significant to SCOTUS in the Ark case.  The justices relied heavily on the issue of having a permanent residence in the U.S.


"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Ken Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274."

Citation of the English common law continues:

"Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. but the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King."

Still leaves room for more interpretation should someone care to dig into the common law issue to interpret the Constitution.  "Hostile occupation" doesn't necessarily mean at war.

[Chicken Little]

You're such a kidder.[}:)]  Anybody who reads this thread, which at this point is just you and me, can see that your whole argument is predicated on this weird notion of cross-generational guilt.  First, that's not very conservative of you.[]  Second, it's bizarre.  And third, unlike that Devil guy, you can't filibuster me.

These babies are Americans, the law says so.  Convince us otherwise.  You're not an eel, you're an attorney...give us your opinion.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States?  

Yes.  Resident, non-resident, legal, and illegal aliens are still subject to the laws of this country.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

You're such a kidder.[}:)]  Anybody who reads this thread, which at this point is just you and me, can see that your whole argument is predicated on this weird notion of cross-generational guilt.  First, that's not very conservative of you.[]  Second, it's bizarre.  And third, unlike that Devil guy, you can't filibuster me.

These babies are Americans, the law says so.  Convince us otherwise.  You're not an eel, you're an attorney...give us your opinion.

Is this supposed to be a response?  

It doesn't contain a single cogent response to anything I presented in the last 3 posts.  If you continue to punt on the discussion while claimin victory that's your problem, and frankly it's just sad.

Did you bother to see that no one else is chiming in to argue this supposedly "obvious point" along with you.  Might it be fair to assume that you don't have this as figured out as you think dear Chicken?

1.  Both cases and statutes make the status of parents birthing children a consideration in granting citizenship to said children.  To argue that it has no bearing simply denies standing case law.

2.  No case has been decided on whether children born to illegals are truly citizens.

Until you can explain away both of those considerations you can't make the claim you're attempting to make.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States?  

Yes.  Resident, non-resident, legal, and illegal aliens are still subject to the laws of this country.

That question has never been decided by SCOTUS, despite your claims otherwise.

Again, all I'm asking for is (1) O-N-E case that states (and not in dicta, in the actual opinion) that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens.  Just one, only one.

[Conan71]

Chicken, you are doing an end zone dance when you have still failed to prove, other than by your own conjecture, that everyone born here is a citizen.

Until SCOTUS looks at the issue of people born to non-residents of the United States, I don't believe you can claim victory.  

Let me make sure I understand you here.  Let's say an Iranian family is on holiday here for a week.  Better yet, for the sake of absurdity, let's say that the father is a key operative in Al Qaeda.  Family has never been here before and never returns after they go home.  The wife goes into labor six weeks premature and delivers the baby in a U.S. hospital.  You believe that baby deserves to be a citizen?  Are you personally for bestowing citizenship upon a baby born here by accident as well?  That child could move back here when he/she is 18 and vote in our elections even though they know nothing of nor have cultivated any respect for our political process and customs and may have nothing but contempt for our people.

How do you feel about the dual citizenship aspect of people born here to foreign nationals?

Or are you just trying to be a crank to keep IP and myself fired up?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
1.  Both cases and statutes make the status of parents birthing children a consideration in granting citizenship to said children.  To argue that it has no bearing simply denies standing case law.

What do you mean by the "status of parents"?  Citizenship status or diplomatic status?  They are not interchangeable.  Diplomatic status matters; citizenship status does not.

quote:2.  No case has been decided on whether children born to illegals are truly citizens.

So what?  Do courts make the laws, IP?  Or, does Congress?  You can speculate about the future, but that doesn't change the present.  They are truly legal.

quote:Until you can explain away both of those considerations you can't make the claim you're attempting to make.

Done and done.  You're the one with a case to make.  Make one.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
Diplomatic status matters; citizenship status does not.

Please, by all means, cite me a case that makes this pronouncement.  Just one case that states that the citizenship of parents is NOT a factor.  Not an argument from silence, but an actual opinion that explicitly states that assertion.

quote:So what?  Do courts make the laws, IP?  Or, does Congress?  You can speculate about the future, but that doesn't change the present.  They are truly legal.

Courts interpret the laws...but I thought you knew that...and up to now, no court has EVER made the determination.  They are legally unchallenged, that does not make them "legal."

I don't expect you to understand case law interpretation, as you have not had formal legal training (which is apparent), but the facts of a case often make outcomes disparate.  Even ones that seem to have similar fact patterns.  Without a ruling stating that children of illegals are truly citizens you're just spinning your wheels.  Until you have a ruling stating that the 14th amendment applies to children born to illegals, Congress has the right to pass laws that deny citizenship to them, UNLIKE you or I who were born to legalized citizens, for which there are rulings stating that we CANNOT be denied citizenship.  A HUGE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE.

All I'm asking for is ONE case.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Chicken, you are doing an end zone dance when you have still failed to prove, other than by your own conjecture, that everyone born here is a citizen.

Until SCOTUS looks at the issue of people born to non-residents of the United States, I don't believe you can claim victory.

Do courts make the law, Conan?  Or does Congress?  I can't believe you conservatives would take this tack.  It's laughable.  

quote:Let me make sure I understand you here.  Let's say an Iranian family is on holiday here for a week.  Better yet, for the sake of absurdity, let's say that the father is a key operative in Al Qaeda.  Family has never been here before and never returns after they go home.  The wife goes into labor six weeks premature and delivers the baby in a U.S. hospital.  You believe that baby deserves to be a citizen?  Are you personally for bestowing citizenship upon a baby born here by accident as well?  That child could move back here when he/she is 18 and vote in our elections even though they know nothing of nor have cultivated any respect for our political process and customs and may have nothing but contempt for our people.

No, the Constitution is bestowing citizenship upon him. He's a freakin' baby, what's his crime?

quote:How do you feel about the dual citizenship aspect of people born here to foreign nationals?

I feel that, for some, dual citizenship can mean dual loyalty.  I think that clearances and entitlements should be restricted in ways that protect the security of this country.  

quote:Or are you just trying to be a crank to keep IP and myself fired up?

No.

[iplaw]

quote:Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress?

Congress may pass a law denying citizenship to children born to illegals.  SCOTUS may deny citizenship based upon a cert petition.  Is this really that difficult?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
[brPlease, by all means, cite me a case that makes this pronouncement.  Just one case that states that the citizenship of parents is NOT a factor.  Not an argument from silence, but an actual opinion that explicitly states that assertion.

That's unecessary.  The 14th Amendment says, "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." Seems like you are the one that needs to give up ONE case where citizenship status resulted in someone being found not subject to the laws of this country.

quote:Courts interpret the laws...but I thought you knew that...and up to now, no court has EVER made the determination.  They are legally unchallenged, that does not make them "legal."

An unchallenged law is still the law.  Show me different.

quote:I don't expect you to understand case law interpretation, as you have not had formal legal training (which is apparent), but the facts of a case often make outcomes disparate.

Oh, climb off your high horse.  You've been posting here for, what, over a year?  What have you brought to this community?  You do very little work and you don't share.  It's all tactics..."Hey, look at me...I'm slippery...woo-hoo!"  Well, to tell the truth, I like arguing with you.  But, don't think that you've made an impression.  I'll defer to you when you actually decide to go all in and show us something.  Where's the beef?  Where's the corpse?

quote:Even ones that seem to have similar fact patterns.  Without a ruling stating that children of illegals are truly citizens you're just spinning your wheels.  Until you have a ruling stating that the 14th amendment applies to children born to illegals, Congress has the right to pass laws that deny citizenship to them, UNLIKE you or I who were born to legalized citizens, for which there are rulings stating that we CANNOT be denied citizenship.  A HUGE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE.

All I'm asking for is ONE case.

You see, this is much better.  I understand this.  But you are backwards and you know it.  The 14th amendment applies until a ruling says otherwise.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress?

Congress may pass a law denying citizenship to children born to illegals.  SCOTUS may deny citizenship based upon a cert petition.  Is this really that difficult?

Sure, they may, but they haven't yet.  And the law says they are US citizens.  Is it really that difficult?

[Hometown]

Hey, I just wanted to slip in an aside here.  You may remember a thread of a few weeks past that discussed the downturn in business in Tulsa's Latin community and reports that Latin people were leaving town.  I expressed some reservations then about how deep this exodus was going to be.  I am now confident based on news reports, reports from friends and calls to my place of employment, that there is indeed a real exodus in progress.  

Of course I am most sad that people are living in fear and Oklahoma has acted without humanity in a way that diminishes all of us.

And it looks like this really may effect Tulsa's bottom line.  

I want you to remember that we can thank our Congressman Sullivan and his cronies for this.