1804 part 2

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by swake

And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime.

It is still a crime and it is a felony for the 2nd time illegally entering the country.

quote:It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding.

They have fines and or punishments based on the severity and number of offenses committed.

 

 

quote:Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders?

Only if the speeders are illegal aliens.

quote:Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?

It is not the same crime as illegal immigration.Measly fines do not deter those who are already saving money by hiring illegals,loss of assets,prison time,and future ability to own and or operate business would.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?

You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.

The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?

You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.

Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.

At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?

As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.

But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.

There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment.  Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing?  The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed...a long time ago in 1897.  Among other findings:

quote: The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

I would stand firm with the Court on the ruling that Congress has no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

The question is what the Constitution grants.
I'm not sure the case actually addressed that directly.

But, if so, fine. I'm agreeable to what the Court rules then or now.

We do need to keep in mind that if an illegal alien does give birth to a new Citizen, it can be considered an 'accident', since current law allows no illegal persons to be on our property.

So, it can only occur when other existing laws and enforcement has failed.

[FOTD]

These issues would go away if we would just invade and take over Mexico......

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<Wrinkle says:

But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here?

<end clip>

Yes.

Next question.

Really?  Can you point us to any case law that supports that statement?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?

You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.

The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?

You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.

Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.

At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?

As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.

But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.

There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment.  Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing?  The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed...a long time ago in 1897.  Among other findings:

quote: The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

Legal status has been granted to children born to foreign parents who were here LEGALLY.  There exists no case law which extends that ruling to cover children born to ILLEGAL foreign parents.

For Christ's sake.  If you're going to cite to a case, at least read the damned thing first.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?

You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.

The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?

You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.

Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.

At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?

As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.

But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.

There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment.  Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing?  The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed...a long time ago in 1897.  Among other findings:

quote: The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

Legal status has been granted to children born to foreign parents who were here LEGALLY.  There exists no case law which extends that ruling to cover children born to ILLEGAL foreign parents.

For Christ's sake.  If you're going to cite to a case, at least read the damned thing first.

I read it and cited it just fine.  Citizenship is a right of the child born here.  The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?

[RecycleMichael]

I'm with the chicken poop on this one.

The child is a citizen. Period.

[iplaw]

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:I read it and cited it just fine.  Citizenship is a right of the child born here.  The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?

No. You interpolated the law injecting your own wants and ideas creating a subjective interpretation of the opinion.  In the legal world that's referred to as a misstatement of the law.  The fact pattern in Wong is simple and the opinion follows the fact pattern.  We are not free to vamp on the explicit holding of the court simply because we FEEL like it may be unfair.

Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally.  To read broader meaning into Wong is error.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I'm with the chicken poop on this one.

The child is a citizen. Period.

Feel free to side with CL, but you aren't allowed to say that the law says something it doesn't.  I can respect that you FEEL like it should be that way, but it doesn't make it so.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No. You interpolated...

Baloney.  Read.  My emphasis in bold:

quote: The government claimed that Wong's parentage should determine his citizenship. Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time of his birth. Therefore, Wong was likewise a foreign subject. According to the appeal,Wong was also Chinese by reason of his "race, language, color and dress." Because he did not belong to any of the classes of Chinese allowed entry under immigration rules, he was technically considered to be a laborer and liable to the terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
These arguments were no more successful in Washington D.C. than they had been in San Francisco. The Court rejected the appeal on 28 March 1898, over a year after hearing the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Gray noted the Constitution's deep roots in English common law. By this tradition, all persons born within England's domain could expect protection from the King, to whom they were expected to owe their allegiance. Gray traced the lineage of this concept of determining citizenship by birthplace from its English origins to standard practice in the American states.
The Court found its strongest reason for affirming Wong's citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified by Congress in 1868, the amendment was designed to grant the rights of citizenship to persons of African descent who had been slaves prior to the Civil War. To the majority, Section I of the amendment was unequivocal:
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 in which they reside.

The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

What this says is that your folks, their allegiances, origins, and citizenship have nothing to do with your citizenship.  And, in fact, that citizenship is derived through birth.

So, when you say, "Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally." you are claiming parentage matters.  It clearly don't.  And your huffing and puffing is not going to blow that house down.  In the non-lawyer world, we call this acting like a lawyer.

[Conan71]

Here's the message:  CL doesn't mind his tax dollars being ripped off by scam artists that use innocent children who don't have a clue what nationality means the day they are born as pawns to collect benefits and money which would otherwise be denied to them (the parents, not the child).

He'll continue to justify and ignore the growing illegal immigration and anchor baby problem until he falls victim of a personal crime against himself by an illegal immigrant.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:I read it and cited it just fine.  Citizenship is a right of the child born here.  The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?

No. You interpolated the law injecting your own wants and ideas creating a subjective interpretation of the opinion.  In the legal world that's referred to as a misstatement of the law.  The fact pattern in Wong is simple and the opinion follows the fact pattern.  We are not free to vamp on the explicit holding of the court simply because we FEEL like it may be unfair.

Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally.  To read broader meaning into Wong is error.

IP, you might like the Wikipedia article on Birthright citizenship in the United States, which does an excellent job of laying out the major case law for all us laytypes.  

While you're correct in a very narrow way -- there is no specific law stating explicitly that being born here in all cases guarantees citizenship -- it's been assumed to be true by the Supreme Court since the 14th amendment became law. Wong makes that assumption, as does Plyler v. Doe, which clarifies the phrase "within the jurisdiction of" in regard to residing in states, saying in part:    

quote: no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful

So, really, unless you can amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, or unless you can get Congress to craft some legislation saying it explicitly, then the law of the land is, you're born here and you're a citizen.  Pretty much full stop.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

So, really, unless you can amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, or unless you can get Congress to craft some legislation saying it explicitly, then the law of the land is, you're born here and you're a citizen.  Pretty much full stop.

That's what conservatives have said, too.  More specifically, that their best bet is to convince Congress to take away citizenship to certain classes using the same authority that allowed them to invite indian tribes to be citizens.   Sounds lovely.

They've always been about one Google click away from all sorts of theories...what's up with that, guys?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Here's the message:  CL doesn't mind his tax dollars being ripped off by scam artists that use innocent children who don't have a clue what nationality means the day they are born as pawns to collect benefits and money which would otherwise be denied to them (the parents, not the child).

He'll continue to justify and ignore the growing illegal immigration and anchor baby problem until he falls victim of a personal crime against himself by an illegal immigrant.

That might be your message, but it's not my message.  My message is that it's easy to become an American, most of us were simply born that way.  But it's much harder to act like one.

If there's one thing we've learned from our great American history, it's that groups of people sometimes have to put up with things they don't like.  Based on what I've read about history, I'm gonna say that when somebody starts talking about putting American babies on trial, they've gone too far. They can pretty much count themselves as intolerant persons.  

A lot of people are looking at Oklahoma right now and thinking that there's something very weak about us.  And, more Americans than you think believe that intolerance is unchristian. And what else?  That House Bill 1804 is crap in and of itself?  Just be thankful that more people aren't paying attention right now.  I mean, come on! Gimme a break with this stuff.

That's a little closer to my message, Conan.  I'll expound on that as much as you want.

[Breadburner]

Yes....I have had mucho correspondence from frineds throughout the globe saying how weak Oklahoma is appearing and I better pack up post haste....