Trump: If President, I'll Deport *All* Undocumented Immigrants

Thats why it was enacted.

 

The ruling does not state the residents must be legal. It merely notes they have a legal domicile. Justice gray specifically shows using English common law that there are only 2 exceptions to BRC. Foreign invading army or children of diplomats.

 

No it wasn't, nor is it restricted to freed slaves. That's why is says all persons and not freed slaves only.

 

Nope, Im right

Fourteenth Amendment ~ Black History

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” In all, the amendment comprises five sections, four of which began in 1866 as separate proposals that stalled in legislative process and were amalgamated into a single amendment.

 

E-Verify all you want, that ain't gonna change much, because the Big money likes things the way they are now. I remember interning at a Turbine Blades shop that process Engine parts for Pratt & Whitney. This shop was located in Branford Connnecticut. I worked in the shop floor for a couple months during Summer. 30-40% of the laborors in that Shop floor were brown skinned people who spoke broken english. Of course the Managers / Engineers were mostly English speaking Whites.

 

Nope. Since it says all persons, not freed slaves.

 

obviously, you have no clue about American history or African American history.

Have a nice day.

 

Hey I would agree with you if the amendment said something different. Unfortunately it doesn't. It says all persons.

 

You dont get to rewrite history.

 

True. But i do get to correct you when you post incorrect information.

 

Plyler had nothing to do with immigration or citizenship status. Ark did.

It's a rather short paragraph that nicely summarizes a whole lot of preceding pages. And if you can find ANYTHING in that which somehow limits U.S. citizenship to people born in this country, you'll have to highlight it, because IT. JUST. ISN'T. THERE. And, no, I'm not going off on another of you snipe hunts where you selectively pick a few words or sentences here or there to somehow "prove" how right you are, because you are totally wrong and there's not one damned SCOTUS decision which clearly states (as clearly as Ark) that there are limits on conferring that status. If there were, you would have posted it long ago and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

I didn't post incorrect information. I posted a historical fact backed by a link from thehistorychannel.com.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't post incorrect information. I posted a historical fact backed by a link from thehistorychannel.com.

How come you don't know anything about black history?

This won't sit well with your democrat pals....

 

Which is easily defeated by the actual language of the amendment.

 

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? I take it you are against the recent USSC ruling on the ACA and the subsidies?

The language in the law was disregarded for intent.

The intent of the 14th was not to grant citizenship to illegal alien's children who happen to be born on US soil. It's intent was purely to make sure freed slaves were citizens.

 

Plyler states that the illegal children are a protected class and can not be held accountable for their actions (being here in violation of the law), yet their parents can be held accountable and can take them with them.

Neither does IT STATE that all children are born citizens. Again you dismiss the FACT of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, Why do you think that words "of, who, and but" are in there? or the fact that Gray makes light of the parents legal status, to which even English Common Law says "aliens in amity". Do you know what amity means? Why does Gray also point out that his parents were here via the 1868 Treaty with China? Why does Gray continually state the parents were domciled and residents here throughout the opinion?

Why do you dismiss and cherry pick only what you want? and then claim to be the only one that is right by calling every one else wrong? Unless you are a Constitutional Lawyer with a Masters Degree, your opinion holds about as much water as a bucket with no bottom. So until you can answer these few questions that I proposed, you haven't shown me to be wrong about anything. So, please give it a shot, take a chance, you just might find you are less knowledgeable then you think you are. Or don't and go on about your life and accept the fact that there are people that do know a whole lot more about it than you do.

 

No argument. But that in no way changed their status - if they started as illegal, and had not been granted residence or citizenship status, they were still here illegally - but they could not be penalized by the school district for acts of their parents (I think that's a Biblical thing) and so must be funded. Again, IT DID NOT CHANGE THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.

Whatever the Chinese emperor thought, believed or had written into their laws had exactly ZIP to do with the status of baby WKA. He was probably considered a Chinese citizen, but was also a U.S. citizen. And, because he was of Chinese descent at not exactly a good time for them in our history, it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

As far as I know to been able to find out, your "aliens in amity" appears to come from a radical, racist, anti-immigrant outfit called The Social Contract. I will also tell you I have absolutely no use for those or similar sons-of-(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es and never have for well over 50 years. If that's where your ideas on this are coming from, I can understand why you refuse to accept reality, but you can count on me being in your face every time you pop up with that tired tripe.

You never were able to show me exactly where in WKA that "somehow limits U.S. citizenship to people born in this country", so the concluding summary paragraph stands as the decision.

Because it's settled law and has been for over 100 years. That you refuse to accept it is a personal problem and no cause to claim I'm the only one who accepts it.

You don't have to be a "Constitutional Lawyer with a Masters Degree" to be able to read and comprehend.

 

I never claimed it changed their status. Seems you really don't know much about the debate.

The Chinese Emperors opinion had no bearing, the simple fact is that because of the Treaty, Wongs parents were here, domiciled and resident (do you know what domiciled means? Do you know what is required to prove domicil?) as Justice Gray points out, and by this because his parents were not in the employment of the Chinese Govt, the child born to them in the US was born a citizen. Without that Treaty, the change of a recognized permanent domicil from China to the US, then their would never have been a court case and Wong would never have been allowed back into CA. There are known cases where other Chinese during the time claimed to be born in the US but were denied entry for one reason or another.

And here I thought you were educated enough and versed enough in the WKA case that you knew what you were able to read without holding a Masters Degree.

"(A)liens in amity" comes from WKA

And that actually comes from Calvins Case from 1608

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The Concluding Summary paragraph states

Again, you don't get to cherry pick what you think only backs up your tripe, take the whole of it and it changes what you are claiming. And here I thought you knew how to comprehend actual case law.

It is not settled law for all classes of people, Constitutional Scholars even state its not settled law. If it were settled their would have been no dissent in the case. It was a 5-4 ruling

First you need to be able to read the actual opinion verse the syllabus and then comprehend the very words used by Justice Gray. Hell, I would be happy if you had a high school English Comp class, maybe then you would have a basic knowledge of the wording of the actual opinion.

 

Who says the invaders have to be "armed"?

 

They're not yearning to be free, they're yearning for EBT.

 

Then why mention the case? or was that just another bit of misdirection? Never mind; doesn't matter.

The WKA case was decided in 1898 so there have been 117+ years pass to challenge the decision based on any of the points you've raised (residency, domiciled, etc.) yet it hasn't happened, or at least if it has, it hasn't been successful.

Big whoop. You've found the phrase buried in the decision as part of the lengthy history lesson leading to the decision. Based on U.S. law. But thank you for the reference.

'k.

No, it changes nothing. Under every subsequent interpretation of that decision, even if a woman were to come across our border, go straight to the nearest hospital and have a baby, that kid would be considered a U.S. citizen (barring the few exceptions). Note that there is no residence or carrying on of business. Just a woman in labor who has a kid and goes home a couple of days later, with junior's U.S. birth certificate (proof of citizenship) in hand.

WKA was a 6-2 decision. Lawyers argue all the time about everything just for the pure fun of it. So what? And, AFAIK, about the only ones still arguing about this one are nativists and similar groups for whom I have nothing but disdain. If there were any merit to their argument(s), they'd be in court. They aren't. For a very good reason - they have no valid arguments.

You're wrong.

 

Wouldn't "invaders" indicate hostile?

 

Nobody

 

You obviously don't understand how cases are brought about, nor by whom. Why would an illegal who is getting everything bring a case about not receiving something? WAIT, its beginning to happen, mothers in Texas are being denied their child BC due to not having the proper ID to obtain it, I guess we will soon find out.

I found the phrase? You claimed to be well versed in the WKA opinion, you should have known that phrase was in it since it falls within the very beginning of the opinion.

It only goers to show you fail in comprehension of the concluding affirmation. Try reading the last sentence in it. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Those reasons include his parents status of being permanently domciled and resident in teh US.

Under the interpretations over the years, the admins changed their understanding, Obama changed it to claim they are simply by being born here, Under Bush it was they "may be" due to birth, which left it open for denial or approval to the DoS. All a new admin has to do is change it again to outright say no they are not even if born here, to which there would definitely be a court case come about.

You're right it was a 6-2 affirming WKA to be a citizen. Your disdain is due to your own bias and has no basis in reality. You fail to understand what would bring a new case and whom would be able to do so. The arguments against illegals children are valid, but can not be argued in court until someone brings it to the attention of the courts who has standing. The rest of your claim is

And yet I'm not, go figure.

 

They are foreign invaders. There is no requirement for hostility nor armaments.