Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

correct. That is his point.

 

Yep. Trump and his folks are the ones who want to insert the immigration status of the parents. Not "LWNJs." "LWNJs" are going along with what the 14th Amendment actually says and how it has been used. The fringe xenophobic right is the one wanting to change how it works by inserting the immigration status of the parents.

 

that mother would bepend on which country she was from. We had laws that prevented ANY Chinese National who was here in becoming a US citizen no matter how well they spoke English. We did the same with the French for a while after we purchased the Louisiana Territory where "English First" become a political movement in the early 19th century, but a mother from England who came here by boat, stays here, has a child, and then leaves, can pretty much claim that either their son or themselves or both could be US citizens by filling out the proper paperwork once she did return in those days. In essence, before the 14th amendment was ratified after the Civil War, it was pretty much all based on national origin on who got citizenship and who didn't. Now, fast forward to 1965 and the Immigration Act which pretty much nullified that aspect and dark history wihtin our immigration law.

We also created laws in which children born to US citizens can become USC through the jus sanguinis doctrine. Ted Cruz is a product of that concept. So is many children who were born in Germany, France, Korea, and Japan when we had US soldiers stationed there. And up to 1965, it was very difficult for a US soldier to bring that spouse from Japan or Korea because of the huge amount of discrimination towards Asian people in general that went back 100 plus years despite all the law changes that happened. And it is still the basis with this "birthright citizenship" argument the far right is making, unfortunately.

 

Yes and no. It was questioned the second time, and the whole argument is that he would have to accept he was NOT a US Citizen but will be allowed to stay because of who and what he did for a living. He said no and why we had the infamous case to begin with. And if Immigration had their way, he would have been denied US Citizenship because of his Chinese national origin. That is why the jus soli doctrine was affirmed in that decision and why he is a US citizen despite the current law stating that no Chinese national in the country, no matter whether they were born here or not, would and cannot be a US citizen.

 

I'm curious: Do you think 14-1-1 was intended for those cases where parents subvert the immigration process and enter the country illegally, with the intention of benefiting themselves from birthright citizenship? (Note: I'm not asking if you think it applies to them, I'm asking if you think it was intended for them.)

 

You can repeat the whole Chinese Exclusion Act angle all you want but his parents were here, legally, before the Chinese Exclusion Act and Ark was also born before the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese Exclusion Act is of no consequence to the Ark case.

 

The 14th amendment was passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868. What immigration was illegal in 1866 or 1868? Also, reading the debates between lawmakers at the time, they all acknowledged that the 14th Amendment would mean that the children of immigrants would be included. There can be no intent to exclude the children of illegal immigrants when the concept of illegal immigration didn't even exist in the country yet. Visas and green cards didn't exist yet. "Coming here legally" consisted of . . . coming here. That was ****ing it.

 

I'll have to review the case again, but this is the first time I've heard the claim that his parents were in the country illegally at the time of his birth.

 

I've said the cases don't support the view that illegal babies are citizens, not that they support...whatever you claim I'm supporting.

 

What benefit do you think someone here illegally gets for giving birth to a child here?

They can't get any legal status through that child until the child is 21 years old.

 

An alien who is illegal can reside here, even if they are doing it illegally, but they are not a "resident alien."



And yes it matters because that is the case being judged.

 

The law and the historical cases do not support the idea that citizenship status should be refused to children born here whose parents are illegal immigrants. The concept of illegal immigration didn't even exist when the amendment was ratified.

 

Yes I've noticed we rehash the same issues with the same arguments over and over again.

 

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/substantial-presence-test

Someone here illegally who meets the substantial presence test is also considered to be a resident alien.

 

Tends to happen when you keep repeating debunked nonsense.

 

Just going to try to liven the mood here by saying that Resident Alien is a really great show.

 

A resident alien must either have a green card or pass the substantial presence test. Don’t you think that an illegal alien could pass the substantial presence test?

 

I think the US inherited English common law, which has nothing to do with the crown. Many cases to this day are decided based on principles inherited from English common law. If you had any legal training you would know this but instead you insist you are an expert because you have read 1-2 cases.

 

I notice that is a point that you keep making over and over in this thread, and it's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you can tie it in to the current topic, which you have not yet done.

Good luck in your future ramblings.

 

Except for Louisiana.

 

Heh, loving the irony! You've been making the same nonsensical point this entire thread!

 

You guys keep talking about the intent of the 14th Amendment . . . but refuse to talk about the intent. Make up your minds. Or keep arguing that the law doesn't matter . . . which seems to be the tactic on your side so far.

 

You are confusing 'immigrants' with 'aliens'. The former, clearly entitled to birthright citizenship, no argument. The latter, perhaps not.

The Immigration Act of 1864, passed to encourage immigration, set forth rules and regulations regarding the legal immigration process. Do you think that those aliens who did not conform to those rules and regulations were considered to be 'illegal aliens'? What do you suppose were done with those 'aliens' who failed to comply? Your characterization that there was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time the 14th was ratified is just plain wrong.

The birthright part of the 14th was ratified to prevent the children of the newly freed slaves from being disenfranchised. It is likely that in 1868, a person who subverted laws and regulations would become an 'ineligible alien', present in the country outside the law, would be regarded and treated the same as a stowaway on a ship who did not pay for passage. I doubt the founders who wrote the 14th would have intended its protections be extended to such a person, and I doubt they would have been treated the same as those immigrants who complied with the law.

Extending birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is not in the overall best interest of anyone; neither the citizenry of the US, nor the throngs of aliens who are attracted by the policy to try to come here, through horrible conditions, illegally. By doing so, we are encouraging and supporting the horrible carnage we see occurring at the border.

I don't think it unreasonable to require at least one biological parent of a person born on US soil to have come here and reside here lawfully before birthright citizenship should be conveyed to their child.

 

Nor can they be deported.

 

The distinctions you are talking about did not exist when the amendment was passed and can't be part of the intent.

Quote where said Act mentions anything about any alien being "illegal." I'll remind you that green cards and visas did not yet exist.

Again, there was no such thing as illegal aliens at the time.