- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The History and SCOTUS rulings on Anchor babies.... Facts matter:
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:34 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:34 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
What? This is exactly how it’s being interpreted right now. It would end the debate, but in reality, it would only reaffirm the current way of doing things.
You are wrong. And there are a lot of lower cases that was used to uphold the ARK ruling.
I'm waiting for your answer.
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:37 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Did it conclude that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child? Yes or no...
No, I don't interpret that from the ruling.
quote:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:45 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
It's a draconian solution
You don't know the meaning of "draconian," then.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:47 pm to Jjdoc
Is it possible this is Trump 4D chess to get the Dems to admit the executive order by Obama on DACA is not valid in as much as the one is says he is about to do?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:48 pm to slackster
quote:
No, I don't interpret that from the ruling.
There is no way around it. The Court held that the U.S.-born child of a legal immigrant from China was a U.S. citizen at birth, and described the English common law that underlies the American rules in this area. It described the general rule and also certain so-called "exceptions"
1- Common now. You know it. You can't say it was about illegal immigrants when they were LEGALLY here.
2- First, the general rule To be born a British subject, a person had to be born "within the allegiance." This meant born on British soil under circumstances in which there was a duty of allegiance, including obedience, on the part of the person born, and a reciprocal duty of the sovereign to provide protection. Each was considered a "compensation for the other." To be born within the allegiance, a person had to be born under the "protection and control" of the Crown.
3- The common law contained at least two "exceptions" (A), a person whose parent was a foreign diplomat or on a foreign public ship, and (B), a person whose parent was a member of a foreign military force occupying the territory where the birth took place. Actually, these "exceptions" were not really exceptions, but rather applications of the general rule to specific factual circumstances, since the requirements of birth "within the allegiance" were not satisfied in either case neither the duty of obedience nor the duty of protection.
AGAIN.... All based around a case of 2 people here LEGALLY and had a baby. Not illegally.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:54 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
AGAIN.... All based around a case of 2 people here LEGALLY and had a baby. Not illegally.
I get that distinction, but that wasn't clarified in the ruling one way or the other. As I mentioned earlier in the day, I welcome a clarification from the SCOTUS.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 1:58 pm to Jjdoc
quote:The exclusion was already explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment, although the scope of that exclusion was ambiguous. This ruling made that exclusion much more specific in its scope.
Did it conclude that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child? Yes or no...
So if anything the answer to your question is NO, although it defines exclusionary parameters. The court concluded that the status of the parents was less crucial than the broader interpretation of the Amendment.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:04 pm to buckeye_vol
If anchor babies were created by the 14th amendment, then the Indian Citizenship Act would not have been necessary.
Indian Citizenship Act
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924.
Indian Citizenship Act
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:05 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
o if anything the answer to your question is NO, although it defines exclusionary parameters. The court concluded that the status of the parents was less crucial than the broader interpretation of the Amendment.
So they just put words in the ruling that were just occupying lines on paper?
Children of illegal aliens are not born "within the allegiance."
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:06 pm to Jjdoc
quote:The legality of his parents wasn’t the issue, and besides, they were barred from immmigrating back to the United States anyways. So they weren’t legally allowed here at the time of the case anyways.
Common now. You know it. You can't say it was about illegal immigrants when they were LEGALLY here.
But here is from the opinion of the court:
quote:Note that it doesn't specify anything about the legality of the parents at birth. So unless the SCOTUS explicitly defines this, then the definition is not limited to the specific facts of the case itself, especially the ones you selectively choose.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "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," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law.
But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:08 pm to Jjdoc
Within the allegiance would seemingly signify the British Empire.
Much like children born, to US citizens, on US Military bases worldwide are US citizens.
Much like children born, to US citizens, on US Military bases worldwide are US citizens.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:12 pm to Jjdoc
quote:No. They put them their because those were the facts of that specific case, but they also included the general ruling in the same opening paragraph abstract:
So they just put words in the ruling that were just occupying lines on paper?
quote:If you want to argue the specificity of its applicability using the "permanent residence" statement then you also have to argue that it's only applicable to Chinese parents who were subjects of the EMPEROR of China, which no longer exists.
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."
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:13 pm to Jjdoc
quote:FWIW, in 1898's US v Ark, SCOTUS basically ignored the author's sentiment.
This WILL NOT... See that?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:44 pm to TBoy
quote:
So, in other words, the law is settled in this area and there isn't any need to change it.
So, you think we ought to go back and uphold the Dred Scott decision?
That was "settled law" for years before the Civil War. That pesky dictator Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation unilaterally circumvented "settled law."
Not every decision the Court makes is the correct one. Sometimes we need a reset. This is one of those times.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 2:46 pm to Jjdoc
facts have never mattered to you JJbot
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:21 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were legally domiciled
Key words by the SCOTUS.
Try again
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:37 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
THE SCOTUS HAS NEVER HAD TO RULE ON THE 1965 ACT THAT GOES AGAINST THE 14th!
Well.....I think we have a good chance SCOTUS would rule against the 1965 ACT considering current events.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:41 pm to Jjdoc
quote:How to Read a U.S.
Key words by the SCOTUS.
Try again
Supreme Court Opinion
Seriously? It's called the SYLLABUS:
quote:It also says this at the beginning of that same opening sentence:
The syllabus appears first, before the main opinion. It is not part of the official opinion, but rather, a summary added by the Court to help the reader better understand the case and the decision. The syllabus outlines the facts of the case and the path that the case has taken to get to the Supreme Court. The last portion of the syllabus sometimes summarizes which justice authored the main opinion, which justices joined in the main opinion, and which justices might have issued concurring or dissenting opinions.
quote:If you're going to argue that the "permanent domicile" keywords were so important, then Subjects of the Emperor of China must be equally important.
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China
And since you can't seem to actually cite anything from the main opinion that supports you assertion that it narrowly applies to the keywords you chose, you must also argue that it narrowly applies to the rest.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:45 pm to buckeye_vol
See.. why are you twisting it.
First you assert the parents situation were not part of the case. They were
You know that was the stance of the federal gov.
They ruled the that the parents were legally domiciled here.
Just he honest. At least Slackster is in this case.
First you assert the parents situation were not part of the case. They were
You know that was the stance of the federal gov.
They ruled the that the parents were legally domiciled here.
Just he honest. At least Slackster is in this case.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:47 pm to tketaco
quote:What specifically would they rule against?
Well.....I think we have a good chance SCOTUS would rule against the 1965 ACT considering current events.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News