Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By Tennyson

Thread: Including Uncertain 14th Amendment Terms to US Immigration Legislation

  1. #1
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,537
    Thanks
    357

    From
    Yesod

    Including Uncertain 14th Amendment Terms to US Immigration Legislation

    " Including Uncertain 14th Amendment Terms to US Immigration Legislation "

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Birth by circumstance of location is part of a traditional concept known as manifest destiny ; clearly , individuals without a nation of origin could quickly become a humanitarian issue .

    Now , a discrete meaning for the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " may not be ascertainable , however its ambiguity may be applied to children of illegal aliens by asserting that , since their parents are not subject to jurisdiction thereof , by not having been registered , then their children of birth are also not subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

    The reason for the premise is that the notion is relevant to setting aside a defacto grant of citizenship to children of illegals in lieu of securing agreements with other nations to grant citizenship to the children of illegal residents rather than citizenship being granted by the united states .

    Such a circumstance would dispatch a family separation plea and prevent social security claims on citizens based upon parental income .

    Given a libertarian principle that sequestering an individuals ability to roam freely outside of private property is contrary to self ownership , what is the feasibility for expecting that illegal resident parents be registered , be provided a tax id for reporting income ; and be given some period of time ( perhaps anywhere from 2 to 5 years ) to exit the country and , if discovered after the agreed civil timeline , be subject to immediate deportation ?

    An authoritarian principle directs that a state is private property for a collective of individuals ; thus , a premise to expel an interloper from ones private property is in parallel with expelling an illegal resident from a state ; and , depending upon circumstances , a property owner may allow sojourners temporary transit , with an assumption that full use of property by an owner remains .
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 13th May 2014 at 06:48 PM.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    27,181
    Thanks
    23522

    From
    SWUSA
    What are you taking about...do you know what "under the jurisdiction there of" refers to?

  3. #3
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,537
    Thanks
    357

    From
    Yesod

    Articles Tickle Hue Ewe At

    " Articles Tickle Hue Ewe At "

    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    What are you taking about...do you know what "under the jurisdiction there of" refers to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    " Exception Two Through Rule "

    Amending the US Fourteenth Amendment to exclude children of unregistered immigrants may not be necessary , according to the following evaluation - Including Uncertain 14th Amendment Terms to US Immigration Legislation .
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    " Persuasion Who Cares Absent Else "

    * Legal Cream Reference Peaches *

    Did the opinion in the decision digress or otherwise address " subject to the jurisdiction " as an issue of contention for children of non visa parents ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...._Wong_Kim_Ark
    In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[2] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[3] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[4][5] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,691
    Thanks
    874

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    " Including Uncertain 14th Amendment Terms to US Immigration Legislation "

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Birth by circumstance of location is part of a traditional concept known as manifest destiny ; clearly , individuals without a nation of origin could quickly become a humanitarian issue .

    Now , a discrete meaning for the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " may not be ascertainable , however its ambiguity may be applied to children of illegal aliens by asserting that , since their parents are not subject to jurisdiction thereof , by not having been registered , then their children of birth are also not subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

    The reason for the premise is that the notion is relevant to setting aside a defacto grant of citizenship to children of illegals in lieu of securing agreements with other nations to grant citizenship to the children of illegal residents rather than citizenship being granted by the united states .

    Such a circumstance would dispatch a family separation plea and prevent social security claims on citizens based upon parental income .

    Given a libertarian principle that sequestering an individuals ability to roam freely outside of private property is contrary to self ownership , what is the feasibility for expecting that illegal resident parents be registered , be provided a tax id for reporting income ; and be given some period of time ( perhaps anywhere from 2 to 5 years ) to exit the country and , if discovered after the agreed civil timeline , be subject to immediate deportation ?

    An authoritarian principle directs that a state is private property for a collective of individuals ; thus , a premise to expel an interloper from ones private property is in parallel with expelling an illegal resident from a state ; and , depending upon circumstances , a property owner may allow sojourners temporary transit , with an assumption that full use of property by an owner remains .
    There's no "ambiguity" about the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

    It means that trash can not crawl across the border, spawn like dying salmon, and give birth to US citizens.

    It ain't complicated, not at all.
    Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 7th December 2014 at 10:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,537
    Thanks
    357

    From
    Yesod

    Submitting Simplified Briefings

    " Submitting Simplified Briefings "

    * Valid Dated Euphemism *

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    There's no "ambiguity" about the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
    The esoteric exception appears to be an intentional inclusion that citizenship in a state requires diplomatic extension .

    An individual would require a legal migration status for us jurisdiction to apply , and it is the laws of a foreign state from where an illegal immigrant originates which maintain jurisdiction over offenses committed against that illegal immigrant ; and , diplomacy establishes ancillary prosecution .


    * Hue Mammon Animal Cruelty Rude Crude *


    The term trash is a coarse absurd generalized reference to diaspora migrants , although actual criminals are being located and deported along with civil offenders .

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    It means that trash can not crawl across the border, spawn like dying salmon, and give birth to US citizens.

    * Compiling Dockets *

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    It ain't complicated, not at all.
    Puzzling Evidence to 'The Donald' -- "Tear down that STOOPID wall!!!"
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 11th March 2017 at 02:12 PM.

  6. #6
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    222

    From
    U.S.
    The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof " is not very ambiguous, but one would need to delve deeper into history than manifest destiny.

    To trace the origins of jus sanguinis vis-a-vis jus soli, the starting point is King Edward's de Natis Ultra Mare of 1351, and then work through the evolvements and iterations of subject to the jurisdiction up to Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations in 1758 and its impact on American citizenship doctrine in the founding era and the Constitution. An example is Jefferson's Virginia's Citizenship Statute of 1779:

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    Another example is John Jay's letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787, which was the foundation for the two citizenship clauses in the Constitution.

    This culminated in the debates of the 39th Congress regarding "subject to the jurisdiction," which aligned with the doctrine of jus sanguinis.
    Thanks from Monk-Eye

  7. #7
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    27,181
    Thanks
    23522

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof " is not very ambiguous, but one would need to delve deeper into history than manifest destiny.

    To trace the origins of jus sanguinis vis-a-vis jus soli, the starting point is King Edward's de Natis Ultra Mare of 1351, and then work through the evolvements and iterations of subject to the jurisdiction up to Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations in 1758 and its impact on American citizenship doctrine in the founding era and the Constitution. An example is Jefferson's Virginia's Citizenship Statute of 1779:

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    Another example is John Jay's letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787, which was the foundation for the two citizenship clauses in the Constitution.

    This culminated in the debates of the 39th Congress regarding "subject to the jurisdiction," which aligned with the doctrine of jus sanguinis.
    State citizenship and State jurisdiction was not in conflict in the union or with federal citizenship or federal jurisdiction.

    When the two did conflict, The Supreme Court has ruled as early 1818 that State jurisdiction was inferior to the federal jurisdiction.

    U. S. v. BEVANS

  8. #8
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    222

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    State citizenship and State jurisdiction was not in conflict in the union or with federal citizenship or federal jurisdiction.

    When the two did conflict, The Supreme Court has ruled as early 1818 that State jurisdiction was inferior to the federal jurisdiction.

    U. S. v. BEVANS
    The Bevans' case did not regard citizenship. It was a matter of jurisdiction between a Massachusetts' court and a federal court regarding the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction clause of Article III. The "murder committed on board a ship of war, lying within the harbour of Boston, is not cognizable in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts; which opinion is to be certified to the court."

Similar Threads

  1. the 14th Amendment was never properly ratififed
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11th April 2013, 12:46 PM
  2. Replies: 76
    Last Post: 18th January 2011, 01:50 PM
  3. GOP splitting over 14th Amendment proposal
    By Archangel in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11th August 2010, 04:49 AM
  4. 14th Amendment causes GOP split
    By Politico in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th August 2010, 05:11 AM
  5. The 14th Amendment
    By kmiller1610 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 18th December 2007, 03:53 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed