Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Arizona's anti-imigration law...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Babagounj" data-source="post: 778530" data-attributes="member: 12952"><p>"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. " 1866, Senator Jacob Howard</p><p></p><p>"Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]</p><p>The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens. </p><p>In 1889, the <em>Wong Kim Ark</em> Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the <em>Wong Kim Ark</em> ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did <em>not</em> address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for <em>legal immigrant</em> parents based on the meaning of the word <em>domicil(e)</em>. Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a <em>legal</em> domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. </p><p><a href="http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html" target="_blank">http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Babagounj, post: 778530, member: 12952"] "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. " 1866, Senator Jacob Howard "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)] The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens. In 1889, the [I]Wong Kim Ark[/I] Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the [I]Wong Kim Ark[/I] ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did [I]not[/I] address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for [I]legal immigrant[/I] parents based on the meaning of the word [I]domicil(e)[/I]. Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a [I]legal[/I] domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. [url]http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Arizona's anti-imigration law...
Top