You know how everybody always says"what part of illegal don't you get"?
Find answers to your legal question.
You know how everybody always says"what part of illegal don't you get"?
|
Well, I have a question for you guys.What part of when a child is born on U.S. soil, it makes them a U.S. citizen don't you get.People think it's o.k. to change that law, it's not it's the law and the law is the law.It doesn't matter if the parents are legal or illegal, if the child was born in the U.S. then it's a U.S. citizen.That would be wrong to think you can change that now wouldn't it?
|
 
|
M B
 |
Who's obeying laws? You want us to obey laws when our laws are not obeyed by illegal immigrants? Wow what a double standard?
If you want to get technical about it ONLY the baby is legally here, should we deport the parents but leave the baby? They (parents) are breaking the laws that you want us to honor...
Who gets to pick the laws that are obeyed and the laws that we toss aside? |
|
Terry H
 |
The law doesn't need to be changed, just interpreted correctly. The 14th amendements sole purpose was to allow Blacks, who weren't considered citizens, the rights in which they so deserved because they were just as much citizens, having been in the USA for hundreds of years, as Whites or anybody else for that matter. |
|
JessicaRabbit
 |
How about reading the 14th amendment. Where does it mention the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS are to be citizens!? It talks about slaves that were born here! Are the anchor babies slaves or children of slaves? NO WAY! Read your history books!
If we stopped giving citizenship to anchor babies, that's NOT changing the law. It is interpreting the law correctly.
So, I will say it again, WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T YOU GET? ILLEGAL means they are breaking the law. We should never reward people that break the law. That is WRONG! |
|
Bob R
 |
the 14th Amendment was created in 1866
(notice anything about that date, such as right after the civil war?)
it's purpose was to make every BLACK baby born to former slaves irrevokably a citizen of the USA
it was NOT created so foreigners could scoot over the border, drop a kid, then get on the New Dea(FDR)l/Great Society(LBJ) gravy train of the future |
|
Lisa A.
|
What ILLEGALS are doing is claiming a Constitution amendment as their own. The 14th Amendment wasn't for them! It was for BLACK AMERICANS.
That law SHOULD be changed!
Babies born from ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT parents should not be considered Americans, they should be from where ever their parents are from.
** Sal.. you mentioned you were in the May 06 rally.. whoopie.. I was in the ANTI-IMMIGRATION rally of 07, you guys hide that day for sure. I guess you all thought you would be deported if you showed up? This is AMERICA, either you are with us or you are against us! |
|
mark j
|
Fine, then when the parent get deported for being here illegally, then they will have the choice to leave their kids here or take them along. I guess that's a consequence they should be willing to deal with. Sounds fair to me. |
|
jose
|
have no problem with the U S citizen,
however the illegal beaner that brought him here needs to be sent away
no one is talking about changing anything except the illegals that want to change the immigration law to suit their desires
this country is full of people that want to pick and choose the laws that they obey,, this needs to stop and no time is better than the present to start correcting the problem |
|
Serpico7
|
Well we wouldn't have to change that law if the border was defended. The oligarchs in D.C. always promise to defend the border, but it never happens. So therefore, thousands of anchor babies can happen. However, changing this particular law would be a possibility. The border they can't defend, but this law we the people can change. |
|
chuck_junior
|
No sale. The parents are illegal, so if caught the kids go back with the parents until they are old enough to come back legally as citizens. I have no problem granting citizenship to kids born here to illegals...once they are 18 and their home country has supported and raised them on their dime. I'm sick of my taxes going to support illegals in any way. |
|
John S
 |
This is going to be an awesome event.
The White House will not be able to ignore the citizens any longer!
MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS PROUDLY ANNOUNCES OUR FULL SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
MARCH FOR AMERICA
WASHINGTON D.C. JUNE 14 - 16, 2007
PLEASE JOIN CHRIS SIMCOX AND DOZENS OF OTHER BORDER SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS AS WE SEND CONGRESS A STRONG MESSAGE -NO AMNESTY-ENFORCE THE LAWS- AND SECURE OUR BORDERS!
The Citizens of the United States of America know and accept that
securing and protecting of our Nations borders is the first and most
necessary step needed to be taken before true healing of our Nation
can begin. The Citizens of the United States of America will no longer
be silenced nor tolerate being ignored in our urgent requests to secure
and protect our Nations borders now!
Official Dates and Times:
Nation Capital (D.C.) June 14,15, 16th, 2007
State Capitals: June 16th, 2007
(See "State Coverage" for contact information and details about official State
Organizers as well as events planned for the June 16th, 2007 in those
participating States)
D.C. and U.S.A. Events Calendar
June 14th (D.C)- "Flag Day" A day of honoring American citizens who have died
due to illegal aliens on American soil. In their honor, F.I.R.E. Coalition will be
hosting "Operation Body Count". In addition will be a remembrance and a
moment of silence to honor the fallen patriots who have died defending our
country, its flag and Constitution.
June 15th (D.C.)- "All American Day" Presentations and protest on topics which
affect our Nation. Such topics planned are in regards to: The NAU/SPP/TTC,
Drug Cartels & other "Open Border" threats, and their effect and danger in our
cities and to our youth.
June 16th (U.S.A)- "Secure Borders March for America National Rally". Key
speakers will lend their voices across our Nation to speak for the citizens of the
United States of America. Americans in D.C. and in participating states will march
in unison to their Capitals throughout our nation to present to our Government
the foundation upon which this country was founded, "The U.S. Constitution", to
remind our Government of where their loyalties should lie.
East Coast 1pm - 6pm EST
Central 12pm - 5pm CST
Mountain 11am - 4pm MST
West Coast 10am - 3pm PST
We need all patriots to stand in unison for one day and to stand up for their
country. Please consider getting involved as:
An individual participant
A pro bono speaker, and/or
One of our project advocates
One of our donation sponsors
If your schedule does not allow you to participate, please circulate this
information to others who might be interested in this event.
Contact and Media Relations Director
Melissa Gardner
Let Freedom Ring America (Non-Profit Org.)
www.lframerica.com
Business email: admin@lframerica.com
Director email: mgardner@lframerica.com
Business Phone: 281-354-4346 (CST)
Director Phone: 916-339-3167 (PST)
Take America Back Rally
June 14, 15, 16
http://www.lframerica.com/ |
|
tylergrl
|
Unfortunately, that law is being taken advantage of... We American citizens want "that" law changed. Mexican women get pregnant... wait until the baby is due... then cross our borders illegally to have their baby on U.S. soil, so that it can be an American citizen. Then once they have their baby (for "free" mind you), they run straight to the Social Services department to get welfare benefits for that baby & the eight they had before it. We know the game so... What part of "We are sick & tired of it" don't you get????? |
|
skip
 |
The whole point is that the Constitution can be altered. That would not affect those born before ratification (or any such date after that as may be stated in the enabling act) but it would certainly affect those born after the effective date.
So really, those of us who believe that the Constitution should be amended (including several who have answered here, I suspect) do "get" that children born in the USA of illegal alien parents are US citizens. That is why we desire to change the Constitution - legally and after due process. |
|
Another Perspective
|
But what about the parents of that child? Does that make them legal citizens too? |
|
culture_warrior13
|
the child is legal but not the parents, sorry. |
|
intelligentdesign
|
no, they are here because they broke the law period! we dont want the USA turning into a lawless third world banana republic so throw them the hell out! |
|
SoftTSoul
|
Legal and naturalized citizens children are U.S. citizens. However illegal and non-citizens children are not. What makes you think it was ever a law? Just because it has always been a fable... fairy tale... wishful thinking... rumors spread never made it a law or the law of the U.S..
You're thinking of English Common Law - which was thrown out when Americans won the battle of the Revolutionary War. The forefathers put together a Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights declarations of their own referring to Natural Law, and National Law for U.S. citizens or those Naturalized as citizens. The 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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, or 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Howard did not say virtue of "common law," but virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father. And that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation in owing the country any allegiance.
The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which among other things requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. Sen. Reverdy Johnson said as much when debating the citizenship clause in the Senate: "And I know no mode by which an alien can become a citizen of the United States except under the naturalization laws of the United States."
Sen. Howard left no doubt what the clause meant in 1868: "The Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."
America's common law rule as found highlighted in George Paschal's highly influential Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together."
Paschal further adds: "To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power." In other words, Congress cannot use the power of establishing rules of naturalization to grant citizenship to domestic children born to aliens.
By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.
Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US that would in return instantly nullify their recent enacted civil rights law? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean...and for which national law was based upon.
Q: When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it as it was practiced under common law, and instead, abandoned common law practice of jus solis.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could renounce their allegiance, i.e., expatriate), and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself, no matter to who. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” There was to be no dual allegiance in the United States, and the framers went to pains to make sure such absurdity could never exist under American law.
After the current Constitution was adopted, America devised its own rules governing citizenship that resembled nothing like jus soli under common law. Instead of forcing allegiance upon a person by virtue of birth, it was required that the father consent in advance and renounce all allegiance he owed to his country of birth.
Under American law it was required for foreigners three years before admission to first record their intent to become citizens with a local court. Furthermore, foreigners were required to take a oath that it is their intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that they renounce forever any allegiance and fidelity to another country. Upon this, children born to him/her would be considered born within the allegiance of the United States, and thus, a citizen of the United States even though the father had not yet been awarded citizenship.
Please note: There were two oaths required of a foreigner, one at the time of their declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, and an oath at the time citizenship was awarded.
States before and after the the federal Constitution was adopted determined who shall be born citizens within their respective limits, while Congress was responsible for defining rights of alien citizenship. All State laws which records survived required an oath of allegiance along with a record of intent to reside within the State. Without this, most statutes deemed infants born to aliens to be aliens and not citizens of the State.
Under common law, none of the above was required, and so, proves without a doubt the United States never adopted common law jus soli. This of course, did not prevent the courts from rendering confusing court decisions on the subject.
The 39th Congress adopted the same allegiance in advance requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
What did “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? It was defined by Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
The primary author of the Fourteenths citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, said “subject to the jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
It is very interesting to note that Howard proclaimed the citizenship clause as a virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, to had inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.
Because a foreigner was required to renounce all allegiance to another country in advance of becoming a citizen, and declare their allegiance to the United States instead, a child would inherit his/her fathers allegiance to the United States, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, an American citizen.
The construction applied to the citizenship clause by its framers dramatically departs from the rule of jus soli, and thus, differs in operation. Under Howard’s construction the clause could had well read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Next time someone says America adopted the unconditional rule of jus soli, or adopted England’s common law of birthright, laugh at ‘em. Finally, I will finish with some words of wisdom from TR.
From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it. (Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible" New York, Sept. 9, 1917)
So it is not the U.S. who changed the laws at all. But people such as you who have been listening to fables of misinformation based on others trying to spread untruths of the laws having been changed to Americanize illegals babies with automatic citizenship for being born on U.S. soil. |
|
mikea_va
|
We know that the child born in the US is automatically a citizen. It is the child's parents that we have issues with!! Of course it matters if the parents are legal or illegal!!! What part of that don't you get????????????? |
|
MeXbAbY
|
WOW FINALLY A SMART ONE |
|
NONAME
|
The State of California did do that with proposition 187. What was the consequence of that was that the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional. If there is ever a law passed like that, trust me there will war. In Los Angeles, Texas, New York, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and definetly Illinois. I was born in the United States but my parents were illegal up until 2 years ago. I would not want my rights as an American citizen taken away and will fight fiercely on the streets and court to prevent that. If you saw the March 25th, 2006 marches you can see that we immigrants are a strong and unified people. We got over a million people in downtown Los Angeles and in other US cities as well. So the United States in the end will not be able to pull this off not even if it passed in Congress and the Supreme Court allowed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
 Is England racist ? |
England want's to stay apart from other European countries.
England say that EU is no good but they had a economical bost since join them.
England always point the bad things by I... |
|
 Can you become a good American citizen if you do not learn English? |
This is a serious question, asked as neutrally as possible.
I'd appreciate intelligent answers. Please don't try to guess my views.
Thanks!... |
|
 Are all ANTI - ILLEGAL supporters ATHIEST? |
or are they just racist or both? What do you think about this......
ISAIAH 61:5 Aliens will shepherd your flocks, forigners will work your fields and vineyards
DUETERONOMY 24:... |
|
 This boy told me he was an illigal immigrant? |
i mean, i dont want to tell on him, but thats wrong. Or is it? idk.
Additional Details
um margarete excuse me?
i never trolled. you can look at my past questions.... |
|
 Why can't bigots in the US accept the fact that Mexicans arent the main immigrants to the U.S.? |
| 50 percent of immigrants emigrated from the Americas (North, Central and South America and the Caribbean), according the Population Resource Center. Just half of these migrated from Mexico, less ... |
|
 Who really are the racists when it comes to immigration? |
| While millions of individuals are waiting in line for years to come to america,mexicans wants this country to bend the laws for them only so they can get in front of the line,while many in other ... |
|
 Is all the hate towards Mexican immigrants justified? |
I mean seriously what would we do without them?
Additional Details
So if they're illegal then you can justify hate?
Did you agree with slavery as well?... |
|
 What do you think of expired green card muslims demanding the ten comandments? |
be taking down around our court houses?
Additional Details
try going to sadia arabia and saying the karan affends me,they would cut your head off in 2 ... |
|
 Why did Democrats just introduce legislation that will grant AMNESTY to 3 Million Illegal immigrants? |
| "AgJOBS" amnesty legislation that would provide amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens was re-introduced in the Senate and House by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (Bill # S. 237) and Rep. Howard ... |
|
 Do proponents of mass immigration genuinely not understand? |
| that allowing large numbers of economic migrants into the country effectively helps keep a climate of competition, unemployment and low wages, with which businesses can proft at the expense of the ... |
|
 Is it fair to say that people who want ALL illegals deported immediately....? |
and ignore the fact that the country would go in a downward spiral if that were to happen, don't really care about the rest of us Americans?
Are their emotions towards immigrants ... |
|
 Pro illegals answer this? |
| Do you believe we should we start flying or shipping in people from around the globe who live in poor conditions and are looking for a better life? There are plenty of people around the world who ... |
|
 Illegal immigration? |
This is about paying tax:
"For our country to prosper, we are unable to have people living here that are not willing to present a small portion of the money they earn to the country ... |
|
 Are we at War now, with the invasion of an illegal immigrant force that will ruin our nation? |
| Do any of you see this illegal immigrant invasion issue as nothing simpler than a takover bid by Mexico. Forget the reasons why outside of the fact that we have allowed to get to this terrible point. ... |
|
 How do report a illegal family in the USA? |
| Is there any website or phone number where one can report illegal immigrants and those who overstayed thier non-immigrant visa, so that the action could be taken against them and they will be ... |
|
 Should we legalize all Mexicans, so they won't have to sneak across the border illegally? |
What would be some of the benefits to granting US citizenship to ALL of the Mexicans both in the US and over in Mexico?
Additional Details
wild4gyp... , no need to be rude and call me ... |
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
