In Plain Text: Anchor Baby Policy Is Unconstitutional

a reply to: lakesidepark

That is just your opinion. I see the text open to interpretation.


ETA: some peoples interpretation actually means something. Others, not so much.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: lakesidepark

What does the word "illegal" mean?

What does the word "jurisdiction" mean?

What do they have in common?

These are not difficult questions for learned members.

To be clear, all foreigners that have not pledged allegiance to the U.S. fall outside the political jurisdiction of the U.S.

However the term 'illegal' as used in the context of 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal baby of illegal immigrants' (i.e. anchor baby) does not refer to their political jurisdiction, it refers to the fact that that particular foreigner entered the country without the proper visa and work permits to cross the border, and the act of crossing the border without the proper clearances violates the LEGAL jurisdiction of the U.S. making them subject to criminal prosecution and deportation.

Hope that clears that up for ya, fellow.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: lakesidepark

That is just your opinion. I see the text open to interpretation.


ETA: some peoples interpretation actually means something. Others, not so much.

I figured that much.

I won't bother.....

IN terms of dictionaries, I tend to prefer Black's in such matters:

Jurisdiction: The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.

Illegal: Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law.Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law;but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymo- logicaily, the word seems to conveythe negative meaning only. But in ordinary use it has a severer, stronger signification;the idea of censure or condemnation for breaking law is usually presented. But the lawimplied in illegal is not necessarily an express statute. Tilings are called "illegal" for aviolation of common-law principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken ofis immoral or wicked; it implies only a breach of the law. See State v. Ilaynorth, 3Sneed (Tenn.) 65; Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa, 334, 10 N. W. 214; Chadhourne v.Newcastle, 48 N. II. 199; People v. Kelly, 1 Abb. Prac. N. S., (N. Y.) 437; Ex parteScwartz, 2 Tex. App. 80.

In general, it is fascinating here that we have such learned folks making such extravagant examples of themselves.

Despite all the posturing, the same fact is true now as on page one: the law of the United States is clear, if you're born here, and you're not the child of a foreign national in diplomatic service, you are subject to the laws of the United States and under the Constitution and about three different locations of law, you're a US Citizen.

We've seen the expressed desire on the part of some to have the US Congress bring the power of the legislative branch to bear on American Citizens who are and have been American Citizens from birth in order to fulfill their own political agendas.

An illegal alien is in this country contrary to law, their presence is not authorized by law. We know this because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. They can be deported because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born on our soil (jus solis) are citizens for the same reason.

originally posted by: lakesidepark
Gives them a false illusion of citizenship.

I would argue that the term invites US residents to see a false presumption of 'US Citizenship'. Even though no such status is granted (in my opinion and evidence provided in-thread) simply by being born on American Soil.

As I previously alluded to, 'US Citizenship' is the product of two distinct aspects... 'Nationality' and 'Domicile'. Likewise, As I have shown and you have affirmed, political jurisdiction is seperate from legislative (legal) jurisdiction.

In that regard, Domicile is voluntary, and is based healiy on 'intent'. A baby cannot have nor do they understand legal 'intent', 'intent' to reside, 'intent' to participate directly or indirectly with government - please recall 'political rights'. Since a voluntary choice in 'citizenship' (a political right) cannot be made, as 'domicile' cannot be declared, the only thing the child is left with is 'nationality'.

I still hold that 'anchor babies' [nor anyone else for that matter unless born on federal territory] are not "given" 'US citizenship' at birth, only nationality...

Enjoying the thread.

originally posted by: lakesidepark
To be clear, all foreigners that have not pledged allegiance to the U.S. fall outside the political jurisdiction of the U.S.

This is incorrect.

That speech linked in the previous page also stated:

The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

Doesn't surprise me that one side omits this but harps on about the exclusion clause extended to foreign officials.

The SCOTUS would take all this into account and it is the reason you are still waiting for something to change.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Prefacing your interpretation with "to be clear" doesn't make what follows, factual ... "fellow."

American law is the same in this regard that it has been for over a century. At the beginning of your post, and at the end.

This is great comedy though; please don't let the facts sway you.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

As you know from our previous discussions, I appreciate your legal knowledge and reasoning.

However, what does your opinion (and the opinions of others here) enact in terms of United States law?

The laws and practices being decried here are still in place, and will likely be in place.

Is this just ... an action in protest? As you see it of course.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: lakesidepark

This is great comedy though; please don't let the facts sway you.

Likewise.
Second Line.

originally posted by: lakesidepark
[
However the term 'illegal' as used in the context of 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal baby of illegal immigrants' (i.e. anchor baby) does not refer to their political jurisdiction, it refers to the fact that that particular foreigner entered the country without the proper visa and work permits to cross the border, and the act of crossing the border without the proper clearances violates the LEGAL jurisdiction of the U.S. making them subject to criminal prosecution and deportation.

Notice your own explanation. Illegals are "subject" to the law because they are "subject" to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not afforded the same "diplomatic immunity" that foreign nationals in service to their home countries enjoy.

You are disproving your own contention with your own statements.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Not so fast...

a reply to: Gryphon66

This whole "Political Jurisdiction" angle seems a bit freeman on the land.

The only other thing that seems to come up is something from Tocqueville on sentencing of public officers.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was actually hoping you would join the thread.

In terms of enactment, ultimately nothing... Most of title 8 USC is in reference only to 'US Citizens' and 'nationals of the United States' and is solid in that regard. As this thread has hinted on the importance of 'terminoligy' I was hoping by compartmentalizing Stautory v. Constitutional there would be a look see into Title 8...

I agree, the law is solid for who it applies to; 'US Citizens' and 'nationals of the United States'.... But, What (and who) are those statuses exactly? (Semi-rhetorical)

An Action in Protest? For some Perhaps. Personally, I will stick with perpetuation of a false presumption, as just mentioned. And since 'presumption' is one of the most dangerous snares in the legal world, dispelling a false presumption is paramount [in my opinion of course].

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Gryphon66

This whole "Political Jurisdiction" angle seems a bit freeman on the land.

The only other thing that seems to come up is something from Tocqueville on sentencing of public officers.

Are you surprised?

Just for fun, trace the sources that the "material" in the OP gets quoted and re-quoted again and again in the proliferation of right-wing websites, blogs, etc. The same argument, the same text, the same misapprehensions.

For example, here at the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

5,660 Similar Results

Same argument, made the same way, almost "verbatim."

Birds of a feather?

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Agreed, in general.

You have a very eloquent way of saying "it's fun to think about but nothing is going to change."

You might also make the argument (if I missed it) that all these "citizens" under the Fourteenth are merely corporate fictions as well, right?

Texas denies birthright citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants. looks like there's a show down in Texas.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Not so fast...

Too much wordsmithing. It's really easy:

"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."

Can be broken down as follows:

1) This [amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.

2) This [amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens.

3) This [amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.

4) This [amendment] will include every other class of persons.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

Sounds more like "You may have been in America your whole lives, but you are not legal citizens."

You can't strip away what never existed in the first place.

So you are in favor of government overreach ... When it favors your agenda.

It's overeach to interpet the law correctly... right. And you accuse me of redefining...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No, in fact it doesn't. I know your penchant for redefining words to suit your argument.

Stop looking in the mirror when you type. It muddles your argument.

But really consider the word "illegal" that you just used. Does that mean "against or contrary to the laws"? What laws, one wonders?

The laws of the United States. If they weren't "subject" to the laws there would be no recourse against them.

So your premise is that breaking the law means following the law?

If so, wow. I am impressed.

Did they swear allegiance to USA?
Did they willingly document themselves?
Did they concede to the authority of the USA?
Did they legally migrate?

No, they are illegal aliens. The only laws that apply are the immigration enforcement of those who trespass into the jurisdiction they are not subject to.

When a criminal breaks into a house, is she automatically a resident?
When a man rapes a woman, is he automatically her husband?
If a woman kidnaps a child, has she adopted him?