The Tea Party is not socially conservative my ass

[Morella]

@Bricker

That said, I feel you have made no case at all above. You analysis fails to address the original birth certificate

What original birth certificate? Have you seen it?

Now turning to the meat of the matter for my arrival in this thread, the discussion of jus soli citizenship under US law.

Um… you’re wrong.

No, Sir. You are wrong.

What precisely are you relying upon for the opposite view?

We can start with this:

The 14th Amendment
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005
We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone–and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term “limits” rather than “jurisdiction” since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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, 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.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

[Morella]

@emacknight

But now it’s all serious. Can’t they at least swear and insult each other? At this rate the mods will move it to GD.

Why should we swear at each other when we can say nice things in French? Va te faire enculer, petit con!

[Morella]

@emacknight

Bricker then gave **Morella **the smack down she so richly deserved. Proving both that he is a man of his word, and that logic/integrity trumps partisan bullshit.

Morella ain’t quite down for the count yet.

[emacknight]

Out of curiosity, when the 14th was written (1868) what immigration laws would have been on the books? Would the concept of illegal alien have even existed as we know it?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I’ve seen the original.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

I’m the best scout team moron you’ll find, but there’s no beating the real thing, is there? At least now I get to play for my team.

@"P.A. Madison

This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone–and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term “limits” rather than “jurisdiction” since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means

This is where you go off the rails, for the record - that “highest possible authority” bit. Turns out there is a highest possible authority, and it’s not your boy. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.” That’s Marbury v. Madison, and that’s constitutional law. What Mr. Jacob Howard (MI) had to say about the subject is emphatically not the law.

The judiciary has of course been heard repeatedly on the question about jurisdiction, and we know what they had to say about it. No getting around it, really, and you can hardly claim fealty to the Constitution or to the United States if you’re going to abandon the entire scope of what’s actually happened. Maybe you’d prefer a different jurisdiction.

[Bricker]

@Morella

What original birth certificate? Have you seen it?

No. But neither have I seen China. Yet I accept the existence of China, because Occam’s Razor demands it. To assume China doesn’t exist assumes a conspiracy among many unrelated people. So, too, with Obama’s birth certificate.

I notice you don’t address the newspaper announcement I mentioned.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Whew.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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, 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.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Our law absolutely respects that distinction. Children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers do not gain citizenship. This is because ambassadors and foreign ministers are not subject to the jurisdiction of our lives. They have diplomatic immunity, and cannot be arrested for violations of our law. At most, we may expel them from the country.

But ordinary aliens are subject to our laws. Sven Jorgenson, a Swedish citizen, will go to prison here if he robs a convenience store here. And as aliens subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, their children born here are citizens, by the plain meaning of the text.

You would like us to construe the phrase “…foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States…” as a list of three our four things; that foreigners, aliens, and ministers are all different classes. It seems obvious that he meant that the foreigners and aliens ARE the ministers and ambassadors.

But in the end, it’s only of academic interest. Because “P.A. Madison” has no particular authority to interpret the Supreme Court. As persuasive as you may find his insight, it’s of no relevance to the authoritive construction of the Constitution.

The stubborn insistance otherwise reminds me of the tax protestors: they insist that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore the entire IRS is unconstitutional… and that all that’s necessary to avoid income tax is to point out this flaw, at which point the courts will be reduced to embarrased throat clearing as they hastily dismiss your case.

That simply doesn’t happen. Let’s say you’re right: let’s say that the entire set of caselaw, Wong Kim Ark and all its progeny, was decided on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let’s say the entire citizenship body of law is based on an esential wrongness.

So?

Now what?

Do you believe that merely announcing that will result in the country shredding reams of US Reporter decisions?

It’s clear to me that you’re wrong. But even if you’re right about the error, from a practical standpoint there’s nothing to be done. Right or wrong in the past, it has BECOME right by dint of established practice, and no force now except a constitutional amendment can possibly change it.

So (a) you’re wrong, and (b) if you’re right, who cares?

[Morella]

@emacknight

Didn’t anyone notice Wong Kim Ark was Chinese! It’s so obvious he was a robot sent from the future. Another robot was sent to put the birth notices in the paper. And the last robot become our president.

Open your eyes people.

Indeed…

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

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.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark 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 Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

[emacknight]

Does anyone remember **Morella **referring to Obama’s mother as a minor? She was 19 when she had him.

She is also a citizen (unless her parents were also illegals), so regardless of the mysterious Kenyan sent back in time to impregnate her, wouldn’t the son of a US citizen who was born in the US, be a citizen?

[Lobohan]

@emacknight

Does anyone remember **Morella **referring to Obama’s mother as a minor? She was 19 when she had him.

She is also a citizen (unless her parents were also illegals), so regardless of the mysterious Kenyan sent back in time to impregnate her, wouldn’t the son of a US citizen who was born in the US, be a citizen?

It depends. Is that citizen black? Because let’s get real here. Morella don’t like the dark meat.

[emacknight]

@Morella

His mother was a minor. Whether or not she was a US citizen, I don’t know.

What amazes me is, here I am, open-minded, asking questions from you people, ignoring your insults, giving you an opportunity to educate me, and all you can do is call me stupid. Who is really coming across as stupid here?

Yup, she did say his mother was a minor. To you answer your first question, his mother was a citizen. And to your second question, it is you that is coming across as stupid.

[emacknight]

@Morella

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Damn, where is Starving Artist to point out plagiarism?

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment -...

Anchor babies - children born in the United States to illegal alien mothers -...

[emacknight]

@Lobohan

It depends. Is that citizen black? Because let’s get real here. Morella don’t like the dark meat.

Does the constitution mention half-ricans?

No seriously, let’s pretend Morella is right and we have this new rule. What happens if a Mexican sneaks into the country and knocks up a pretty white girl? Is the little mixed-blood a wizard or a muggle?

[Morella]

@Bricker

No. But neither have I seen China. Yet I accept the existence of China, because Occam’s Razor demands it. To assume China doesn’t exist assumes a conspiracy among many unrelated people. So, too, with Obama’s birth certificate.

Oh geez…we need you on the religous debate forum! Here I thought that the existence of God was not inherently disprovable, and along comes Bricker with this jewel. The face of science has been changed forever.

I notice you don’t address the newspaper announcement I mentioned.

Yes, because I haven’t seen it, and because, as I mentioned previously, whether or not there is a birth certificate, or a birth announcement, makes no difference.

Whew.

Feel better?

Our law absolutely respects that distinction. Children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers do not gain citizenship. This is because ambassadors and foreign ministers are not subject to the jurisdiction of our lives. They have diplomatic immunity, and cannot be arrested for violations of our law. At most, we may expel them from the country.

But ordinary aliens are subject to our laws. Sven Jorgenson, a Swedish citizen, will go to prison here if he robs a convenience store here. And as aliens subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, their children born here are citizens, by the plain meaning of the text.

Just when I thought we were taking it up a notch from the strawman crap that I’ve been getting. That does not meet the definition of “complete jurisdiction”, as I have documented very well. If you’re going to ignore my argument, there isn’t much point in continuing this discussion.

The stubborn insistance otherwise reminds me of the tax protestors: they insist that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore the entire IRS is unconstitutional… and that all that’s necessary to avoid income tax is to point out this flaw, at which point the courts will be reduced to embarrased throat clearing as they hastily dismiss your case.

Yes, and it reminds me of good filet mignon, escargot in butter wine sauce, and a bottle of Bourdeaux Chateau Coufran 1986…or maybe that was something totally unrelated to this discussion that I just happened to be thinking about?

That simply doesn’t happen. Let’s say you’re right: let’s say that the entire set of caselaw, Wong Kim Ark and all its progeny, was decided on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let’s say the entire citizenship body of law is based on an esential wrongness.

So?

Now what?

Yes…“so?”…indeed. Were we supposed to be accomplishing something here? I thought we were just arguing on a message board. This is my day off…I don’t really feel the need to accomplish anything.

Do you believe that merely announcing that will result in the country shredding reams of US Reporter decisions?

Do you believe in UFOs?

So (a) you’re wrong, and (b) if you’re right, who cares?

Certainly not me. I’m just trying to bring out the best of the bullshit from the liberals around here, so I can know who to laugh at after the election.

[emacknight]

@Morella

Certainly not me. I’m just trying to being out the best of the bullshit from the liberals around here, so I can know who to laugh at after the election.

Being?

Hahahaha, you made a typo, now Obama is a citizen.

[Morella]

@emacknight

Yup, she did say his mother was a minor. To you answer your first question, his mother was a citizen. And to your second question, it is you that is coming across as stupid.

How do you know that she was a citizen? I haven’t bothered to double-check whether or not she was a minor, but I will.

[emacknight]

Now that we’ve gotten to the bottom of this one, should we figure out who really blew up the WTC? I know it’ll sound far fetched, but if you think about it, Chinese robots sent from the future really makes the most sense. Who has the most to gain from the US being in a secret war with secret Muslims? China!

[The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski]

@Morella

Just when I thought we were taking it up a notch from the strawman crap that I’ve been getting.

You’ve can’t be serious. As far as I can tell, I am the only poster who mentioned the strawman to you, like a week ago, and you have since brought it up 2 or 3 times in pointing out how unfairly you’re being treated here in this thread. In addition, my entire “attack” was asking you if you were familiar with the term, to which you responded in the affirmative.
Me think the lady doth protest too much.

[emacknight]

@Morella

How do you know that she was a citizen? I haven’t bothered to double-check whether or not she was a minor, but I will.

ooooh, I get it, none of us are “citizens.”

Deep.

[Morella]

Documenting the “Barry”…

At the age of ten, Obama returned to Hawaii and lived with his maternal grandparents; later his mother and sister returned as well. Called “Barry” by his family and friends, he was sent to a prestigious private academy in Honolulu,

http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Li-Ou/Obama-Barack.html

Of course, that’s kind of silly, like finding a reference to Reagan being called “Uncle Ronnie”.

God dammit, his mother was an ugly bitch.

[Morella]

@The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski

You’ve can’t be serious. As far as I can tell, I am the only poster who mentioned the strawman to you, like a week ago, and you have since brought it up 2 or 3 times in pointing out how unfairly you’re being treated here in this thread. In addition, my entire “attack” was asking you if you were familiar with the term, to which you responded in the affirmative.
Me think the lady doth protest too much.

I think it is ironic that you accused me of making strawman arguments, and then the liberals around here started making them to me. I don’t, however, see anything unfair about it. A liberal doesn’t have a good argument, or a brain, to use, so they use whatever they have. That’s fair enough. I’m just challenging Bricker to do better, because I know that he can.