A child isn't responsible for his parent's crime. However, when a parent commits a crime the consequences can affect their child. The parent gets locked up and the child most likely suffers in some way.

So when a parent does something illegal it is irresponsible of them as a parent.

By entering the US illegally the parents have acted irresponsibly and put the child in a precarious position. I would think that as a family the child would be obligated to go with the parents wherever that might be

You wanna send an innocent kid off to god-knows-where with a couple of criminals? Isn't that a little irresponsible too? Hell, we take kids away from people here for much less than that.

I wouldn't blame the law makers for the child's plight. I'd blame the parents.

Now that have done that look up " Jus sanguinis " for me and think hard. I mean HARD.

Think of how many Mexicans can claim their rights thru that and why we have \that rule only to 3rd genertion and would rather have the birth rule.

http://canada.metropolis.net/events/...rs/weil2_e.htm

Idiot.

Doesn't matter. A kid gets a scraped knee these days in America and the CPS swoops in and confiscates your entire family until you prove your innocence. Now we're going to send a baby out to another country with two people that are criminals? Double standard much?

yes, that was the reason for it going to court but i can see how the case can be applied as precedent here. but, again, i am not a lawyer and simply trying to understand this issue better.


anyhoo, my comment was re: this earlier post

to me the opinion means that 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.

evil euros have rules that let illegals naturalize if they lived in the country for certain period. In Italy its 5 years I believe. here you can be illegal for 25, pay more taxes than thieving fucks like brassmonky, not comit any other crime and still be menace to society.

Yeah, I understand they can claim the right, yeah as I stated if you stay and become citizens, you are one. As I quoted, most Countries don't agree with illegals doing it.

Would you like to continue to make yourself look stupid?

So? This isn't Italy... I don't really care how Italy chooses to screw itself up. A menace is the anchor babies parents sucking the resources from America.

And this isn't any of those other countries you paraded out for us.

I didn't parade them out...my focus would have been the Countries "not" on that list... the majority of the world Basically. As well, I don't care what other Countries nationalization rules are - they aren't ours - thus things happen differently.

That's two different situations and not a double standard.

The CPS is about abuse and personal safety for the children.

The other is about citizenship and changing the location of the child that very well may have been born there in the first place.

At least you're referring to the illegals as criminals :winkwink:

So you're going to use this:



...but deny someone an Italy reference. Cool, just wanted to make sure we weren't unbalanced or anything.

Isn't there somewhere in the CPS Handbook that says they shouldn't allow a baby to leave with known criminals?

So are they criminals or not? If not, let them stay. If they are, the kid shouldn't go with them. Seems pretty simple to me.

Look above... I was quoting an article/info that showed he was correct, ie I did not: "paraded out for us"

Elk v. Wilkins


The question then was, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his or her birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating him or herself from his or her tribe and taking up his or her residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Under the constitution of the United States, Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through acts of congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.

Although ?Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,? ?they were alien nations, distinct political communities,? with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he ?owed immediate allegiance to? his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not ?subject to the jurisdiction? of the United States at birth. ?The evident meaning of these last words is, 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 exclusion of native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

So you're saying any parent that has committed a crime should have their children taken away :helpme

That's the point. Illegals can't carry on a business. "Business" assumes a legal framework of conduct - just like dealing crack isn't business, and it doesn't enjoy the protections of business (unless Guido is your protector, and then we're talking about something completely different!). While an illegal alien may be here for work, it's not business, as the work is breaking the law.

That Supreme Court ruling is pretty much de facto standard in discussing citizenship. But the court has not yet gone further than this. If the Arizona statute becomes law, there's no doubt it'll be taken to the Supreme Court, and they will be required to clarify this and a few other rulings.

If the parents commit a crime and go to jail in America then the child becomes
a "ward of the state".

So what you just said is basically garbage.

Isn't that the way it works? Did they change something while I was asleep?

Bunch of hypocrites.

My family came 11 generations ago. If they had that law in place my family would be deported.

People need to remember where they come from...

11 generations ago there was slavery and definitely not openly gays.

This thread make my head hurt

you were here before columbus?

My family was

what are you a conservative aborigine? :1orglaugh

but seriously, it seems there's an disproportionate amount of gfyers that have 300+ year old family trees that are strictly american.

thx for the clarification. it's an interesting topic to me!

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

Well, considering the fact that slavery lasted 300 years until it "actually" ended
around 1865, it all makes sense to me.

Somebody else was here besides the slaves ya know.

:1orglaugh

disregard

i see.
i don't see.

Slavery has been around for a lot more time than that, you do know how the pyramids were built right?

Dumb ass, its not about being illegal, its about when you become legal.
I don’t want to waste my time on you. Even if I tried, you wouldn’t understand.

Idiot.

Then don't you want all these white conquering motherfuckers shipped back to where they came from?

So, you'll take the benefits of being an American, but not those of being Indian? Why? Are you going to reject your social security benefits? Your retirement benefits?

But WE ARE jus soli country, shit stain. WE are not ITALY.
So you better start carrying and respecting it, moron.

We were talking about America(USA), not Egypt.

WTF???

Are you stupid or something?

What it makes you is 3/4 th deportable, not 1/4 native.

African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._United_States

1560 + 300 = 1860........it is now 2010.

:helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme :helpme

i still don't see what that has to do with the part of my post you highlighted/made the comment on.

I have SSN benefits and retirement benefits without claiming it.

You didn't state America, so that makes you incorrect on two counts.
So kindly FUCK OFF!
Slavery has been around since the dawn of time, You just see when blacks were slaves, narrow minded missing the fact that there were other slaves before blacks got to America. Maybe you would know this if you had ever cracked open a book! Here's a page of some history for you. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html
You keep playing the race card in your posts, like telling me that people are getting on Obama because he's black? NO, it's because he's a shitty president. But you didn't come back and debate the facts, just gave me some fucking excuse that people hated the black man.
Just like I remember when Charlton Heston Died, people bashed him on this board because all they knew was he was head of the NRA for a while, he was standing up for peoples rights, just like he did when he marched with Martin Luther King!

Nope, just makes me part of the mix, now get off of my land pale face, LMAO

You insinuated that a 300 year old US family tree was too old for a White American to
claim.

I simply stated that white people had to be here that length of time based on
the history of slavery.

I don't really understand what the problem is.

Do you have a difficult time counting numbers or did you just have a
"redneck reaction" whereby once you heard the word "slavery" you went stupid on a nigga?

:1orglaugh

we are ALL part of the mix.
seriously.

I'm not going to read that stupid shit.

I was defending your claim that you could have 11 generations of US born relatives.

Evidently is was 11 generations of deformed cerebellums.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Sorry,I mistakenly thought you could read.

Too bad you can't debate the facts, instead of just blowing it off with insults, shows your true value in the world

Not everyone, those that choose not to learn the language, not to become part of the mix or the melting pot are just moving to America, they're not becoming American.

Let's just put it this way: I'm an immigrant. My family is immigrant.

We came to Canada, legally. After doing a shitload of fucking paperwork, going through interviews, financials, etc.

That's what the law is. In the states, law is similar. You get a greencard or you stay the fuck out.

You're saying - criminals that jump border get more rights than law abiding Mexicans who don't dare to cross the border illegally.

Why don't we just open the borders to Mexico then? It'll be a humanitarian thing to do. We're all part of the mix anyway.

damn i missed this. but yeah im hoping this passes i wish they could go back and get the ones that slipped through.

So you're telling me that half of Boston is not american because they like to keep their Irish heritage and shit.
Oh wait, we weren’t talking about them. It’s the Mexicans that pissed in your cheerios.

Start paying taxes first.

Do all of us a favor and stay in Canada. We have enough morons in this country.
STAY IN MOTHERFUCKING CANADA.