i'm no attorney but

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Issue

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could constitutionally be denied U.S. citizenship.


In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.


:)

If the parents have entered the US legally that would apply.

But what if the parents have entered the US illegally or does the above apply to illegals as well. Seems unclear to me.

Since when does a child becomes responsible for his parents' crime?
Are we in biblical times or some shit?

If your Parents are working in another Country, legally or illegally - you are not a citizen of that Country by birth right if you're born in that Country - you're an American, because your parents are. If you parents choose to stay, legally - you can take legal immigration path and become a citizen and you're not longer an American citizen.

Their is no logical reason why illegal or working immigrants babies should ever be granted citizenship.

The only reason this went to court is because it was Chinese child and US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 due to opium war.
Never did they question anybody's right to become US citizen in cases when a child was born on US soil.

One more idiot joined the party.

How many of you fucking idiot here bother to do some research before posting shit like this?

Look up term - Jus soli

Logical Reason #1.

If they are working, as you suggested, what's the problem again? If you make them citizens you just created new taxpayers. Want them to be legal and upstanding citizens? Seems to me there is only a piece of paper in the way. I thought the reason you and so many others were against illegals is because they're a drain on the system and the ones that become career criminals? If they're legalized and working and paying taxes due to a birth, then what beef do you have left with them?

Some of you will simply never be happy. And I believe it's because of that word.... that word you all hate so much..... "Mexican".

Your posts remind me why I only lasted 6 months in N.Indiana/S. Michigan.

Oh so I should have said, most or all 1st world Countries.. my bad,

Of course, most have restrictions on "America's" Issue:
"The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."

States that observe jus soli include:

Antigua and Barbuda[3]
Argentina[3]
Barbados[3]
Belize[3]
Bolivia[3]
Brazil[3]
Canada[3]
Chile[4]
Colombia[3]
Dominica[3]
Dominican Republic[3]
Ecuador[3]
El Salvador[3]
Fiji[5]
Grenada[3]
Guatemala[3]
Guyana[3]
Honduras[3]
Jamaica[3]
Lesotho[6]
Malaysia[3]
Mexico[3]
Nicaragua[3]
Pakistan[3]
Panama[3]
Paraguay[3]
Peru[3]
Saint Christopher and Nevis[3]
Saint Lucia[3]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3]
Trinidad and Tobago[3]
United States[3]
Uruguay[3]
Venezuela[3]

So as I was saying... "Their is no logical reason why illegal or working immigrants babies should ever be granted citizenship."

Looks like most of the World agrees with me.

"There is a trend in some countries toward restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth,[2] or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question (e.g.,see subparagraph (f) of 8 U.S.C. § 1401). The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."

Those evil ass Euro's not wanting illegals to get citizenship.... those bastards!

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