Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

You might be correct but are missing the point. My example was of a mother coming here by boat the the 19th century, having a child, then returning to where she came is not a citizen and neither is her offspring. My example was tied to anchor babies where the mother does not try, does not apply, nor wants to become a US citizen.

 

The concept of "aliens ineligible for citizenship" was established by the Nationality Act in 1790.

Sure there were. Any aliens who failed to comply with the law set forth in the immigration act were illegal aliens. What else would they be? Do you think they were treated the same as aliens who complied with the law?

 

Quote anywhere in the law you mentioned that says other aliens would be illegal. The law seems to be about encouraging more immigration, not making some immigrants illegal. How would the immigrants become legal? Again. There were no visas or green cards.

 

They can be and are.

 

If you are an alien in 1865, and you fail or refuse to comply with the laws governing the conditions of your immigration, do you think you will be regarded or treated the same as another alien who did comply with the laws? This was a law legalizing indentured servitude, for all practical purposes. Do you think democrats of the time, pissed off about slavery being abolished just the year before, would allow indentured servants to come here and not comply with the laws regulating their immigration? "Illegal" is implied. If you don't comply with the law, then that's illegal. And those who didn't comply with law weren't treated very well.

Besides, the concept of "aliens ineligible for citizenship" was established by the Nationality Act long before, in 1790. There certainly was the concept of "aliens" in 1866, and for at least 76 years prior. I think to suggest that every person present in the country in 1866 remained here lawfully is pretty absurd.

 

It really does not matter if it was intended to illegal aliens exclusively, jus soli applies to everyone without measure. The whole point of that clause was threefold: first, blacks, including slaves who were recently freed under the 13th Amendment, were deemed as citizens of the United States, those who are aliens and living in the United States who have children born in the US which those children were intended to be US Citizens, and third, that per common law and the doctrone of jus soli in the US, that a person's citizenship is not based on who or what their parents are. When the debate happened, the most pressing issue was blacks, but the beauty and logic of the 14th Amendment was such that it was much more than what the argument was originally intended at that time.

it is all based on what the 1873 law says. Because the parents were of Chinese descent, any and all Chinese of national origin were deemed "inadmissible" under the law. The word "inadmissible" is what you will describe as illegal aliens today.

 

Yes on the diplomat.

Your other is NOT the case, as the Ark case shows.

Let's say you wanted to make "allegiance" some sort of actual thing. How would you test for that?

 

I would hope people within our borders are treated equally with respect to our law.

That's a founding principle.

 

You do realize what the Chinese Exclusion Act was intended to do, right? And it was the background of why the Ark Case was decided in the first place.

Wo Kim Ark was born anywhere between 1868 to 1873 in Chinatown, San Francisco to merchant parents, who eventually left sometime in the 1880s.

 

Yes, you have your BS partisan issues. They've been answered. In specific, during the 2013 immigration reform bill negotiations Republicans demanded access to cheap, discardable foreign labor.

There are a lot of citizens of America who are also citizens of other countries.

 

The United States government, and certain state governments, along with a majority of the population treated Chinese much differently any other immigrant group. As early as 1802, there were laws already on the books that someone of Chinese Descent or national origin could not become a US citizen. If you look at California in the 1850s, you saw city taxes on the number of Chinese nationals living in that city, among other things. It is said that these laws applied to the Chinese were the predecessor to the Jim Crow Laws applied to blacks in the South. Second, at that time, there were no "conditions" in which an alien had to comply other than obeying the local, state, and federal laws at that time, which were far fewer than today. It was all based on national origin. Those from Western Europe had easier access to the US than those from Eastern Europe. Texas had frequent Mexicans come into the state and settle, do business, etc. Texas was providing grants of land to Germans, Czechs, Swedes, and pretty much almost everyone from Europe. And most came under contract to work for large landowners in Texas for two to five years before they can get their own land. But those from China and Japan have always been treated much differently with outright discrimination towards them that lasted over 100 years and to some extent to today by some.

 

This has been the USSC position ever since.

The fact of how it was spelled out isn't relevant.

 

OK, just to clarify. At this point I don't know what your position is, what Trump's idea is, or what SC cases you are talking about, though I think Ark is probably one of them.

Also, I don't know what an "illegal baby" could possibly be.

 

It's true that, in a way, technically, a baby (that happens to be born on U.S. soil) cannot really be "illegal". But I think it means the baby is subject to deportation (along with its parents). Should the baby be returned after having been taken out of the country, then it could be "illegal".

(Well, that would require a change to the current federal law, but we're speaking as far as just the Fourteenth Amendment goes)

 

I don't accept the idea that a human being can be "illegal".

They may take an action that is illegal. They may not have all the proper documentation according to some law.

Today, we have kids who were brought here at infancy and are now college graduates, gainfully employed, etc., yet there are people who actually want to deport them to some foreign country.

That is just flat out morally disgusting.

 

We keep talking about the intent but refuse to talk about the intent?

You don't make responses easy sometimes.

I'm pretty sure I've talked about intent and others have as well. In regards to citizenship the Congressional debates were pretty clear, and to modern day readers, seem kind of funny since they thought the text was clear as written. They had no idea how dumb the public discussion would get...

 

I'm perfectly willing to talk about their intent and have done so several times in the past. YOU are unwilling to talk about their intent and whine when it is brought up at all.

What's clear is that they knew this would apply to the children of immigrants. They said so. You try to carve out an exception for illegal immigrants when that just wasn't even a concept at the time. I'm sorry that stating facts don't make your responses easy sometimes.

 

His parents were already legally in the country before the Chinese Exclusion Act. I thought at first you were making a good point that I hadn't considered but it took about .02 seconds of Googling to see this was ridiculous. Let me ask you, you have to know that was an absurd defense, but you made it anyway. Is this personally important to you? You clearly are not interested in having an honest conversation about this issue if you are simply throwing stuff on the wall to see if it sticks. What's the point of that?

 

Dude, you're lost. You've been lost. And all your misdirection attempts don't take away the fact the 14th Amendment has a two prong requirement...that the drafters clearly explained did apply to illegals, Indians, diplomats, etc. None of the offspring from this group were to be granted citizenship.

ARK's parents came here LEGALLY!!!!!!!! pursuant to the Burlingame Treaty. The Chinese Exclusion Act have no bearing on ARK. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 , not 1873, as you have erroneously repeatedly stated. ARK was born before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed and his parents were here before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed!!!

J.F. Christ

 

As I have pointed out repeatedly. The level of bovine excrement being spewed here in support of violating the Constitution is amazing.

 

"This will not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

 

What qualified as an illegal or illegal immigrant when the 14th Amendment was passed? What was the definition of an illegal immigrant at that time (the only time such intent can matter)?

 

Yes. That's talking about the children of foreign dignitaries. That same discussion includes the lawmakers acknowledging that this will include the children of immigrants. Please actually read it. There's a reason why you stopped at that artificial ellipses and didn't read the rest of the sentence of consider the context in any way.

 

I can only conclude that they know they are wrong but for reasons (either personal or ideological) continue to make these rather stupid arguments anyway. I wish just ONE person would be honest about why they want illegal kids to be citizens.

 

That's simply false as is evident from the text. Good grief you guys!