Up to 400K Children Born To Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Annually, One In 10 Births

Over half the children in the state of California are children of illegals. California now has a population greater than the entire country of Canada, by the way.

Maybe that's why they are having severe water shortages, and why there is a huge problem of unaffordable housing.

 

Rather interesting pivot from the facts and decision of WKA. I'll only point out that to read the decision is to understand that Mr. & Mrs. Wong (if I got that right) were here under the jurisdiction of this country and subject to all of its laws, one of which would be the 14th Amendment. That would also apply to anyone here who is not legal, but has taken up residence. It would also apply to visitors who get here pregnant and leave with one or more babies who are, by virtue of the 14th and WKA, are full-fledged citizens. I'm sure that if there was the first bit of legal reasoning in your dissertation, people like Ted Cruz would have been all over it. They aren't, and for a very good reason - you're wrong and have completely misunderstood WKA and the 14th.

 

Not a pivot from the case at all. WKA parents were here under the Burlingame Treaty, they were not allowed to Naturalize due to the Treaty as China did not want to allow their citizens to take up citizenship elsewhere. WKA parents were here and under the jurisdiction of US law, they owed a temporary allegiance to the US and were domciciled here with the authorization of our govt.

This question has been around for a very long time, as I showed, since 1912 and Bouve, yet there has been no known case either accepting of it or denying it. In order to be brought before SCOTUS one needs to have standing, to this date it has not happened. The legal reasoning you think should be all over it has no legality to bring standing, so your claim that I am wrong and that I have completely misunderstood WKA is laughable and shows an incompetence on your behalf to be able to argue even the most basic of fundamentals of WKA and BRC. You seem to think that because there has been no legal standing to date that therefor you are by way of default right. I would point out again, if what you claim is true then why did Clement Bouve write in his Treatise of Law that children born here to (EWI) illegals "should be" granted BRC.

Ill ask you again to provide the portion of WKA you believe backs up your claim.

Your claim that all of the 14th ascribes to everybody is simply asinine, only the 14th EPC would and that clause is directed at the individual state and not the person. I do note you are unable to point out specifically in WKA the portion you think does what you claim.

The 14th BRC is merely declaratory of existing law. Existing law can easily be changed, from WKA

Why is there a bill introduced in the Congress every new Congress to address this very issue? Harry Reid introduced the bill back in 1993?

 

You are quite correct - according to Wiki: [The Burlingame Treaty] Granted certain privileges to citizens of either country residing in the other, the privilege of naturalization, however, being specifically withheld.

And that's where you went off the rails because baby Wong, while he might have been considered a Chinese citizen as a result of his parentage, was also a United States citizen (he had dual citizenship) by virtue of where he was born, and he would remain a citizen unless he renounced it. He did not have to be naturalized at all. You're welcome.

 

I've never claimed WKA not to be born a citizen. This whole discussion is about children born to (EWI) illegals, to which you claimed

and then you claimed this

To which you were shown that not event the 14th did, as explained in WKA.

It's not to hard to follow along, yet you keep changing your claim.

 

Sheesh! Get a grip, guy. The 14th Amendment stated in its opening sentence:

Section 1. 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.

Years later, along came a now grown Chinese man who said he was born here and therefore a citizen, despite what any treaty or act of Congress said. The Supreme Court agreed with him. That case also established citizenship for any child born in the country (with very few exceptions) not matter how you may want to deny or dance off into some legal fantasy. If you want to change that legal fact, you must change the 14th Amendment to exclude children born to parents who are not here legally. No more, no less.

 

And you think all persons born, refers to anybody and everybody, when the first sentence has the qualifier of "and subject to the jurisdiction of the US". WKA did not establish citizenship for any child born in the country know matter how you want to claim it does and dance off into some idiotic fallacy. The 14th does not need to be changed in order to deny children born to (EWI) illegals BRC in the US, as mere policy alone can do just that

I'll ask you, yet again, to provide the portion of WKA you think backs up your claim. So far you seem unable to do such a simple task, surely it's not so hard to do for a person of your intelligence.

 

Yes, anybody BORN IN THIS COUNTRY, citizen, non-citizen, legal or illegal immigrant IS subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of this country. It they weren't the Supreme Court would have ruled against Wong Kim Ark. They didn't. So, once again, if you want to say that any child born to legal or illegal immigrants is NOT automatically a citizen, then Section 1 of the 14th would have to be re-written. Nothing else matters.

 

NO, not everybody born in this country. Yet you still can't point to anything in WKA that backs up your claim. I have pointed to WKA each and every time showing you you don't know what you are claiming. WKA merely states that a child born here to parents that are here with the authorization of our govt and have a child while here, that child is a born citizen. Nothing in WKA and its thorough explanation of citizenship laws and the 14th Amendments BR Clause would even begin to ascribe that children born to (EWI) illegals would also be born a citizen as you have claimed.

Why would WKA have ruled against children born to (EWI) illegals, when that had no bearing on WKA to begin with? If WKA did as you exclaim, then why did Clement Bouve write a Treatise on Law in 1912 stating that children born to (EWI) illegals "should be" US Citizens? If what you claim were in fact true, then Bouve would never have had to try to make the argument in his Treatise of Law. imjusayn

 

The controlling law is the 14th Amendment; WKA was a test of that law, in particular the very first sentence. Nothing has changed the Constitution since then to limit it. I don't give a rat's patoot about an author's legal opinion in 1912 since it lacks the force of law.

 

The 14th BRC is merely declaratory of existing law, per Gray in WKA. Congress has the power to change law, again per Gray in WKA.

And yet Clement Bouve is who all those that think like you claim from Plyler v Doe (footnote 10) that grants BRC to children born to (EWI) illegals, go figure.

 

I think I see the problem. Gray was full of crap. If he wasn't, and his argument had any legal merit, you can bet the farm that every 'R' in Congress would be all over it. They aren't and for a very good reason - it's crap. 'k?

 

Gray was full of crap? Gray wrote the majority opinion of WKA. Congress has interjected into the argument, since 1993 when Harry Reid introduced the idea via a bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...lip-flop-senreid-introduced-bill-clarifying-/

 

So? How many of the other justices joined his opinions 14 years later? Any case history? No? You got nada, sport.

So? Did it pass? Did SCOTUS rule on it? No? Again, you got nada, sport.

Fascinating bit of history, though.

 

7 of the 9 agreed with Chief Justice Gray, only 2 dissented, and the dissent agreed that children born to foreigners legally here acquired citizenship by birth. Please repeat who got nada, sport.

What does 14 years later have to do with anything? Bouve was arguing in his book, the Treatise of Law, that children born to illegals should receive BRC, are you now claiming Bouve is irrelevant to agreeing with your argument? If you are claiming that illegals children should be BRC at birth on US soil, you should be touting Bouve.

It has not passed yet, it may pass in the future. SCOTUS can not rule on it unless someone who has standing brings it to court, so tell me again who has nada, sport?

Whats going to happen in the next admin when they change the policy limiting or even denying BRC to children born to (EWI) illegals? or they revert it back to Bush's policy stating "they may acquire", not the Obama policy that "even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth."

 

How many of those concurring or dissenting categorically stated that children born to illegals here did NOT acquire citizenship? If you had that, you might have a case, but you don't, and therefore, you don't.

Exactly my point. Nothing passed, nothing was signed into law, and therefore, there was no case to decide.

I could imagine a Republican prez signing such legislation; I can also imagine an immediate lawsuit and an injunction preventing the law from going into effect before it runs through the courts. I also don't see the Roberts court, activist tho they may be, overturning 117 years of settled law.

 

JFC The WKA case has NOTHING to do with children born to illegals, therefor there coud be no ruling on it. There is NO court case in our history that deals with children born to illegals. Therefor it is nothing but assumption to either grant or deny o children born to illegals. Every administration has the ability to interpret the laws the way they see fit. A new admin can therefor change this admins policy of claiming tat even children born to illegals are to acquire BRC.

So a new admin can change policy and deny them BRC, no court case needed and no bill from Congress needed.

It is not settled law. Only a person with legal standing could bring a lawsuit.

 

You're trying to twist WKA to fit your preconceived notions. And failed. The case was about children born in this country to citizens of other countries, and while the parents were legally here, that just wasn't the issue. Whether parents are here legally or otherwise makes no difference if the kid is born here.

 

People can be born in this country and nevertheless be aliens to the ideal of individual liberty. In that event they are aliens to me.

 

I've not twisted anything from WKA, I've repeatedly asked for you to point out the portion of WKA you think backs up your claim, you have yet to do so, while I have quoted directly from WKA numerous times now.

Again, from WKA

Where in their does it state that any child no matter the parents status is born a USC?

Surely, since you are so learned after having claimed to have read WKA, you should have no trouble pointing out the portion of Grays decision that backs up your whimsical claim.

 

Mr. Justice Gray, who in the WKA case continually affirms birthright citizenship with very few exceptions:

And again:

You'll love this one:

In that last quote, note the absence of legal immigrants or the exclusion of illegal immigrants.

Game over.

 

That's right, he continuously states the 14th is declaratory. I like this part specifically

OK, and you think that changed anything I have stated how? The whole case evolves around a person born here to parents that are here under Treaty which denied them the ability to naturalize, that have a permanent residence and domicile, as Gray stated in the facts of the case. The facts alone relate to legal immigrants only.

 

If it is your position (and I believe it is) that the Congress can, at any time, pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and forthwith kicking them out of the country along with their parents, then why haven't they done it? Not even a super smart Harvard-educated lawyer like Ted Cruz has figured that one out. There is no more point in arguing with me because I can do nothing about it.

 

There has been a bill brought up every new congress since 1993 when Harry Reid first introduced it. The bill is there, the issue it seems is to get it brought to the floor for a vote. As long as it is a hot political issue it will be punted back and forth, with each party pointing fingers at the other. If the bill does pass, then there would be no need for administrative policy allowing children born to illegals BRC. Besides, the next admin can change the policy and limit or outright deny BRC to children born to illegals anyway.