forum.dwylbtzle.info

[Old Geezer]

An interesting review of the subject clause of the 14th amendment, the subject clause being "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." and what it means historically.

It's from the governments records, so other than the spin the author may or may not have put on it, there is none.

Its interesting to note that the Supremes have only once confirmed the notion of "birthright citizenship" (all you need is to be born here to be a citizen) in a narrow and specific case of one guy born to "legal" residents who were not otherwise citizens (United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)) and points to several cases of Congress needing to pass a law conferring citizenship on groups, why that is necessary for citizenship, and that individuals within that group may or may not agree to become citizens.

Except as has been pointed out in other articles, birthright citizenship is a fairly recent notion that has come into vogue since the 1960's.

It makes the case of Consent, where both parties, the individual and the federal government, have to agree for that person to become a citizen, and points out several acts of congress where that has happened, how and why the federales have the authority to make the rules for legal immigration. It also points out how birthright citizenship is a notion from English common law, a residue of the feudal system of government as England once had, and why birthright citizenship is totally alien to our republican form of government and has been rejected consistently by every legal precedent except Ark.

I don't know that I have a full grasp on the thing in only one reading. But this guy makes a pretty good case for just being born here doesn't cut it, and never has. That the government has the authority to determine who is a citizen and upon whom citizenship is conferred and how that traditionally has been accomplished.

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm

As my sweetie Ann points out, no country in the world has a birthright citizenship law, EXCEPT CANADIANS. Even England has stricter rules than almost anyone else.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)

[Mary Whitehouse]

Fearing immigrants is foolish for statistics inform us
that immigrants generate wealth and stimulate economies
doing labour that established citizens don't seem to want
to do like picking fruit and veg and driving cabs and moping
up at 7-11.

Those are established matters of social science. Immigrants
are GOOD for competetive capitalist economies.

The only way the baby boom generation will
get their social security
pensions paid is if the U.S. and Canada
allow bigger waves of
immigration to occur. Some countries like
Australia have created
a public reward for having kids, to the tune
of thousands of dollars
per child reward, because immigrants are
too tough of a political sell downunder.

There just aren't enough children of baby boomers
to hold up the pension systems. More immigrants stimulates
development, building starts go up as the market responds to
thousands of new people's housing needs. Neighbourhoods
grow and the economy chugs along with practically every sector
benefiting from an influx of new consumers in the market.
_________________
photo-Kamloops, B.C.

[Old Geezer]

Except immigration isn't the issue. Illegal immigration is the issue, and the idea allowing people citizenship of the country because they are born here is the issue. The notion that because you are born here allows you citizenship is a relatively recent thing, from somewhere between the 1960's and 1980's depending on who you believe. Maybe it's something that "Illegally Immigrated" here from Canadia since you boys up there allow it!
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)