• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he'll introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship

Exactice said:
Is citizenship not a Right of Said Government?

Birth Right is one thing.....

Citizenship is Another thing... Should those 2 be connected?

Not by laws or regulations, but purely on your BIRTH?

I mean you can be a legal born Citizen and CHOOSE to renounce your citizenship right? The Government CANT force you to maintain it if you so choose.

But if you WANT citizenship would it NOT be the right of the Government that "Offers" the citizenship to at least VET the process in which you obtain your citizenship?
Click to expand...

You might not be aware of this, but some governments will not recognize a "renunciation" of citizenship and consider that the person remains one of their citizens REGARDLESS of whether or not the person wants to be.

One can acquire citizenship in one of two ways [a] by "birth" (provided that the birth fulfills the statutory conditions), or by "naturalization" (provided that the potential citizen fulfills the statutory conditions).

In the first case, if there are no statutory conditions, then the simple fact of being born suffices.

In the United States of America there are no statutory conditions attached to the first method of acquiring citizenship PROVIDED that the birth takes place inside the United States of America.
 
ClaraD said:
Um, no they don't...that is why the SC said in Wong that Wong was explicitly a US citizen, because HE was under jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, aware that the Chinese government considered Mr. Wong, as a Chinese citizen, to be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government REGARDLESS of where he was living, aren't you?

You are, of course, aware that the Chinese government considered Mr. Wong's children to be Chinese citizens REGARDLESS of where they were born, aren't you?
 
Exactice said:
2) Gotcha! Totally Forgot about the "Birth rights of other countries" But it does stand that a LEGAL US citizen given birth ABROAD does entitle the child Citizenship regardless of being born on US soil.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, there are conditions that MUST be met - one of which is actually APPLYING for American citizenship. No application, no citizenship.

Exactice said:
3) Subject to the LAWS of the country. But what about the "RIGHTS" of the country. If you are NOT a citizen. I agree we are Subject to laws of HOST countries. But not provided rights of citizens of those countries?
Click to expand...

The general rule in civilized countries is that EVERYONE who is in the country is entitled to the same rights and that, absent specific provisions in the law, there are no rights which citizens have which non-citizens do not have.

Exactice said:
A mother illegally enters the country. SHE BROKE the LAW of our Country. She gives birth. To a child of which she was NEVER legally supposed to be ON US soil NOR is she a legal citizen of the US to be afforded "rights" How is the CHILD recognized as a CITIZEN?
Click to expand...

Because that is what the laws of the United States of America ACTUALLY SAY.

You can make all the noise you want about "But that isn't what they SHOULD say." or "But that isn't what they were SUPPOSED TO say." but you still have to deal with the fact that that is what they ACTUALLY say.

Exactice said:
The 14th in my interpretation as I have posted it about 15 times now, HAS an edification clause prior to "and all are citizens". Birth and nationalization, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Click to expand...

To a degree you are correct. Where you go astray is in interpreting "jurisdiction" to mean what you want it to mean rather than what it actually does mean. The term for that behaviour is "Humpty-Dumptyism".

Exactice said:
BY jurisdiction the Illegal MOTHER should NOT be ON US soil, So the birth of the child is not qualified under the "Birth jurisdiction there of."
Click to expand...

See above.
 
haymarket said:
Do you operate under the willful mental delusion that I am Barack Obama?

Actually those that can't insult those who can teach.

btw- not only did I teach Government for 33 years, I also worked as Chief of Staff for a Michigan legislator after retirement and helped write state law for three years. So spare me the condescending nonsense as it only makes you look petty and small.
Click to expand...
:lol: Now look who is trying to condondecend. Then you should know it all boils down to the down to original intend and it’s the SC job to interpret that. And justice Harlan of the SCOTUS and the majority with him did in the Elk v Wilkins case. So render your decision on that case when you have time.

The remark about “Those that can’t do teach” was a common one during my medical redisidency I found it to be more accurate than not.
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
Wait what? If she is caught being an illegal alien in American, She cant be arrested? Thats what you are saying? So then ALL the Illegals Detained, and deported cant be? IM confused?
Click to expand...

The situation is quite simple


  1. A person who IS "under the jurisdiction of" a country CAN be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  2. A person who IS NOT "under the jurisdiction of" a country CAN NOT be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  3. IF the government of a country determines that anyone who is NOT LEGALLY in the country is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the country, THEN those persons CAN NOT be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  4. IF the government of a country determines that anyone who is NOT LEGALLY in the country IS "under the jurisdiction" of the country, THEN those persons CAN be arrested by the authorities of that country.


What many people are arguing is that the government of a country has the authority to arrest people who are NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the country - which is a patent legal absurdity - so your confusion is quite understandable.
 
ClaraD said:
Um, no they don't...that is why the SC said in Wong that Wong was explicitly a US citizen, because HE was under jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...
Wong parents were explicitly said to have a permanent domicile in the US and that has a specific legal meaning. A person can have any different residences but only one domicile. And that is what the two main difference were between Elk and Wong . Why then shouldn’t Indians before Elk and 56 years after him not recieve birthright citizenship ? Why did it take the Snyder Act to give them birthright citizenship? What is the difference between two Native Americans born before 1924 and two Hondurans illegal aliens today regarding their legal status? Why even mention Wong parents permanent domicile if it had zero Part in the case?
 
As an American citizen overseas you can be committed while overseas like sex with someone under age 18 etc. Likewise countries can and have exerted their jurisdiction over their citizens who committed crimes in the US.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not necessarily, there are conditions that MUST be met - one of which is actually APPLYING for American citizenship. No application, no citizenship.



The general rule in civilized countries is that EVERYONE who is in the country is entitled to the same rights and that, absent specific provisions in the law, there are no rights which citizens have which non-citizens do not have.



Because that is what the laws of the United States of America ACTUALLY SAY.

You can make all the noise you want about "But that isn't what they SHOULD say." or "But that isn't what they were SUPPOSED TO say." but you still have to deal with the fact that that is what they ACTUALLY say.



To a degree you are correct. Where you go astray is in interpreting "jurisdiction" to mean what you want it to mean rather than what it actually does mean. The term for that behaviour is "Humpty-Dumptyism".



See above.
Click to expand...
Ifvevery one in the Us is under our jurisdiction then why were Indians born in the US not given birthright citizenship
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not necessarily, there are conditions that MUST be met - one of which is actually APPLYING for American citizenship. No application, no citizenship.



The general rule in civilized countries is that EVERYONE who is in the country is entitled to the same rights and that, absent specific provisions in the law, there are no rights which citizens have which non-citizens do not have.



Because that is what the laws of the United States of America ACTUALLY SAY.

You can make all the noise you want about "But that isn't what they SHOULD say." or "But that isn't what they were SUPPOSED TO say." but you still have to deal with the fact that that is what they ACTUALLY say.



To a degree you are correct. Where you go astray is in interpreting "jurisdiction" to mean what you want it to mean rather than what it actually does mean. The term for that behaviour is "Humpty-Dumptyism".



See above.
Click to expand...
If every one in the USb is under our jurisdiction then why were Indians born in the US not given birthright citizenship
 
SLC said:
As an American citizen overseas you can be committed while overseas like sex with someone under age 18 etc. Likewise countries can and have exerted their jurisdiction over their citizens who committed crimes in the US.
Click to expand...

You are almost correct.

You can be CHARGED, but you cannot be tried as you are NOT "under the jurisdiction of" American courts until such time as you have "submitted" yourself to them.

True, the US government CAN REQUEST extradition, but if the US charge is NOT one known to the laws of the country that you are in, the odds that you will be extradited are incredibly slim.

As far as your "likewise" is concerned, I'd have to see some specifics before commenting.

If the victim of the crime was NOT a citizen of the country attempting to exert jurisdiction, then I'm quite at a loss as to what legal grounds would be used for (as an example)


the Russian government to "exert jurisdiction" over a Russian (non-diplomat) citizen who murdered a Swiss citizen in the United States of America.
​

so I'd like to see your specifics.

PS - Were I the (hypothetical) Russian's lawyer, I'd be more than pleased to argue "want of jurisdiction" to prevent my client from being packed off for trial in Russia in the (hypothetical) case above.
 
SLC said:
Ifvevery one in the Us is under our jurisdiction then why were Indians born in the US not given birthright citizenship
Click to expand...

Because they were specifically exempted by law.
 
SLC said:
:lol: Now look who is trying to condondecend. Then you should know it all boils down to the down to original intend and it’s the SC job to interpret that. And justice Harlan of the SCOTUS and the majority with him did in the Elk v Wilkins case. So render your decision on that case when you have time.

The remark about “Those that can’t do teach” was a common one during my medical redisidency I found it to be more accurate than not.
Click to expand...

I wonder who taught those wanna-be doctors?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You appear to think that when I recognize what the actual legal situation IS, that is the same as saying that that is what it SHOULD BE....
Click to expand...
At best, that is an incorrect assessment. A worst, it’s a tale narrative.

People are free to advocate whatever they like no matter how ridiculous. Other people are free to point out why they are wrong.
 
SLC said:
For the most part Phds hat want to but didn’t make it into med school.
Click to expand...

The right wing contempt for educators is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such complete bs.
 
haymarket said:
The right wing contempt for educators is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such complete bs.
Click to expand...
In medicine its true. MD's that are into full time teaching instead of practicing clinical medicine are frequently ill suited to practice medicine. And Phd's frequently spend so much time trying to prove they are smarter than the students they teach in med school that they poorly prepare their students for clinical medicine. I could look at a test question written by a clinician and it would be built on useful practical knowledge. Many of the questions written by Phd's were so obtuse as to test little practice information. Some of my Phd professors openly admitted they had at one time failed to get into med school. But hey don't believe me if you want, I just give you years of actual observation of mine own and others.

I love teachers but some should learn their limits. My mom was a great 3rd grade teacher but she shouldn't interpret constitutional law.

But I digress.

The reason I pointed out that Obama had taught Constitutional law at Harvard is the fact that DACA was an unconstitutional order yet his teaching constitutional law did not prevent him from supporting an unconstitutional EO. Since I don't know what you look like I'm not sure if I would mistake you for Obama or not.
 
SLC said:
In medicine its true. MD's that are into full time teaching instead of practicing clinical medicine are frequently ill suited to practice medicine. And Phd's frequently spend so much time trying to prove they are smarter than the students they teach in med school that they poorly prepare their students for clinical medicine. I could look at a test question written by a clinician and it would be built on useful practical knowledge. Many of the questions written by Phd's were so obtuse as to test little practice information. Some of my Phd professors openly admitted they had at one time failed to get into med school. But hey don't believe me if you want, I just give you years of actual observation of mine own and others.

I love teachers but some should learn their limits. My mom was a great 3rd grade teacher but she shouldn't interpret constitutional law.

But I digress.

The reason I pointed out that Obama had taught Constitutional law at Harvard is the fact that DACA was an unconstitutional order yet his teaching constitutional law did not prevent him from supporting an unconstitutional EO.
Click to expand...

You may have some valid points. However, the phrase that you originally used is a slur against teachers overwhelmingly used by those who are contemptuous of educators.
 
haymarket said:
You may have some valid points. However, the phrase that you originally used is a slur against teachers overwhelmingly used by those who are contemptuous of educators.
Click to expand...
That's not how I used it. I aimed it specifically at Obama and his lack of respect for the constitution.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
That's not how I used it. I aimed it specifically at Obama and his lack of respect for the constitution.
Click to expand...

Different people - even well educated people - can have differences of opinion about a specific subject. That does not necessarily make them guilty of not having respect.
 
haymarket said:
Different people - even well educated people - can have differences of opinion about a specific subject. That does not necessarily make them guilty of not having respect.
Click to expand...
Then what would you call it? Obama multiple times said he did not have the power to do anything about children brought into the US at a young age by illegal alien parents. Then he signed the DACA EO. Obama knew what he was doing wasn't legal but he just did not care. Personally I call that a lack of respect for the constitution. How about you?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You might not be aware of this, but some governments will not recognize a "renunciation" of citizenship and consider that the person remains one of their citizens REGARDLESS of whether or not the person wants to be.

One can acquire citizenship in one of two ways [a] by "birth" (provided that the birth fulfills the statutory conditions), or by "naturalization" (provided that the potential citizen fulfills the statutory conditions).

In the first case, if there are no statutory conditions, then the simple fact of being born suffices.

In the United States of America there are no statutory conditions attached to the first method of acquiring citizenship PROVIDED that the birth takes place inside the United States of America.
Click to expand...


I was NOT aware of that! Pretty cool info! Thanks! With that though, the US as per the relevant discussion has the ability o renounce US citizenship.

I agree in your 2 point assessment.

I want to read more INFORMATION as Your point of "Statutory conditions" is a REALLY good debating point that I do NOT have direct knowledge of! If I may research this a little more so I can respond with some time of intelligence!
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not necessarily, there are conditions that MUST be met - one of which is actually APPLYING for American citizenship. No application, no citizenship. Gotcha! Makes sense, finer details BUT absolutely understand and agree!



The general rule in civilized countries is that EVERYONE who is in the country is entitled to the same rights and that, absent specific provisions in the law, there are no rights which citizens have which non-citizens do not have. Gotach as well, with that, I guess this is the "rabbit hole, There are LAWS, But there are RIGHTS. Host nation laws as simple as Murder, If you commit murder in a HOST nation they arrest you and the punisment is that of each host country. RIGHTS may NOT be given to you if you are A NON citizen like VOTING. a NON citizen cannot Vote in a Host country, That is my opinion is a given right to a citzen and NOT to a non citizen.



Because that is what the laws of the United States of America ACTUALLY SAY. Well that is where we are having this discussion now arent we LOL!

You can make all the noise you want about "But that isn't what they SHOULD say." or "But that isn't what they were SUPPOSED TO say." but you still have to deal with the fact that that is what they ACTUALLY say.Im not making noise, But that my personal opinion and interpretation, Im not SAY thats what its SUPPOSED to say. I am asking for a Dionysus should this REACH the SCOTUS and the making a ruling ultimately its going one way or the other right?



To a degree you are correct. Where you go astray is in interpreting "jurisdiction" to mean what you want it to mean rather than what it actually does mean. The term for that behaviour is "Humpty-Dumptyism".
See and this is where we differ, My interpretation is just that, its not wrong just because YOU disagree with it, IT needs to be ruled out by a competent person. Do this is like the TRUMP/Acosta fiasco, Trump uses Invasion as a term to call the Caravan what it is. Acosta Disagrees. BUT neither is WRONG its their interpretation. The FINAL ruling would COME from SCOTUS


See above.
Click to expand...


Again Im just having a discussion. Telling me my interpolation is wrong with out actually saying why is just disagreeing with me. The point to all is to HAVE a discussion. You telling me my interpretation is wrong is NOT fact thats your opinion is it Not? While its being ruled upon how its been since 1868, its never been sent to SCOTUS for final interpretation. Thats why we are where we are no?


Again my opinion is JUST that, Its not wrong or right at this moment, SCOTUS will be able to verify BUT it should go there as Anchor Babies are the concern and I dont the WILL of the 14th was NOT in the spirit of Anchor babies?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The situation is quite simple


  1. A person who IS "under the jurisdiction of" a country CAN be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  2. A person who IS NOT "under the jurisdiction of" a country CAN NOT be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  3. IF the government of a country determines that anyone who is NOT LEGALLY in the country is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the country, THEN those persons CAN NOT be arrested by the authorities of that country.
  4. IF the government of a country determines that anyone who is NOT LEGALLY in the country IS "under the jurisdiction" of the country, THEN those persons CAN be arrested by the authorities of that country.


What many people are arguing is that the government of a country has the authority to arrest people who are NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the country - which is a patent legal absurdity - so your confusion is quite understandable.
Click to expand...

LOL! Damn! This is the kinda of conversations I like, educative, without being condescending! Im learning EVERYDAY.... I appreciate it.

With that let me break this down a little bit.... but the basis......

I get the "Jurisdiction" point.

I guess my concerns is the application of Jurisdiction,

Illegal sneaks into our country. They are withing our "care custody & control" Jurisdiction though is a different legal term.

While in our "CC&C" if a crime is committed I assume we can detain them charge them with a crime and then do a Deportation ORDER. Once charged with a crime are within our LEGAL system as there is a definistion of 1st offense and 2nd offense when it comes to illegal entry.

1st is a misdemeanor
2nd is then classified as a Felony.

My confusion again. Is if an illegal is an illegal..... we take CC&C... but NOT jurisdiction as WE should DEPORT immediately. Does THAT now mean they are NOT under our jurisdiction. So "like you said we cannot arrest them" So why do we even hold them, JUST IMMEDIATELY Deport?


I guess we make our own rules and follow when it applies.

As Session implied 100% accountability / Zero Tolerance?


if Jurisdiction is the question. Then Care Custody & Control is our process on intake, We dont "arrest" We process then deport, NO jurisdiction NOR 14th amendment claims?
 
Exactice said:
Is citizenship not a Right of Said Government?

?
Click to expand...

No.. the government exists by the privilege of its citizens.. not the other way around.

Birth Right is one thing.....

Citizenship is Another thing... Should those 2 be connected?

Not by laws or regulations, but purely on your BIRTH?

I mean you can be a legal born Citizen and CHOOSE to renounce your citizenship right? The Government CANT force you to maintain it if you so choose.

But if you WANT citizenship would it NOT be the right of the Government that "Offers" the citizenship to at least VET the process in which you obtain your citizenship?
Click to expand...

Absolutely... IF you want to have a free country.. absolutely!.. IF its the right of the "government to offer citizenship and vet the process"..., then you functionally have no rights.. until the government then deems to grant them to you. NOW the government is in control of your rights. Government doesn't like folks that are conservative? Great.. their children (who are more likely to be conservative).. have a harder time being vetted by the government. And so on.

With birthright citizenship.. I and anyone else born in the US.. IS a citizen.. and has rights to address the courts, the law, the government officials etc.. in other words.. its more of a natural right. Anyone borne here.. has rights.

without birthright citizenship.. the government can decide who has rights.. and who does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom