Immigration Rallies Planned Nationwide

[Ituyu]

Quote:
Verismilitude

Keep trying. What went on at Ellis Island is lawfull tradition. The question above remains. Either you make the parents citizens too, or you deny citizenship to the child by ammending the Constitution. Keep in mind it only needs ammending because people like you read more into it than was intended and have applied it inappropriately. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Except that the issue pre-dates our birth as a Nation. What we’re talking about is based on Common Law. The Accident of Birth always gave citizenship rights, with few exceptions. None of those exceptions apply to citizens born within our borders of legal or “illegal” aliens currently under this discussion.

I disagree with:
Quote:
To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions.

See you in US court.

This challenge has already been made and it has FAILED. The article that has been offered here was an excerpt from the testimony of Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General. The Attorney Generals Office:

“…. drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the executive branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality
usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

 

[Ituyu]

Your quoted reference does not support that statement. What is your definition?

Thsi defines citizen pretty well:
Quote:
Main Entry: cit·i·zen
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-tə-zən also -sən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English citizein, from Anglo-French citezein, alteration of citeien, from cité city
Date: 14th century
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state
— cit·i·zen·ly -zən-lē also -sən-\ adjective
synonyms citizen, subject, national mean a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. **citizen is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people . **subject implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch <the king’s subjects>. national designates one who may claim the protection of a state and applies especially to one living or traveling outside that state .

According to the definition number two above. A person born within our borders is a NATIVE and thus a CITIZEN.

Try this link:
bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/citizenship/index.html

• Aliens: Aliens are people who have left (emigrated) a foreign country to the United States.

• Note the above says nothing about legal or illegal status.

---

QUOTE]** They have some of the same freedoms and legal rights as U.S. citizens**

, but they cannot vote in elections**

• Allows for Rigths.

---

National:

American nationals are natives of American territorial possessions. They have all the legal protections which citizens have, but they do not have the full political rights of US citizens.**

• NOT APPLICABLE TO MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS.

---

**Citizens: **

Persons born in the U.S. or to U.S. citizens in foreign countries are citizens of the United States. Persons born in other countries who want to become citizens must applyfor and pass a citizenship test. Those who become citizens in this manner are naturalized citizens.**
Again, your link proves you wrong. Natural born persons within our borders are citizens.

Of if that is too far above your pay grade, try this one:
http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library…ration_01.html

To be eligible for U.S. citizenship, you have held a green card for the past 5 years

BUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ALREADY……CITIZENS!

 

[Ituyu]

This is interesting:

http://travel.state.gov/family/adopt…/info_448.html
U.S. citizenship for both biological and adopted children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad and who do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

You see, even your links don’t agree with YOUR definition. None of these allow us to deprive NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of their U S CITIZENSHIP.

 

[Ituyu]

Are you saying you want to grant citizenship for immigrants other than meet these requiremens?

Quote:
You have been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least 5 years.
You have been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least 3 years AND:

You have been married to and living with the same U.S. citizen for the last 3 years; AND
Your spouse has been a U.S. citizen for the last 3 years.

You are a person who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces AND:

You are a Lawful Permanent Resident with at least 1 year of U.S. Armed Forces service and you are either on active duty or filing within 6 months of honorable discharge; OR
You served in the Armed Forces for less than 1 year OR you served in the Armed Forces for 1 year or more, but you were discharged more than 6 months ago. Under this class, you must also have 5 years as a Permanent Resident without leaving the U.S. for trips of 6 months or longer. (Note: If you were out of the country as part of your service, this time out of the country does not break your “continuous residence.” It is treated just like time spent in the United States.); OR
You served during a period of recognized hostilities and enlisted or re-enlisted in the United States (you do not need to be a Lawful Permanent Resident).

You are a member of one of several other groups who are eligible to apply for naturalization (for example, persons who are nationals but not citizens of the United States).

Additional Requirements:

Demonstrating that you have good moral character;

Demonstrating knowledge of U.S, government and history (civics);

Demonstrating attachment to the U.S. by taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution;
A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;

Residence in a particular state or district prior to filing; and

An ability to read, write, and speak English.

Are these unreasonable requirements?

What does the above have to do with NATURAL born CITIZENS ?

“First, because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution. A bill such as H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995), the “Citizenship Reform Act of 1995,” that purports to deny citizenship by birth to persons born within the jurisdiction of this country is unconstitutional on its face

Second,…… “[a]s far as I know . . . you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the ‘accident of birth’ – the fact that we happened to be born in the United States.” (5) Today, in 1995, we cannot and should not try to solve the difficult problems illegal immigration poses by denying citizenship to persons whose claim to be recognized as Americans rests on the same constitutional footing as that of any natural-born citizen.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

Cont’d

 

[Ituyu]

AND the CONSTITUTIONAL protections afforded to all those within our borders?

“The First Amendment encompasses the right to advocate ideas, to speak freely, to associate with whomever one chooses, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. 74] Such activities are protected against blanket prohibitions and from restrictions based upon government opposition to the content of the idea expressed, or the identity of the speaker. 75] The First Amendment functions to protect the "unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” 76] The application of the Amendment is not intended to be limited. Resident aliens and undocumented aliens with substantial ties to the United States belong to the national community and, as such, enjoy the rights afforded by the First Amendment. 77]"

ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CAofUSAPA.html#ID

 

[Verisimilitude]

BUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ALREADY……CITIZENS!

I didn’t argue that, but noted the 14th Amendment didn’t extend to the illegal parents who were marching with their natural born citizen children in those marches. I accept those children are full US citizens because the law is being interpreted that way. Inappropriately, in my opinion.

I also see you too, are only concerned about Mexican Nationals and not other illegal immigrants.

 

[Verisimilitude]

You see, even your links don’t agree with YOUR definition. None of these allow us to deprive NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of their U S CITIZENSHIP.

I accept they are.

What about their parents? Are they citizens by proxy? Are you suggesting the millions that marched were all the legal Citizen children who DO have the right to assemble and protest the government, and NOT any illegal non-US parents currently in the USA?

If all those who marched were leagal US citizens I support their right to do so. If they were mostly non-citizens, as is widely acknowledged, then no, they do not have the right to assemble and protest.

My link is applicable to the parents and others not naturalized. Deflecting it to the children is telling. The anguish you feel is misplaced. Ammend the 14th to give citizenship of the child in the nationality of the parents. Or, ammend it to make the parents much less the others- legal by association. The 14th is clear. It does not extend to the parents or the others.

Why should amnesty and legalization be given?

Or are you of the opinion amnesty be given for a very specific group; Mexican Nationals, and legalization and/or citizenship is an option to the Mexican National?

Is everyone willing to say the Oath?

The Oath of Allegiance

 

[Ituyu]

Versimilitude,

I didn’t argue that, but noted the 14th Amendment didn’t extend to the illegal parents who were marching with their natural born citizen children in those marches

Then you’re involved in an internal conflict with yourself. Nobody on this board has said that the 14th Amendment gave foreign nationals birth rights. Natural born citizens within our borders are not foreign nationals, they’re citizens. The status of the parents is not changed by the 14th Amendment.

I accept those children are full US citizens because the law is being interpreted that way. Inappropriately, in my opinion.

The US Supreme Court has decided this issue. The 14th Amendment was DECLATORY. We never had the power to deny citizenship to natural born citizens, as the Dred Scott decision had done.

“Since the Civil War, America has thrived as a republic of free and equal citizens. This would no longer be true if we were to amend our Constitution in a way that would create a permanent caste of aliens, generation after generation after generation born in America but never to be among its citizens. To have citizenship in one’s own right, by birth upon this soil, is fundamental to our liberty as we understand it. In America, a country that rejected monarchy, each person is born equal, with no curse of infirmity, and with no exalted status, arising from the circumstance of his or her parentage. All who have the fortune to be born in this land inherit the right, save by their own renunciation of it, to its freedoms and protections. Congress has the power to propose an amendment changing these basic principles. But it should hesitate long before so fundamentally altering our republic.”
usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS NOT ONLY APPROPRIATE IT WAS THE ONLY CONCLUSION IT COULD MAKE.

I also see you too, are only concerned about Mexican Nationals and not other illegal immigrants

I think this is once again a product of your personal demons. Immigrations Reform would set a criteria for ALL the “illegal”, not just Mexican Nationals.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;2214161:

You see, even your links don’t agree with YOUR definition. None of these allow us to deprive NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of their U S CITIZENSHIP.

Ituyu;2214161:

I accept they are.

Who knows what you mean?

What about their parents? Are they citizens by proxy?

The 14th Amendment DOES NOT address this issue.

Are you suggesting the millions that marched were all the legal Citizen children

NOPE! But I was there May of 2006.

who DO have the right to assemble and protest the government,

Yes you are correct they do have First Amendment Rights.

and NOT any illegal non-US parents currently in the USA?

If you’re saying that only Citizens or legal aliens have First Amendment Rights, then no you are wrong. The Supreme Court has already made the determination that First Amendment Rights extend to all “persons” within our borders.

If all those who marched were leagal US citizens I support their right to do so. If they were mostly non-citizens, as is widely acknowledged, then no, they do not have the right to assemble and protest.

Fortunately, we have a Constitution to protect our freedoms.

My link is applicable to the parents and others not naturalized

.

I suppose you want points for trying but you’ll get none from me.

Deflecting it to the children

is telling.

AS far as I know 100% of births are babies which makes them all children so there is no deflection.

The anguish you feel is misplaced.

No anguish here.

Ammend the 14th to give citizenship of the child in the nationality of the parents.

That would be unconstitutional. In other words, that can’t happen under the Constitution. We would have to against our Constitution in order to accomplish that.

Or, ammend it to make the parents much less the others- legal by association.

Again, the 14th Amendment does not affect the status of the parents.

 

[Ituyu]

The 14th is clear. It does not extend to the parents or the others.

As far as I know you’re the ONLY person to say that it does.

Why should amnesty and legalization be given?

Because our system is broken and we need to bring people out of the shadows and integrate them into our social political system.

Or are you of the opinion amnesty be given for a very specific group; Mexican Nationals, and legalization and/or citizenship is an option to the Mexican National?

First, I don’t consider Immigration Reform “amnesty”. Second, Immigration Reform is inclusive.

Is everyone willing to say the Oath?

The Oath of Allegiance

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

That is the debate.

This is hardly the debate. A CITIZENSHIP OATH is separate from applying for legal entry and it is also different from changing “illegal” to legal status. At the time they become citizens, they should be able to recite an oath. I don’t know if it is necessary since Citizenship for these people can be revoked under certain circumstances, oath or no oath.

So would you exclude all those that do not believe in God?

“that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and** domestic**

”

**Some of us are doing just that right now! **

 

[geezerbob]

Here’s a story about a group of Mexicans who exercised their God given right to ignore man made boundaries and came to this country to work hard and improve their way of life. You’re right, the system is broken and is desperately in need of repair.

thestate.com/426/story/63354.html

 

[Verisimilitude]

Then you’re involved in an internal conflict with yourself. Nobody on this board has said that the 14th Amendment gave foreign nationals birth rights. Natural born citizens within our borders are not foreign nationals, they’re citizens. The status of the parents is not changed by the 14th Amendment.

So you agree, the 14th does not give Mexican Nationals the right to assemble and protest the US government on US soil?

The US Supreme Court has decided this issue. The 14th Amendment was DECLATORY. We never had the power to deny citizenship to natural born citizens, as the Dred Scott decision had done.

Thats why I said I’ll see you in court. American citizens do have that right.

“Since the Civil War, America has thrived as a republic of free and equal citizens. This would no longer be true if we were to amend our Constitution in a way that would create a permanent caste of aliens, generation after generation after generation born in America but never to be among its citizens. To have citizenship in one’s own right, by birth upon this soil, is fundamental to our liberty as we understand it. In America, a country that rejected monarchy, each person is born equal, with no curse of infirmity, and with no exalted status, arising from the circumstance of his or her parentage. All who have the fortune to be born in this land inherit the right, save by their own renunciation of it, to its freedoms and protections. Congress has the power to propose an amendment changing these basic principles. But it should hesitate long before so fundamentally altering our republic.” [ http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS NOT ONLY APPROPRIATE IT WAS THE ONLY CONCLUSION IT COULD MAKE.](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm)

The fortune to be born in this land is not a lottery. Even the above quote suggests amending the Amendment is a legal option afforded to US citizens.

I think this is once again a product of your personal demons. Immigrations Reform would set a criteria for ALL the “illegal”, not just Mexican Nationals

No personal demon here. Let’s be clear; are you suggesting illegal Syrians in the US should be granted citizenship and legalization under your idea of immigration reform?

 

[Verisimilitude]

If you’re saying that only Citizens or legal aliens have First Amendment Rights, then no you are wrong. The Supreme Court has already made the determination that First Amendment Rights extend to all “persons” within our borders.

Fortunately, we have a Constitution to protect our freedoms.

Define “our”. And you are wrong. Read your own citations more fully. Since you now seem to suggest it is not specific to Mexican Natinals only, would 500,000 illegal Iranians in the US have the right to protest the US government?

I suppose you want points for trying but you’ll get none from me.

A person of integrity would acknowledge that the Constitution of the US is specific to US citizens and not foreign Nationals, despite the fact that the US affords many of the personal protections to non-citizens as a matter of fairness and equality. That is very different than claiming all rights afforded to legal citizens are also afforded to illegal foreign nationals.

AS far as I know 100% of births are babies which makes them all children so there is no deflection.

What do you do with the illegal parents of legal US citizens?

No anguish here.

Then why are you fighting for foreign nationals to be granted citizenship outside of the lawfull manner?

That would be unconstitutional. In other words, that can’t happen under the Constitution. We would have to against our Constitution in order to accomplish that.

No, it would not be unconstitutional if the law is followed to amend the Constitution. That is the point you seem to be missing. What then should happen to all of the illegal parents?

Again, the 14th Amendment does not affect the status of the parents.

So what should happen to them? And what of the illegal immigrants that are not parents of American citizens? What of the average illegal in the US? How does the 14th, 5th & 6th & 1st Amendments affect them?

 

[Verisimilitude]

As far as I know you’re the ONLY person to say that it does.

Great, then you agree that the 14th does not apply to Mexican Nationals, just as it does not apply to other foreign nationals. You should also agree that as curently applied the 14th is responsible for breaking up families. Do you think that is a good thing as currently applied- making the child a citizen and not the partents?

Because our system is broken and we need to bring people out of the shadows and integrate them into our social political system.

It’s only broken because we do not enforce the current laws. I’d be happy if we just enforced current law without new ones. Why don’t you?

First, I don’t consider Immigration Reform “amnesty”. Second, Immigration Reform is inclusive.

Does your view of immigration reform include amnesty- blanket legalization for all illegal immigrants currently in the US? Does that extend to illegal Iranian/Syrian/Etheopian/Iraqi/Pakistani/Russian… foreign nationals or only Mexican foreign nationals? How about otehr South American foreign nationals?

This is hardly the debate. A CITIZENSHIP OATH is separate from applying for legal entry and it is also different from changing “illegal” to legal status. At the time they become citizens, they should be able to recite an oath. I don’t know if it is necessary since Citizenship for these people can be revoked under certain circumstances, oath or no oath.

So are you making a distinction between all those asking for legalization and asking for citizenship? Is it one in the same, or do you want leagl to work in the US without becoming a citizen?

So would you exclude all those that do not believe in God?

No, only those taking such an oath with intent to not abide by it. If their alligence remains to a foreing country like Mexico, yes I would deny them citizenship. Wouldn’t you?

protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

Some of us are doing just that right now!

I am trying to protect the US from foreign as well as domestic enemies: 20+ million illegal non-US citizens in the US trying to unduly influence and change US law. Included in that number are other foreign nationals besides Mexican nationals that do not just want employment but want to do harm to America. How do you separate out the bad from the good?

 

[Ituyu]

So you agree, the 14th does not give Mexican Nationals the right to assemble and protest the US government on US soil?

Only because it’s not the subject of that amendment.

Thats why I said I’ll see you in court. American citizens do have that right.

 

[Ituyu]

Define “our”. And you are wrong. Read your own citations more fully. Since you now seem to suggest it is not specific to Mexican Natinals only, would 500,000 illegal Iranians in the US have the right to protest the US government?

ABSOLUTELY.

A person of integrity would acknowledge that the Constitution of the US is specific to US citizens and not foreign Nationals, despite the fact that the US affords many of the personal protections to non-citizens as a matter of fairness and equality. That is very different than claiming all rights afforded to legal citizens are also afforded to illegal foreign nationals.

 

[Ituyu]

Great, then you agree that the 14th does not apply to Mexican Nationals, just as it does not apply to other foreign nationals.

It applies to their children only. You’re the only one that says that the amendment applies to Mexican Nationals so you’re the one that has to accept that it doesn’t apply.

You should also agree that as curently applied the 14th is responsible for breaking up families.

No, because the Amendment does not address that issue.

Do you think that is a good thing as currently applied- making the child a citizen and not the partents?

The amendment address only birth rights. It can’t then apply to the parent.

It’s only broken because we do not enforce the current laws. I’d be happy if we just enforced current law without new ones

.

No the system is broken because the laws do not operate under the Rule of Law and do not work. It’s senseless to continue to attempt to enforce laws that don’t work. Without new laws the system cannot work.

Why don’t you?

See the above.

Does your view of immigration reform include amnesty- blanket legalization for all illegal immigrants currently in the US?

Of course not and neither do the proposals currently under consideration.

Does that extend to illegal Iranian/Syrian/Etheopian/Iraqi/Pakistani/Russian… foreign nationals or only Mexican foreign nationals?

Yes, to all currently here illegally.

How about otehr South American foreign nationals?

To all.

So are you making a distinction between all those asking for legalization and asking for citizenship?

Immigration Reform only provides a path to citizenship. They still have to qualify under the program and they still have to meet the requirements for citizenship. Though I do believe that those who have been here the longest could be Naturalized.

 

[Ituyu]

Is it one in the same, or do you want leagl to work in the US without becoming a citizen?

It should not be a requirement to become a “citizen” in order to work here.

No, only those taking such an oath with intent to not abide by it. If their alligence remains to a foreing country like Mexico, yes I would deny them citizenship. Wouldn’t you?

I don’t think that one can tell that by an oath but would be nice if we could.

I am trying to protect the US from foreign as well as domestic enemies: 20+ million illegal non-US citizens in the US trying to unduly influence and change US law.

I don’t see how exercising one’s Constitutional Rights can be deemed “unduly” by anyone. I think those people who try to limit Constitutional Rights are actually attacking the Constitution. I’m defending the Constitution by acknowledging their right to Free Speech.

Included in that number are other foreign nationals besides Mexican nationals that do not just want employment but want to do harm to America

.

We’re not going to protect this country by wasting security resources on people who are not terrorist threats.

How do you separate out the bad from the good?

One of the ways to help is to channel the flow from the borders to a legalization process that will give us an opportunity to weed them out and make it easier to detect the “bad” in those that remain. Since all the 9/ll terrorists came in legally we need to make some changes in those procedures as well.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Only because it’s not the subject of that amendment.

What law is pertinent?

Amendment I—?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The people are legal US citizens. Not foreign nationals.

Amendment II----?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Same here, the people are legal US citizens. Not illegal foreign nationals.

Amendment IV----?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people here are specific to US citizens though these protectins have been extended to any person regardless of staus. Read the Patriot Act for more.

Amendment V—?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All of these laws were written with respect to US citizens. As it has nothing to do with the right to assemble or protest- when they are arrested for illegally assembling and protesting, we extend these same protections to them. Big difference.

Since the Freedom of Speech is not the subject of Free Speech, I don’t see how.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble is important with respect to who “the people” are. Because it is the preamble to all the laws that follow, the definition of people in the law is subject to the meaning that preceeds it. All the laws, Amendments…apply to people of the United States. Mexican nationals are not legal people of the US.

If they qualify, sure

.

See above. Define what they qualifications are. I’ll remind you, I have already cited the qualifications and requirements already required by law to become a US citizen and anyone here currently illegal is disqualified by the nature of being here illegally.

Does that show good moral character?

 

[Verisimilitude]

ABSOLUTELY.