|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Trump's Immigration Plan (8/22/2015 5:34:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:
No, I don't feel both are necessary, especially when they oppose each other.
How would it be possible for them to oppose one another? Correct me if I am mistaken but when a law is proposed isn't there debate(in committee and on the floor)and finally a vote is taken and the votes are tallied. Wouldn't you agree that knowledge of the process from start to finish would be more useful than simply the tally?
Gee, I don't know....
Obamacare subsidies? As written, they are only for those who sign up on the State-run exchanges.
Intent (as deduced by the SCOTUS in opposition to Gruber's allegations) was for subsidies to be available to anyone signing up on a State-run or Federal-run exchange.
Clearly, those two things oppose each other.
If you want to go through the discussion process to figure things out, are you still going to argue that the 14th Amendment wasn't intended to include children of illegal aliens?quote:
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
quote:
quote:
I don't know that slaves were illegal aliens. Please cite your source demonstrating that we knew them as illegals.
How shall we define illegal alien? I think it fair to say that a citizen cannot be an illegal alien. Also fair to say that a tourist could not be an illegal alien as they would have had official papers (passport/visa) declaring their intent to return to their country of origin. They clearly are not citizens, as defined by the constitution. They are clearly not tourist, as they hold no passport nor visa. They have no status except that of non-citizen,non tourist...if one is in the U.S. today and they are not a citizen nor a document holder of some sort one is an illegal alien.
quote:
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
According to the article, there was no limitation on immigration.
So, where do you get that the newly freed slaves were "illegal aliens?"
|
|
|
|
