Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to gavaster's blog Subscribe


Special Features


#101 | POSTED BY DANN - Thin skinned much? lol Read the rest of my comment. Sheesh. Here I'll copy it for you since you won't go find at seeing as you were too lazy to finish reading it in the first place..."(cheap shot I know, but it's funny. Yes I know other President's used them extensively and we can discuss that in a different thread)".

#90 | POSTED BY RCADE - The Naturalization Act prohibited one from becoming naturalized, a U.S. citizen, not from immigration. It didn't say no one from Asian descent can move to America and live here. But it did limit U.S. citizenship. Based on the reading of the law it seems Wong's parent's intention was to live here and have him born here thus qualifying him as a U.S. citizen. So I'm not so certain the assertion they were here illegally is accurate.

On a final note what I've found is several things.
First off, America acknowledges jus soli, by right of soil, as a basis for citizenship, regardless of plainly worded English in the Constitution.
Secondly, parents being illegal as it pertains to immigration laws and the 14th has not been argued for withholding citizenship in a case before the S.C. yet.
And finally, and I quote, "Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace". And the following "a study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents".

In light of these facts, I can see in our near future, immigration especially being at the fore-front of discussion at this time, citizenship being restricted to jus sanguinis with limited jus soli.

#77 | POSTED BY RCADE - Have you read it? Wong Kim Ark was a discussion of a child born to legal immigrants. Not the same. Even so, right in the middle of the ruling...

"The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins...

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance; that, by the Constitution, as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States,"

Illegals immigrants don't owe America allegiance. Legal immigrants do. I think they have a case to end anchor babies.

I just read a large portion of the opinion given. There is room, IMO, to end dual citizenship of those born in America by people here illegally. That's the angle being taken. Is that the case now? No one is arguing it's not. Would it case ending citizenship by birth be retro-active? Seriously doubt it. What I am saying is it has not been argued from the point of an illegal immigrant residing in the U.S. illegally based solely on the "subject to jurisdiction" clause. Either way, I believe citizenship by birth should be eliminated.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable