|
Post by The Resister on Mar 6, 2024 20:54:04 GMT
" Children born in the United States become citizens regardless of the immigration status of the parents. So, to repeat from the previous post, the first immigration law passed in the United States limited citizenship to "free white persons" and today children born in this country where their parents are undocumented still get to be citizens of the United States by virtue of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment." Here is a question I have. You claim the first immigration law limited citizenship to free white persons, this is in reference to the 1790 Bill passed by Congress. Yet, you've argued that the federal govt usurped the states powers to control immigration via the passenger cases from 1849. Then you argue The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government over immigration concerns in 1875. thefreespeechforum.com/threads/matt-gaetz-makes-stunning-move-in-congress-%E2%80%93-new-bill-is-a-huge-step-forward-for-top-right.24322/#post-499760So if the federal government created the first immigration law in 1790, which would indicate that they have authority over immigration into the US, then the rest of your claims are inherently mute and shows you really don't have a clue about immigration law simply because your arguments and claims don't make sense. What are we suppose to believe about immigration law form you? How can you be taken serious in regards to immigration information if you contradict your own claims? When these things are pointed out to you, why do you get so defensive and become the "tuff guy of the interwebs"? Do you get my point? REPLYAfter more than a decade of flaming me and calling me a moron, NOW you ask questions?Why not make this easy for everyone: Liberty - an unalienable Right Citizenship - a status granted by the government Immigration - the coming into another country for the purposes of permanent residencerights - Not to be confused with Rights especially unalienable Rights are granted by the governmentWho comes and goes within a state is the state's business. If someone wants to become a permanent resident and establish citizenship, it is a federal matter. OTOH, the federal government has no de jure authority to dictate to any state who may come and go within the state's boundaries. States are (under a de jure rendering of our Constitution) to protect their borders and regulate who comes and goes within same. If someone wants to come in, work and partake of opportunities willingly offered, that is the state's business. In that rendering, Gov. Abbott is well within his legal rights to man his state border. Conversely, if a state (such as Georgia) requires any number of migrant workers, they have a constitutional right to offer them seasonal jobs. Anything less would be a violation of the unalienable Right of Liberty of both individual employers and the migrants who are offered the jobs. The United States kept this under control for many decades before they started passing ridiculous legislation, issuing regulatory measures and getting the courts involved. Now they want to resolve the issue with a quota system on one hand and anti-discrimination laws on the other? We want to force people to become citizens and we want to then claim the quota system exists for a reason? Yeah it sure does. It's aim was a genocidal reduction of the Whites in this country. We're just scratching the surface.
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 6, 2024 21:34:59 GMT
REPLYAfter more than a decade of flaming me and calling me a moron, NOW you ask questions?Why not make this easy for everyone: Liberty - an unalienable Right Citizenship - a status granted by the government Immigration - the coming into another country for the purposes of permanent residencerights - Not to be confused with Rights especially unalienable Rights are granted by the governmentWho comes and goes within a state is the state's business. If someone wants to become a permanent resident and establish citizenship, it is a federal matter. OTOH, the federal government has no de jure authority to dictate to any state who may come and go within the state's boundaries. States are (under a de jure rendering of our Constitution) to protect their borders and regulate who comes and goes within same. If someone wants to come in, work and partake of opportunities willingly offered, that is the state's business. In that rendering, Gov. Abbott is well within his legal rights to man his state border. Conversely, if a state (such as Georgia) requires any number of migrant workers, they have a constitutional right to offer them seasonal jobs. Anything less would be a violation of the unalienable Right of Liberty of both individual employers and the migrants who are offered the jobs. The United States kept this under control for many decades before they started passing ridiculous legislation, issuing regulatory measures and getting the courts involved. Now they want to resolve the issue with a quota system on one hand and anti-discrimination laws on the other? We want to force people to become citizens and we want to then claim the quota system exists for a reason? Yeah it sure does. It's aim was a genocidal reduction of the Whites in this country. We're just scratching the surface. I've always asked questions, you never answered them, and when pointed out you flipped out. You are confusing the freedom of movement within the US to claiming that foreigners have freedom of movement to this country. The states do not have the right nor the authority to dictate who enters their adjoining borders. If you are within the US you have the freedom of movement within the continental US. States can not regulate international immigration, it is a federal responsibility. According to your statements you are exclaiming that the states control the means of production by offering seasonal jobs to foreigners (Communism?), when in fact the farmer or employer has the ability to apply for seasonal workers under the H2A for ag, or H2B for most other types of jobs. As to Abbot and Texas, with the federal government failing to protect the US border, they are derelict in their duties, Texas under the invasion clause of the US Constitution is implementing authority. The SCOTUS ruled BP can cut the concertina, but never said Texas couldn't put it right back up. Texas also has control of its state parks, where the feds can't gain access either. All the courts did was confirm what was already there, the federal government has control of immigration and can regulate it, as you said the first immigration law was implemented in 1790 with the Naturalization Act, thus cementing the federal government having control over immigration into the US. What quota system? What anti-discrimination laws? Does the US not have the ability to regulate who may enter the US? (You contradict yourself here by claiming states can allow entry to whomever they want, but then decry we are losing our whiteness.) Are we not a sovereign nation? Who do we want to become citizens? There is a way to come to this country legally, and a way to legally become a citizen, its kept to about 1M per year, a miniscule number based on our population. Genocide of whites in this country? whites still are the majority in this country. The majority of new citizens are also white.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 7, 2024 3:22:49 GMT
REPLYAfter more than a decade of flaming me and calling me a moron, NOW you ask questions?Why not make this easy for everyone: Liberty - an unalienable Right Citizenship - a status granted by the government Immigration - the coming into another country for the purposes of permanent residencerights - Not to be confused with Rights especially unalienable Rights are granted by the governmentWho comes and goes within a state is the state's business. If someone wants to become a permanent resident and establish citizenship, it is a federal matter. OTOH, the federal government has no de jure authority to dictate to any state who may come and go within the state's boundaries. States are (under a de jure rendering of our Constitution) to protect their borders and regulate who comes and goes within same. If someone wants to come in, work and partake of opportunities willingly offered, that is the state's business. In that rendering, Gov. Abbott is well within his legal rights to man his state border. Conversely, if a state (such as Georgia) requires any number of migrant workers, they have a constitutional right to offer them seasonal jobs. Anything less would be a violation of the unalienable Right of Liberty of both individual employers and the migrants who are offered the jobs. The United States kept this under control for many decades before they started passing ridiculous legislation, issuing regulatory measures and getting the courts involved. Now they want to resolve the issue with a quota system on one hand and anti-discrimination laws on the other? We want to force people to become citizens and we want to then claim the quota system exists for a reason? Yeah it sure does. It's aim was a genocidal reduction of the Whites in this country. We're just scratching the surface. I've always asked questions, you never answered them, and when pointed out you flipped out. You are confusing the freedom of movement within the US to claiming that foreigners have freedom of movement to this country. The states do not have the right nor the authority to dictate who enters their adjoining borders. If you are within the US you have the freedom of movement within the continental US. States can not regulate international immigration, it is a federal responsibility. According to your statements you are exclaiming that the states control the means of production by offering seasonal jobs to foreigners (Communism?), when in fact the farmer or employer has the ability to apply for seasonal workers under the H2A for ag, or H2B for most other types of jobs. As to Abbot and Texas, with the federal government failing to protect the US border, they are derelict in their duties, Texas under the invasion clause of the US Constitution is implementing authority. The SCOTUS ruled BP can cut the concertina, but never said Texas couldn't put it right back up. Texas also has control of its state parks, where the feds can't gain access either. All the courts did was confirm what was already there, the federal government has control of immigration and can regulate it, as you said the first immigration law was implemented in 1790 with the Naturalization Act, thus cementing the federal government having control over immigration into the US. What quota system? What anti-discrimination laws? Does the US not have the ability to regulate who may enter the US? (You contradict yourself here by claiming states can allow entry to whomever they want, but then decry we are losing our whiteness.) Are we not a sovereign nation? Who do we want to become citizens? There is a way to come to this country legally, and a way to legally become a citizen, its kept to about 1M per year, a miniscule number based on our population. Genocide of whites in this country? whites still are the majority in this country. The majority of new citizens are also white. In what sentence did anyone on this thread talk about states dictating a damn thing?
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 4:01:53 GMT
I've always asked questions, you never answered them, and when pointed out you flipped out. You are confusing the freedom of movement within the US to claiming that foreigners have freedom of movement to this country. The states do not have the right nor the authority to dictate who enters their adjoining borders. If you are within the US you have the freedom of movement within the continental US. States can not regulate international immigration, it is a federal responsibility. According to your statements you are exclaiming that the states control the means of production by offering seasonal jobs to foreigners (Communism?), when in fact the farmer or employer has the ability to apply for seasonal workers under the H2A for ag, or H2B for most other types of jobs. As to Abbot and Texas, with the federal government failing to protect the US border, they are derelict in their duties, Texas under the invasion clause of the US Constitution is implementing authority. The SCOTUS ruled BP can cut the concertina, but never said Texas couldn't put it right back up. Texas also has control of its state parks, where the feds can't gain access either. All the courts did was confirm what was already there, the federal government has control of immigration and can regulate it, as you said the first immigration law was implemented in 1790 with the Naturalization Act, thus cementing the federal government having control over immigration into the US. What quota system? What anti-discrimination laws? Does the US not have the ability to regulate who may enter the US? (You contradict yourself here by claiming states can allow entry to whomever they want, but then decry we are losing our whiteness.) Are we not a sovereign nation? Who do we want to become citizens? There is a way to come to this country legally, and a way to legally become a citizen, its kept to about 1M per year, a miniscule number based on our population. Genocide of whites in this country? whites still are the majority in this country. The majority of new citizens are also white. In what sentence did anyone on this thread talk about states dictating a damn thing? Where does that even come from? Maybe you should have disputed what I stated or answered the questions I posed, funny how you chose to create some off the wall claim. That's very telling. By the way, don't let your handler see that you responded to me, you might make him upset with you.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 7, 2024 4:23:47 GMT
While immigration has a specific definition, the legal community has worked to expand that definition for eons. Still, there are remnants of our constitutional Republic that shed some light on the truth. For example, there is no Right to vote in a federal election. Registering to vote is a state matter. When the states don't exert their authority, the Right of the people prevails as per the Tenth Amendment. " The District of Columbia and municipalities in three states allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of June 2023: California, Maryland, and Vermont." ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_StatesOnly federal citizens can vote in a federal election; however, the states can extend the privilege of voting to non-citizens. This is not a new phenomenon in American history. Probably half a dozen states allowed non-citizens (and non - Whites) to cast votes, so does the state extending the privilege of voting make one a citizen? When we argue race, my critics are quick to point out that Blacks and other non-citizens were given the privilege of voting in Colonial times, ergo must have been citizens. I disagree. That states can grant certain privileges to non-federal citizens shows that the states have control of who can come and go within a state. And that is not citizenship. People who come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered are not immigrants nor should the immigration laws be applied to them. State and local control... THAT is the best way to solve the problem. People traveling and working jobs does not equal immigration. That, in my mind, was one of the great flaws of Chy Lung v. Freeman wherein the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration and then made the word mean any travel by foreigners inside the United States. I'm still looking for that section of the Constitution giving the United States Supreme Court any jurisdiction to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise, to any other branch of government.
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 4:53:35 GMT
Only federal citizens can vote in a federal election; however, the states can extend the privilege of voting to non-citizens. This is not a new phenomenon in American history. Probably half a dozen states allowed non-citizens (and non - Whites) to cast votes, so does the state extending the privilege of voting make one a citizen? When we argue race, my critics are quick to point out that Blacks and other non-citizens were given the privilege of voting in Colonial times, ergo must have been citizens. I disagree. That states can grant certain privileges to non-federal citizens shows that the states have control of who can come and go within a state. And that is not citizenship. People who come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered are not immigrants nor should the immigration laws be applied to them. State and local control... THAT is the best way to solve the problem. People traveling and working jobs does not equal immigration. Only 2 states as of now allow non-citizens to vote in local elections Maryland and Vermont ( California was denied the ability: In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here), i.e. school boards, dog catcher, etc, they are not allowed to vote in municipal, state elections, or federal elections. Those allowances are being ran through the courts and are getting denied in every venue, thus denying the localities to allow foreigners to vote, New York just denied them in 2022. Extending the right to vote should be denied in Maryland and Vermont to foreigners in local elections soon enough. Some Blacks did have voting rights during colonial times all the way up through today, from the municipal level all the way up to the state and federal level. Some blacks were entitled to all the privilege's of a citizen. The difference here is that Blacks were allowed to vote in Federal Elections in colonial times, as state constitutions state, where as those here today as foreigners are very limited in only 2 states and DC and only at the very local of levels. State Constitutions made them citizens in colonial times. States gave up the right to control their interior borders when they signed onto the US Constitution. Does the US not have any sovereignty? As to your opinion: That, in my mind, was one of the great flaws of Chy Lung v. Freeman wherein the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration and then made the word mean any travel by foreigners inside the United States. I'm still looking for that section of the Constitution giving the United States Supreme Court any jurisdiction to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise, to any other branch of government. Then its a good thing your mind isn't one that makes law or is relied upon regarding law. SCOTUS in Chy Lung merely confirmed what was already admitted, the federal government has control over immigration (the 1790 Naturalization Act that you claimed was the first immigration law in the US).
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Mar 7, 2024 15:52:55 GMT
In what sentence did anyone on this thread talk about states dictating a damn thing? Where does that even come from? Where did I even use that word? Maybe you should have disputed what I stated or answered the questions I posed, funny how you chose to create some off the wall claim. That's very telling. By the way, don't let your handler see that you responded to me, you might make him upset with you. Since you denied saying what you did your post was moved to the humor forum - you claim you did not say it so that was posted by a ghost and that was meant to be funny. Thanks John.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Mar 7, 2024 15:58:28 GMT
Only federal citizens can vote in a federal election; however, the states can extend the privilege of voting to non-citizens. This is not a new phenomenon in American history. Probably half a dozen states allowed non-citizens (and non - Whites) to cast votes, so does the state extending the privilege of voting make one a citizen? When we argue race, my critics are quick to point out that Blacks and other non-citizens were given the privilege of voting in Colonial times, ergo must have been citizens. I disagree. That states can grant certain privileges to non-federal citizens shows that the states have control of who can come and go within a state. And that is not citizenship. People who come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered are not immigrants nor should the immigration laws be applied to them. State and local control... THAT is the best way to solve the problem. People traveling and working jobs does not equal immigration. Only 2 states as of now allow non-citizens to vote in local elections Maryland and Vermont ( California was denied the ability: In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here), i.e. school boards, dog catcher, etc, they are not allowed to vote in municipal, state elections, or federal elections. Those allowances are being ran through the courts and are getting denied in every venue, thus denying the localities to allow foreigners to vote, New York just denied them in 2022. Extending the right to vote should be denied in Maryland and Vermont to foreigners in local elections soon enough. Some Blacks did have voting rights during colonial times all the way up through today, from the municipal level all the way up to the state and federal level. Some blacks were entitled to all the privilege's of a citizen. The difference here is that Blacks were allowed to vote in Federal Elections in colonial times, as state constitutions state, where as those here today as foreigners are very limited in only 2 states and DC and only at the very local of levels. State Constitutions made them citizens in colonial times. States gave up the right to control their interior borders when they signed onto the US Constitution. Does the US not have any sovereignty? As to your opinion: That, in my mind, was one of the great flaws of Chy Lung v. Freeman wherein the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration and then made the word mean any travel by foreigners inside the United States. I'm still looking for that section of the Constitution giving the United States Supreme Court any jurisdiction to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise, to any other branch of government. Then its a good thing your mind isn't one that makes law or is relied upon regarding law. SCOTUS in Chy Lung merely confirmed what was already admitted, the federal government has control over immigration (the 1790 Naturalization Act that you claimed was the first immigration law in the US). You seem to be all over the board on the issue. When it suits your needs esp. on race issues you take the stand that black people were citizens by virtue of the getting a voting privilege. You flip flop on the issue when it comes to an explanation of states rights and say citizenship and all activity regarding foreigners is federal. Either you are extremely ignorant or you do not want to debate in good faith. Hopefully you will have better sense than to dig a deeper hole trying to pretend that you came out on top of a contradiction in your own opinions. You conflate citizenship with rights states have that are more about free enterprise and liberty. You need to chill out and quit making assumptions.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Mar 7, 2024 20:05:45 GMT
If you have an ssn, birth certificate and National ID card you are a citizen. Those documents are nothing more than identification documents. They don't make you a citizen. Are you aware that many immigrants that came here legally and all Green Card holders have those very same documents, yet they are not US Citizens. We have a fundamental difference of understanding. The government says the primary evidence a person is a citizen is the birth certificate. passportinfo.com/us-passport-help-guide/proof-of-citizenship/You cannot get an ssn without a birth certificate. www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5doc.htm You have to have an ssn to get your National ID. www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqsThe sum total of those documents would be proof of citizenship and convince any government agency of your U.S. citizenship since their Real ID checks will reveal that you have shown proof of citizenship by way of a birth certificate. It sounds like you are making an argument based on semantics. If it is of any consolation there is something related that should be mentioned. In the past Green Card holders were issued drivers licenses and an ssn. If a government official did not check they could have registered to vote and some probably got away with it. Beginning in 2025 Real ID is in full effect which means when they submit an application for voter ID the system will automatically verify citizenship status and the birth certificate is the primary evidence of citizenship. My view stays the same. You are entitled to yours.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Mar 7, 2024 20:10:28 GMT
Only federal citizens can vote in a federal election; however, the states can extend the privilege of voting to non-citizens. This is not a new phenomenon in American history. Probably half a dozen states allowed non-citizens (and non - Whites) to cast votes, so does the state extending the privilege of voting make one a citizen? When we argue race, my critics are quick to point out that Blacks and other non-citizens were given the privilege of voting in Colonial times, ergo must have been citizens. I disagree. That states can grant certain privileges to non-federal citizens shows that the states have control of who can come and go within a state. And that is not citizenship. People who come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered are not immigrants nor should the immigration laws be applied to them. State and local control... THAT is the best way to solve the problem. People traveling and working jobs does not equal immigration. Only 2 states as of now allow non-citizens to vote in local elections Maryland and Vermont ( California was denied the ability: In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here), i.e. school boards, dog catcher, etc, they are not allowed to vote in municipal, state elections, or federal elections. Those allowances are being ran through the courts and are getting denied in every venue, thus denying the localities to allow foreigners to vote, New York just denied them in 2022. Extending the right to vote should be denied in Maryland and Vermont to foreigners in local elections soon enough. Some Blacks did have voting rights during colonial times all the way up through today, from the municipal level all the way up to the state and federal level. Some blacks were entitled to all the privilege's of a citizen. The difference here is that Blacks were allowed to vote in Federal Elections in colonial times, as state constitutions state, where as those here today as foreigners are very limited in only 2 states and DC and only at the very local of levels. State Constitutions made them citizens in colonial times. States gave up the right to control their interior borders when they signed onto the US Constitution. Does the US not have any sovereignty? As to your opinion: That, in my mind, was one of the great flaws of Chy Lung v. Freeman wherein the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration and then made the word mean any travel by foreigners inside the United States. I'm still looking for that section of the Constitution giving the United States Supreme Court any jurisdiction to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise, to any other branch of government. Then its a good thing your mind isn't one that makes law or is relied upon regarding law. SCOTUS in Chy Lung merely confirmed what was already admitted, the federal government has control over immigration (the 1790 Naturalization Act that you claimed was the first immigration law in the US). No state constitution conferred citizenship upon anyone during the era from the DOI thru ratification of the Constitution. Allowing people to vote is not proof of citizenship. The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not specifically mentioned to the states and to the people respectively.
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 20:25:46 GMT
Only 2 states as of now allow non-citizens to vote in local elections Maryland and Vermont ( California was denied the ability: In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here), i.e. school boards, dog catcher, etc, they are not allowed to vote in municipal, state elections, or federal elections. Those allowances are being ran through the courts and are getting denied in every venue, thus denying the localities to allow foreigners to vote, New York just denied them in 2022. Extending the right to vote should be denied in Maryland and Vermont to foreigners in local elections soon enough. Some Blacks did have voting rights during colonial times all the way up through today, from the municipal level all the way up to the state and federal level. Some blacks were entitled to all the privilege's of a citizen. The difference here is that Blacks were allowed to vote in Federal Elections in colonial times, as state constitutions state, where as those here today as foreigners are very limited in only 2 states and DC and only at the very local of levels. State Constitutions made them citizens in colonial times. States gave up the right to control their interior borders when they signed onto the US Constitution. Does the US not have any sovereignty? As to your opinion: Then its a good thing your mind isn't one that makes law or is relied upon regarding law. SCOTUS in Chy Lung merely confirmed what was already admitted, the federal government has control over immigration (the 1790 Naturalization Act that you claimed was the first immigration law in the US). No state constitution conferred citizenship upon anyone during the era from the DOI thru ratification of the Constitution. Allowing people to vote is not proof of citizenship. The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not specifically mentioned to the states and to the people respectively. For you guys to be such Constitutional Scholars, you don't even know the document or what it states. From Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Do you not comprehend that the Citizens of each State refers to the Confederated States from 1781 through 1789. I wonder how the US Constitution came up with the phrase if the previous States didn't have what are effectively citizens. The 10th Amendment has no bearing as Article 4 Section 2 all ready recognized the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 20:36:51 GMT
Those documents are nothing more than identification documents. They don't make you a citizen. Are you aware that many immigrants that came here legally and all Green Card holders have those very same documents, yet they are not US Citizens. We have a fundamental difference of understanding. The government says the primary evidence a person is a citizen is the birth certificate. passportinfo.com/us-passport-help-guide/proof-of-citizenship/You cannot get an ssn without a birth certificate. www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5doc.htm You have to have an ssn to get your National ID. www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqsThe sum total of those documents would be proof of citizenship and convince any government agency of your U.S. citizenship since their Real ID checks will reveal that you have shown proof of citizenship by way of a birth certificate. It sounds like you are making an argument based on semantics. If it is of any consolation there is something related that should be mentioned. In the past Green Card holders were issued drivers licenses and an ssn. If a government official did not check they could have registered to vote and some probably got away with it. Beginning in 2025 Real ID is in full effect which means when they submit an application for voter ID the system will automatically verify citizenship status and the birth certificate is the primary evidence of citizenship. My view stays the same. You are entitled to yours. www.npr.org/2018/08/30/643218390/report-u-s-denies-passports-and-questions-americans-birth-certificatesU.S. Denies Passports And Questions Americans' Birth Certificates
AUGUST 30, 2018
MARTIN: How is this happening? How are U.S. citizens being prohibited from getting U.S. passports?
SIEFF: So on the border now, you've got hundreds, and probably thousands, of people who are sending in their passport applications or trying to renew their passports, just like any other American would. And a few weeks after they send in their applications, they get a letter back in the mail from the State Department that says not only will they not be getting a passport, but that the U.S. government doesn't believe that they are, in fact, U.S. citizens.
And the reason the government says this is because decades ago, in the '70s and the '80s and the '90s, there were midwives along the U.S.-Mexico border who were accused of providing fraudulent birth certificates for people who were actually born in Mexico. This happened, you know, no one knows exactly how many times. And this has happened sort of periodically, decades ago.
And now, you know, after 40, 50 years, people are being - their birth certificates are actually being questioned. And in effect, the government is saying, unless you provide us with very obscure documentation to substantiate that you were born in the U.S., like your mother's prenatal care, rent agreements from the '60s and '70s - unless you can provide us those documents, we don't believe that you're actually a citizen.To your point, those document are evidence, yet they are not 100% proof, and just so you know, you can still get a passport without a birth certificate that meets requirements. A 2025 federal ID won't make one a US Citizen either. You are making assumptions. You may be recognized as a citizen, you may call yourself a citizen, but unless you hold a US Passport designating you to be a US Citizen, you can be denied certain privilege's and immunities. Foreigners that have become US Citizens will not have a US Birth Certificate in your scenario for 2025, are they to be denied the ability to vote because of it?
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Mar 7, 2024 21:01:41 GMT
No state constitution conferred citizenship upon anyone during the era from the DOI thru ratification of the Constitution. Allowing people to vote is not proof of citizenship. The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not specifically mentioned to the states and to the people respectively. For you guys to be such Constitutional Scholars, you don't even know the document or what it states. From Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Do you not comprehend that the Citizens of each State refers to the Confederated States from 1781 through 1789. I wonder how the US Constitution came up with the phrase if the previous States didn't have what are effectively citizens. The 10th Amendment has no bearing as Article 4 Section 2 all ready recognized the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. There the board troll goes again. Were you born a smart ass? As it has been noted federal citizenship v. state citizenship but no state constitution granted citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 7, 2024 23:43:16 GMT
For you guys to be such Constitutional Scholars, you don't even know the document or what it states. From Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Do you not comprehend that the Citizens of each State refers to the Confederated States from 1781 through 1789. I wonder how the US Constitution came up with the phrase if the previous States didn't have what are effectively citizens. The 10th Amendment has no bearing as Article 4 Section 2 all ready recognized the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. There the board troll goes again. Were you born a smart ass? As it has been noted federal citizenship v. state citizenship but no state constitution granted citizenship. All we can do is allow the guy to flame and demand answers to the questions that have been asked and answered. I will make one final attempt to respond to the issues he brings up, but he is going to try and make a topic out of examples. America is a constitutional Republic. If something is not in the Constitution it is reserved to the states. Is there anybody that really doesn't understand that point? Immigration is legally defined as: " Immigration refers to the movement of persons into a new country with the intention to reside in that country. This includes state sanctioned immigration (sometimes referred to as “legal immigration”) and unlawful immigration (sometimes referred to as “illegal immigration”). It does not include persons traveling to the country for an explicitly temporary purpose, such as tourists, students on exchange programs, temporary workers, or travelers passing through a country only as means to get to their intended destination (for example, entering the country for the purpose of catching a connecting flight to the destination country)." www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigrationToday, MILLIONS of people move through the United States with and without paperwork from the government. Strictly speaking those people are not " immigrants" as per the definition of the word. The problem there is that since the 1875 Chy Lung decision, everything to do with the movement of foreigners has been labeled immigration. Immigration, legally speaking, never applied to the movement of foreigners until the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things related to immigration AND THEN even the movement of foreigners became immigration. That has created a gray area of the law in which all sides try to exploit for their own advantage. Still, immigration is for purposes of permanent residence. While none of the states created citizens at the state level during the founding period, they did grant some rights such as the privilege of voting which is characterized as a right. It is here that legalese fails the system. The words cannot be interpreted to give us consistent results. It is illegal for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election; however, states can allow non-citizens to vote in local and state elections. That begs the question: Is there such a thing as a state citizen? Well, if you want to argue that states have somehow made citizens without mentioning them in their state constitutions, then you must yield to the following argument and acknowledge their legal arguments, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding: constitutionalcommando.com/state-citizenship-vs-us-citizenship/" It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)] www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htmWhile all of this is entertaining, it doesn't help us solve the issues associated with foreigners, immigration (as the word is used today) and what you do about MILLIONS of people flooding the border. I leave that and let all of think about whether you want to argue over whether we have state citizens or not. Since nobody asked what the other guy thinks, I'll be like the rest and reserve offering an opinion. As for those wanting a flame fest, I am a pragmatist and a student not a professing " scholar." If you want a productive conversation, it might benefit people not to project on them what you fear about yourself.
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 8, 2024 5:10:09 GMT
For you guys to be such Constitutional Scholars, you don't even know the document or what it states. From Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Do you not comprehend that the Citizens of each State refers to the Confederated States from 1781 through 1789. I wonder how the US Constitution came up with the phrase if the previous States didn't have what are effectively citizens. The 10th Amendment has no bearing as Article 4 Section 2 all ready recognized the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. There the board troll goes again. Were you born a smart ass? As it has been noted federal citizenship v. state citizenship but no state constitution granted citizenship. Is it any different then your personal attack? I never used the word granted citizenship, I said the State Constitutions defined it, you then changed the word to confer and are now changing it to granted, how else would Article 4 Section 2 in the USC come about if there were no citizens as being defined in the States prior to 1789? What actually was recognized as citizens in the US Constitution, since the document itself doesn't define it in 1789, but it does recognize the citizens of the States?
|
|