Thread: I AM AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT...

Originally Posted by newpilgrimfamily

I do not tjhink I am special: I just think I'm an Human being, just like you and that my kids are American, just like yours... God Bless you.

Ahh yes, the 14th Amendment.. it's a beautiful anchoring tool for the illegal alien invaders.

Your kids are American citizens? I wouldn't be too sure about that one...

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 4/18/06

We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the limits of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.
It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."

Here the law makes the distinction between simply residing in the United States and being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply means that residing in the United States does not automatically put an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason mainly has to do with the fact the US Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over a resident residing within a State -- only the States themselves was given this sole jurisdictional role.

It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.

The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty. President Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates, wrote a opinion dated November 29, 1862 that stated: "The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is, in fact, made by them."
We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
[1]
One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the "law of the land already" and is a virtue of "natural law" and "national law." Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the Fourteenth Amendment:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...
[6]
The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."
[7]
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
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...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new conry sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause
[S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...
[6]
The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."
[7]
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
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...
Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.
It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."
The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.
James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders.
It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

You broke the law and you should be punished. You were doing better than people who have been in the U.S all of their life. Most African Americans have never taken a trip before in their life. Nevertheless getting on an airplane. You are criminals and should be prosecuted. You have the nerve to brag how you got a job without being asked anything. The nerve of you. When so many African Americans can't work in this country for past mistakes. My mother was just denied a job from something back in 1974. So why is that you believe you should be forgiven for breaking the law? Why do you think you have the right to committ a crime and not pay a price for it? You should be sent to jail, pay a fine, then sent right back across that border. My ancestors didn't ask to be here and we have been treated the worst. Your people have put our people out of work and then you don't even have the decency to speak to us and act as though we are the enemy. You should be glad that your family was not hungry. No one from that border emphsizes how they were starving. In fact, they come here with diseases related to diet such as diabetes and obesity. Those are not people who are struggling. People in and parts of AFrica and other countries are hungry who need help. THE LAWS OF THE LAND SHOULD BE ENFORCED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. ILLEGAL'S ARE NOT EXEMPT AND SHOULDN'T BE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HERE GO HOME!

No matter what the reason or how you rationalize it, if you enter America illegally you are an illegal alien and not an immigrant! True immigrants apply for and wait on the correct documentation to be received before entering the United States.

So here are some basic fundamentals any illegal alien should understand about our America culture and Americans in general.

1. Don’t expect Americans to support your desire to enter or stay in this country if you don’t respect our laws enough to abide by them. Throughout American history our families have fought and died for the privileges and freedoms which are defined by our laws. To ignore our law is a clear indication that the sacrifices made by Americans to win and keep our freedom mean nothing to you.

2. Americans will not respect the people of a country that will not stand up to their own government to effect needed changes. Banding together in life and death struggles for our freedom has etched the moral fiber and character of our country. Why would Americans want to embrace a group of illegal aliens that will not stand together and fight for their rights in their own country?

3. Americans resent illegal aliens that demand rights, privileges and services that are not deserved. Your presence in America is a drain on the systems setup by our government to assist Americans in need. If you are here illegally you do not deserve anything but humane treatment for the time it takes to return you to your own country. You have no right to demonstrate in our country. That really makes us mad.

4. The large number of illegal alien workers has led many Americans in the business community to take advantage of them out of greed. It is easy to turn a larger profit if you don’t pay taxes and other costs required for American workers by paying illegals under the table. Illegals can’t complain about the low pay, long hours and the lack of benefits if they want to work. So, American workers get displaced by illegal alien workers. The managers of these American businesses need to be arrested and jailed.

5. Americans speak English. If you immigrate to any country you should learn the native language. If you immigrate to America learning English is required.

6. In America we have our own culture. Don’t try to transplant a copy of your culture here. If your home country and culture is so great why leave it and come to America? If you immigrate here bring the best from your home country and integrate it into American culture. Come to America because you like our culture, our freedoms and our willingness to fiercely defend both.

WELCOME to Alipac, 2GCURVE!

Glad to have you jump in.....your post is right on point.

I am an Australian citizen, born and bred here. I lived in the US for 5 years, as it turned out illegally. My fault, i missed paperwork. No excuses. I am married to an American girl who i love and adore. Once realising our mistake, I turned myself into the authorities and was refused re-entry. We now have the legal side happening. I am telling people this becasue unlike some who take it for granted, we want to do this correctly. I am not in the US for anything but my wife and her kids. I can earn better money here in Australia, and give her some of the things we were stuggling with over there. America is where her kids are so thats where we want to be.. near them,, have them in our lives and watch them grow and prosper. I wont ask my wife to come here because i will not take her away from the kids. Now haviung stated this, Its important for all of the people to know and understand that yeah America is a place where you can have a better life in some aspects. You cant just decide... hey this is cool ..lets stay here... its bullshit and cant be happening. My family is being ripped apart because we realised our mistake and were honest about it. You illegals dont care. If you had any integrity and believed honestly in the american or for that matter the Australian law and its rights you would go back to your country and if it means that much to you ... you would apply to do it properly. If you fail at being allowed to re enter you tried ... but at the end of the day. you did the right thing ahnd can stand proud. if not .. you are just another illegal that is making it hard for the ones who are trying to do it honestly. Brian

Welcome 2GCurve. Welcome to alipac.

W

Originally Posted by chicano

Nobody is running away from any question here. But I do have a life outside this glassed box. Why not come here legally you ask?

One of the reasons I point out what happended with the pilgrims and their "migration" to the New World is to show you why people leave their homeland. This is the case. You are living in a country where you are dirt poor. So you have three options...

1) You topple the government

2) You buy a hell of a lot of lottery tickets, and through a miracle, you manage to win the $10,000 it will cost you to come to the United States legally

3) You risk you life and make a journey north, where you believe there is a demand of your low skill labor

Unless the border is protected, the people will continue to choose option #3.

Yep, you will choose option 3, and you know why you do that. You dobn't have what it takes to change your own country. You want to come here and change this one, the one that you come into, taking, ALWAYS taking, and offering nothing bit diseases and crime. Take your low skilled selves back home and change your OWN mess.

Originally Posted by newpilgrimfamily

Your disrespecfull style of writting shows what kind of person you are... The kind that I usually ignore on my repplies, but I'll make your day and answer you anyway... How would you identify who is an illegal immigrant and who is not? By the collor of their skin? I just can't understant why is your hate so big... how can you guys hate a human being that much? Can't you see I'm just like you? I bet if you were on my shoes You'd be doing the same I am... Oh well, maybe I would be full of hate just like you...

Desde que seu inglês é tão mau, deixa-me contá-lo isto numa linguagem que você pode entender. SÃO UM CRIMINOSO. SUA ESPOSA É UM CRIMINOSO. SUAS CRIANÇAS SÃO CRIMINOSOS. Que tipo de doenças trouxe com você? Que tipo de história criminal trouxe com você? Cuja identidade roubou? Tem a arrogância pensar que você pode enganar nos com esta coisa de "erro"? Não trabalhará. Necessita afastar-se à desordem que você parte. Pensa que você são tão esperto, volta e faz o próprio país em ele que que você quer ser, ou esperar sua volta como todos os outros. A propósito, eu não dou um patootie de ratos O QUE o tinge são. SÃO ILEGAL, SÃO UM CRIMINOSO. O nada mais mas um criminoso.

Ok .. tried to translate, but all i got was something to the effect of ...

dfg g h adfad y hgf hgfhshg sghsgfhwty uywttwywtwt rturtshbfgujtyuiytwarey utwtyrewy twerywrturtuwqywyu euytwtyqeryrtuw wreturtyqerghrtuwy turt trutyqettuw tuyteiwuyer yietyuwty eyu.

Originally Posted by robins_aussie

Ok .. tried to translate, but all i got was something to the effect of ...

dfg g h adfad y hgf hgfhshg sghsgfhwty uywttwywtwt rturtshbfgujtyuiytwarey utwtyrewy twerywrturtuwqywyu euytwtyqeryrtuw wreturtyqerghrtuwy turt trutyqettuw tuyteiwuyer yietyuwty eyu.

You must be using an Aussie Bablefish Trans
ROTF