Judge: Texas may deny birth certificates to immigrants' kids

Why should Texas accept documents as ID that not even the Federal Govt will accept in order to obtain vital documents?

http://news.yahoo.com/injunction-birth-certificates-us-born-kids-denied-224615724.html

 

So these children born in the US would be stateless.. with no citizenship.. and unable to go to school..

 

Why/how would they be stateless? Do they not receive the nationality and citizenship of their parents? You don't need a BC to attend k-12 school.

 

They were born in the US.. on US soil.. They wouldn't be citizens of Mexico.

 

If their parents are Mexicans who entered the US illegally, then yes, they are born Mexican Nationals via jus sanguinas as recognized by Mexico in its very own Constitution. I suggest you read the Mexican Constitution, especially articles 30 through the 37.

 

They are also US citizens.

 

A us birth certificate doesn't denote citizenship, being born on US soil to parents without a legal domicil or a legal residence doesn't denote citizenship. The Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

 

Legal domicile has nothing to do with it.. If you are in the US for any reason.. as a tourist. student, businessman or illegal, you are under US Jurisdiction. No other country's laws apply in the US.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at Birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

And US Code states:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

If the parent(s) aren't legally domiciled (tourist, student, non-immigrant visa) or legally resident (immigrant visa; LPR), then the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Jurisdiction in this case requires more than just being within the jurisdiction of the boundaries of the US.

If domicil has nothing to do with it, then why does Justice Gray point it out throughout the WKA case? Why does he make mention of the Treaty between China and the US which states that the citizens of the other can live in the others country but can not become citizens themselves of that country? Why does Gray say they were allowed to live here? If domicil has nothing to do with it, then why does Gray also bring up Calvins Case where domicil is the main point of that ruling?
MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Lol ... you know what this means too?
An illegal can kill anyone on US soil and can't be brought to US court, because not subject of US jurisdiction. So are you really sure about?

 

Do you not understand the difference between Civil jurisdiction and Political jurisdiction? Can an illegal be conscripted into military service? What???? They can't, but if they are within our jurisdiction they must certainly be able to, right?

Try reading the Schooner Exchange from 1812, and then the 1873 AG opinion.

Remember, prior to the 1866 CRA and the 14th Amendment, only children born to whites were allowed to be born citizens.

Wong Kim Ark

 

Yes it does.

No it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

This was soundly refuted in 3 different threads.

- - - Updated - - -

Conscription is entirely irrelevant. 6 year old girls can't be conscripted either. They are also subject to complete jurisdiction just like every other person inside US borders except for diplomats.

 

All they need is identification the state considers acceptable and that is likely pretty simple a passport, photo Mexican voter card, student ID and so forth as long as the rules re fair and the same for everyone what is the issue?

 

State politicians can come up with wacked out ideas. The way to addresss reality is to pass a law declaring reality doesn't exist. LOL

 

No it doesn't. A birth certificate doesn't state anything on it whatsoever that says you are a citizen. It is nothing more than a document of a birth to a parent(s) and by whom was the physician.

Yes it is, the 14th citizenship clause is nothing more then declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 CRA. Here it is directly from Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion

Surely you don't claim to be better informed than a Chief Supreme Court Justice?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 You quote the last paragraph of section 1 of the WKA opinion and then continue it with the first paragraph of section 2 as though they run together. Neither have anything to do with birth in the US, the first paragraph has to do with the interpretation of the USC via English Common Law, which is talking specifically about the first 10 Amendments. Your second paragraph is discussing the principal of English Nationality which required aliens to be in amity with the King.

And aliens in amity required a treaty between England and the other nation, which is also why Gray brings up the Treaty and the fact that they were allowed legal domicil and legal residence even though they are denied the ability to naturalize between China and the US in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion. Here Gray explains when the USC should be read in the light of English Common Law

That pretty much rules out anything that you think refuted what I have stated MOD EDIT - Rule 3

A 6 year old girl could be drafted with the simple change of the law (morality comes into play). As it stands right now, women aren't required to register either (again, morality), yet simple change of the law can require it. Whereas an illegal can not be conscripted at all due to the fact they hold no allegiance to the US and the US has no authority over them.

 

The passport must have the I-94 form and/or be stamped with an entry date. Mexican voter ID cards are not recognized in the US as valid ID. All Texas did was require the same ID as what the Federal Govt requires for Vital Records. These parents don't have these required forms of ID.

 

Of course it does.

It states place of birth. Which is all that is required.

And the place of birth determines citizenship.

No it isn't.

:

Refuted in 3 separate threads.

So could an illegal immigrant.

Just like illegal immigrants.

Allegiance is not relevant. Everyone inside US borders is under US authority.

 

Of course it doesn't. A BC is nothing more then the beginning of an ID for the child,.

The Department of State disagrees with you.

Not for everybody. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090802623.html



MOD EDIT - Rule 3

International Law and US law forbids it.

Quite wrong.

Nope, everybody inside US borders is within the jurisdiction of the US, however the US does not have jurisdiction over everybody. Allegiance is quite relevant, as noted in your prior claims of Plyler v Doe, especially footnote 10 where Brennan cites Bouve'.

 

All of this was refuted the first time you posted it, and through 3 different threads.

The US has jurisdiction over everyone inside its borders with only 2 exceptions. Diplomats and invading armies.

Allegiance is completely irrelevant. Only jurisdiction matters. Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen with only 2 exceptions.

All of which I have cited from WKA. Which cites English common law as its basis.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 I posed specific questions and quoted portions of Justice Grays Opinion from WKA, all of which you have NO response to, I even explained your 2 paragraphs that you quoted from WKA, what they pertain to, and explained to you how you have no comprehension of the WKA opinion. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The US has limited jurisdiction over foreigners, that is a civil jurisdiction, not a political jurisdiction.

Please provide the quote and link to any SCOTUS opinion that makes that claim. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

As has been said a billion times...any child born in the world, that has one American Citizen as Mother or Father, they only need to register that child to be an American. Statehood lies in the Parents heritage, not where it's born!!!!!

 

The great thing about leaving links is that the rest of us can check and verify the information. In this case, you are spot on. Even with the courts and the administrative agencies that are entrusted carry out executive actions following the law as you have laid it out, there will always be naysayers that cannot read or interpret the law.

The "Secure the border" lobby doesn't seem to understand that the United States has jurisdiction over everyone inside its borders except Diplomats and invading armies. I might be inclined to include U.N. troops here at the behest of the government and / or the U.N. (I have not researched that, however.) Even in that instance though, those forces may have to be held accountable to someone connected to the U.S. government.

Don't be dismayed. The "Secure the border" strategists repeat a lie, over and over, hoping that the repetitiveness will give their errors credibility. WHEN this is all sorted out in the courts (who will be the final arbiters), your position will prevail in court rulings. Until then, we just have to keep plugging along, posting the counter argument to the position of those with National Socialist talking points.

 

You didn't even read his link. He contradicts himself in it. He quotes the WKA opinion citing Minor and then declares Minor isn't relevant

Just because someone is within the jurisdiction of the boundaries of the US doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over that person, they have no political status and can not be conscripted, therefor that person simply falls under civil jurisdiction, and not political jurisdiction. I suggest you read the Schooner Exchange to comprehend your ineptness.

As to this date not one person has been able to refute what I have stated, you have yet to point out any lie that I have made. National Socialist? That's 2 really big claims in one small paragraph. The courts will have the last word, but don't be so sure it will end in your favor. Remember Cheek and what his lawyer stated: Don't be a "gullible victim of the tax protest movement" Your not batting to well their tax protester.

 

But should they be? The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. The Population of the US was a mere 31 million. The Amendment was worded to ensure that freed slaves would have US citizenship. The primary difference between the situation in 1868 and today is that the slaves came here against their will, and the illegals came here against our will. Additionally, the number of illegals in this country is about half of the entire population of 1868.

IMHO, you can not use an immigration/citizenship policy of nearly 150 years ago to address the situation of today. A simple adjustment to the Amendment would solve the anchor-baby problem. Children born in the US to parents residing in this country legally will have US citizenship. Then when the parents go home, their children will go with them. Therefore, no families broken up. Problem solved!

 

Sorry, had to put it here `cause the most recent 30 days search is blocked...

Texas backs down from effort to block Syrian refugees
December 6, 2015 — Texas stopped trying Friday to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the state after suing the U.S. government over fears that new arrivals from the war-torn country could pose a security risk.