When was Birthright Citizenship settled ?

[exotix]

Today

The Case at the Heart of the Birthright Citizenship Battle

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/case-heart-birthright-citizenship-battle-n413736

Donald Trump's immigration plan (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform), entitled "Defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States," calls for an end (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gops-turmoil-raises-questions-candidates-born-immigrants-n413246) to "birthright citizenship."

But legal and historical scholars say the GOP front-runner's challenge attempts to trump the Constitution itself, as well as an important chapter in Asian American history.


Birthright citizenship has been considered "settled law" since March 28, 1898 ...

... said John Trasvina, the Dean of the University of San Francisco Law School (https://www.usfca.edu/law/faculty/john-trasvina) in an interview with NBC News.

And it was all due to Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco in 1873.

In August of 1895, Wong was 22 and returning home to San Francisco after a visit to China, according to court records (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649).

But it was also an era when anti-Chinese sentiment was high, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1886, and its renewal in 1892.

When Wong was refused re-entry to America, it set up his legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 1898, the High Court affirmed Wong's right (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649)that has continued to define citizenship birthright for 117 years.


"The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the nation's founders adopted Anglo American law which itself dated back to 1608 to interpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment -- if you are born here, you are a United States citizen," said Trasvina.

He notes that the legal avenue to challenging and amending the Constitution would be "lengthy, divisive, and not likely to be successful."

"It would call into question the citizenship of millions of people born here, irrespective of the legal immigration status of the parents," said Trasvina.

"For that reason and because it is settled law and because courts tend not to narrow the scope of protection of the Constitution, it is unlikely that this would ever happen."


Wong Kim Ark appears in an image attached to his 1894 departure statement fom San Francisco, an Immigration and Naturalization Service record that allows him to return to the United States.

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_34/1186601/150821-wong-kim-ark-mn-1045_edd536d788ba4e725836c71e1b221135.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

[Peter1469]

In the cited case, Wong's parents were in the US legally....

Show me a SCOTUS case where the parents were in the US illegally.... :shocked:

[Peter1469]

The 14th Amendment is fine. We don't need to consider the children of illegals US citizens.

[PolWatch]

Someone needs to tell Marco Rubio to get out of the race....he's one of those anchor babies. He was born to illegal Cuban immigrants before they were made citizens.

[Redrose]

Someone needs to tell Marco Rubio to get out of the race....he's one of those anchor babies. He was born to illegal Cuban immigrants before they were made citizens.


They fled Cuba as political refugees and became naturalized citizens in '75. They were not here illegally.

[Peter1469]

I think the nation has collectively elected to not inquire about the citizenship of its presidential candidates.... :shocked:

[hanger4]

TodayThe Case at the Heart of the Birthright Citizenship Battlehttp://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/case-heart-birthright-citizenship-battle-n413736Donald Trump's immigration plan (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform), entitled "Defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States," calls for an end (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gops-turmoil-raises-questions-candidates-born-immigrants-n413246) to "birthright citizenship."But legal and historical scholars say the GOP front-runner's challenge attempts to trump the Constitution itself, as well as an important chapter in Asian American history.Birthright citizenship has been considered "settled law" since March 28, 1898 ... ... said John Trasvina, the Dean of the University of San Francisco Law School (https://www.usfca.edu/law/faculty/john-trasvina) in an interview with NBC News.And it was all due to Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco in 1873.In August of 1895, Wong was 22 and returning home to San Francisco after a visit to China, according to court records (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649). But it was also an era when anti-Chinese sentiment was high, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1886, and its renewal in 1892.When Wong was refused re-entry to America, it set up his legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1898, the High Court affirmed Wong's right (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649)that has continued to define citizenship birthright for 117 years."The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the nation's founders adopted Anglo American law which itself dated back to 1608 to interpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment -- if you are born here, you are a United States citizen," said Trasvina.He notes that the legal avenue to challenging and amending the Constitution would be "lengthy, divisive, and not likely to be successful.""It would call into question the citizenship of millions of people born here, irrespective of the legal immigration status of the parents," said Trasvina. "For that reason and because it is settled law and because courts tend not to narrow the scope of protection of the Constitution, it is unlikely that this would ever happen."Wong Kim Ark appears in an image attached to his 1894 departure statement fom San Francisco, an Immigration and Naturalization Service record that allows him to return to the United States. http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_34/1186601/150821-wong-kim-ark-mn-1045_edd536d788ba4e725836c71e1b221135.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpgAs usual the OP ignores the distinction between legal and illegal.

[Mac-7]

It is liberal insanity to give citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens.

we don't have to strip the citizenship from anchor babies already and couldn't even I f we tried because new laws cannot be punitive retroactive.

But citizenship for new arrivals?

No way.

[whatukno]

It is liberal insanity to give citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens.

we don't have to strip the citizenship from anchor babies already and couldn't even I f we tried because new laws cannot be punitive retroactive.

But citizenship for new arrivals?

No way.

As long as any new law is specifically worded that way, and doesn't contain loopholes that can be exploited to round up, inter, and deport legal citizens of this nation. Unfortunately I don't trust the radical fascist right to do such a thing.

[Peter1469]

As long as any new law is specifically worded that way, and doesn't contain loopholes that can be exploited to round up, inter, and deport legal citizens of this nation. Unfortunately I don't trust the radical fascist right to do such a thing.

I agree with everything except the factually incorrect link of fascists to the modern American right.

Unless you believe that fascists are not advocating for less government micro-management of our daily lives....

That sort of blind partisanship taints your posts here.... :wink:

[Mac-7]

As long as any new law is specifically worded that way, and doesn't contain loopholes that can be exploited to round up, inter, and deport legal citizens of this nation. Unfortunately I don't trust the radical fascist right to do such a thing.

I guess we could word it specifically to reassure liberals.

But new laws are never retroactive.

The new rules take affect at the time the bill is signed into law.

[hanger4]

Someone needs to tell Marco Rubio to get out of the race....he's one of those anchor babies. He was born to illegal Cuban immigrants before they were made citizens.

You keep saying that, Rubios parents were illegal at the time of his birth. I can't find any confirmation his parents were *illegal*. I did find this; "(Both Rubio and Jindal's parents were legally present in the country at the time of their sons' birth.)"

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gops-turmoil-raises-questions-candidates-born-immigrants-n413246

From NBC no less. If you could confirm Rubios parents were here illegaly at the time of his birth it would be greatly
appreciated. If not, then stop.

[Mac-7]

You keep saying that, Rubios parents were illegal at the time of his birth. I can't find any confirmation his parents were *illegal*. I did find this; "(Both Rubio and Jindal's parents were legally present in the country at the time of their sons' birth.)"

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gops-turmoil-raises-questions-candidates-born-immigrants-n413246

From NBC no less. If you could confirm Rubios parents were here illegaly at the time of his birth it would be greatly
appreciated. If not, then stop.

Theres a lot of hatred on the left for Rubio because he represents a threat to the monopoly over minorities that the democrats enjoy.

[Peter1469]

Rubio won't decrease the power of the federal government, so the left won't be too upset if he wins.

[PolWatch]

They immigrated at a time when there was no LEGAL travel between the two nations. Mariel Boat Lift & other such illegal arrivals sound familiar? Cubans received special treatment but the Rubios were not legal citizens at the time of his birth. They arrived without benefit of visas or any other legal paperwork, therefore they were illegal immigrants. One of the candidates for president is an anchor baby.

The Cuban situation is just another example of the laws being ignored or bent (in the case of Cubans) to suit political expediency.

[PolWatch]

The Cubans received special treatment. The Rubios applied for and received that special citizenship. They lied. They entered the country illegally for financial benefits....not political asylum. Their citizenship was applied for and awarded illegally.

'U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio sold his American success story as he stumped across Florida two years ago.His parents left Havana in 1959, he told a Panhandle audience, implying, at least, that they fled Fidel Castro's communist revolution.
Now records show that they left in 1956, while Castro still plotted in Mexico — and that even when Rubio doubted his dates, he didn't correct the record.
The statement
Says his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover" of Cuba
Marco Rubio on Friday, in a biography on his U.S. Senate website
The ruling

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-false.gifRubio's parents came to the United States in 1956, while Castro was in Mexico and years before he took control of the country. Rubio says he got the years wrong because he relied on the oral telling of his family's history. Still, we rate this claim False.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/politifact-florida-marco-rubios-parents-immigration-predated-castro/1198006

[PolWatch]

Rubio won't decrease the power of the federal government, so the left won't be too upset if he wins.
.
Rubio has little chance of becoming president. I brought him up because one of the major non-issues recently has been anchor babies & illegal immigration. His status is ignored because it is inconvenient to the gop.

[Peter1469]

.
Rubio has little chance of becoming president. I brought him up because one of the major non-issues recently has been anchor babies & illegal immigration. His status is ignored because it is inconvenient to the gop.

I don't think that he is electable either. He would not get my vote under any circumstance.

[hanger4]

They immigrated at a time when there was no LEGAL travel between the two nations. Mariel Boat Lift & other such illegal arrivals sound familiar? Cubans received special treatment but the Rubios were not legal citizens at the time of his birth. They arrived without benefit of visas or any other legal paperwork, therefore they were illegal immigrants. One of the candidates for president is an anchor baby.

The Cuban situation is just another example of the laws being ignored or bent (in the case of Cubans) to suit political expediency.

Nothing in this, your post confirms or refutes your statement as to legality of Rubio's parents at the time of his birth.

BTW the Mariel Boat Lift happened in 1980 so it doesn't apply.

[hanger4]

The Cubans received special treatment. The Rubios applied for and received that special citizenship. They lied. They entered the country illegally for financial benefits....not political asylum. Their citizenship was applied for and awarded illegally.

'U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio sold his American success story as he stumped across Florida two years ago.His parents left Havana in 1959, he told a Panhandle audience, implying, at least, that they fled Fidel Castro's communist revolution.
Now records show that they left in 1956, while Castro still plotted in Mexico — and that even when Rubio doubted his dates, he didn't correct the record.
The statement
Says his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover" of Cuba
Marco Rubio on Friday, in a biography on his U.S. Senate website
The ruling

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-false.gifRubio's parents came to the United States in 1956, while Castro was in Mexico and years before he took control of the country. Rubio says he got the years wrong because he relied on the oral telling of his family's history. Still, we rate this claim False.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/politifact-florida-marco-rubios-parents-immigration-predated-castro/1198006

I agree the story told of his parents arrival to the US was wrong and or a lie. The first paragraph in your post are your words and pure speculation on your behalf. Were Rubio's parents illegal when he was born ?? NBC says no.

[PolWatch]

Nothing in this, your post confirms or refutes your statement as to legality of Rubio's parents at the time of his birth.

BTW the Mariel Boat Lift happened in 1980 so it doesn't apply.

did you miss the 'and other such illegal arrivals' part of the statement? Ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist....your choice. What would the attitude be if the parents were from Mexico and moved here to make more money picking oranges? Would anyone think that their application, based on a lie, means they are legal citizens or not? Its just another example of selective law enforcement.

[hanger4]

did you miss the 'and other such illegal arrivals' part of the statement? Ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist....your choice. What would the attitude be if the parents were from Mexico and moved here to make more money picking oranges? Would anyone think that their application, based on a lie, means they are legal citizens or not? Its just another example of selective law enforcement.

I didn't ignore it PolWatch. They may very well have been illegal when they arrived. Were they illegal when Rubio was born ??

[PolWatch]

They obtained their citizenship based on false statements.....what do you think?

[hanger4]

They obtained their citizenship based on false statements.....what do you think?I think that has not been substantiated. I also think your statement;
He was born to illegal Cuban immigrants before they were made citizens.is untrue.

[exotix]

As usual the OP ignores the distinction between legal and illegal.I think the important point is who in their right mind would adopt an amendment like this ...

What is this Anglo America law dating back to 1608 from which the interpretation was made ?

[PolWatch]

I think that has not been substantiated. I also think your statement;is untrue.

of course you do.....Rubio is a repub. The parents were illegal immigrants. They lied to become citizens. If they were Mexicans, there would be no question that their citizenship was issued illegally.

[hanger4]

of course you do.....Rubio is a repub. The parents were illegal immigrants. They lied to become citizens. If they were Mexicans, there would be no question that their citizenship was issued illegally.

Untill you substantiate they entered the US illegally you got nothing. And you still haven't established if Rubio was born to illegal immigrants.

[whatukno]

I agree with everything except the factually incorrect link of fascists to the modern American right.

Unless you believe that fascists are not advocating for less government micro-management of our daily lives....

That sort of blind partisanship taints your posts here.... :wink:

The simple truth is that the radical right closely resembles fascism, and fascist ideology. They range from Authoritarian Fascism, to Theocratic Fascism. Both have strong Nationalist tendencies, along with extreme xenophobia, an insane level of paranoia about groups of people who they feel are the cause of all of this nations ills.

Of course not EVERYONE that is conservative is this far to the right, moderate Republicans (who is now referred to as RINO's) have many socially liberal ideas, but strict fiscally conservative ideology, some of those fiscally conservative ideas are indeed what this country is in desperate need of. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed in the conservative movement as a whole, by the radical right who have commandeered the movement to their own socially conservative ends.

Roderick Stackleberg wrote in his 2002 book, Hitler's Germany: Origins, Interpretations, Legacies, "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

This isn't blind partisanship, but simple observation. Which is why I am very wary of any legislation concerning immigration, and the removal of illegal immigrants especially when it pertains to those individuals who were born on American Soil through no fault of their own. (Can't hardly chose where you are born now can you?)

It is my opinion that any plan for the deportation of illegals from this country needs strict judiciary oversight, and compulsory transparency of the entire process from arrest, through court proceedings, to actual deportation. We certainly don't need legal US Citizens caught up in being rounded up without due process or observance of the protections afforded to them under the bill of rights, just to be led to a US version of Auschwitz to starve to death while their paperwork is "lost" simply because they appear to be a Latino.

[PolWatch]

Untill you substantiate they entered the US illegally you got nothing. And you still haven't established if Rubio was born to illegal immigrants.

of course not. There is no way to get someone to look at something they don't want to see. I suggest you lie on an application for something to the federal government and see how well that works for YOU.

[hanger4]

of course not. There is no way to get someone to look at something they don't want to see. I suggest you lie on an application for something to the federal government and see how well that works for YOU.

So you've seen the lie on their applicaion ?? WayPo has review their application and this is what they said;

"The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence" "the real story of his parents’ migration appears to be a more conventional immigrant narrative, a couple who came to the United States seeking a better life."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubios-compelling-family-story-embellishes-facts-documents-show/2011/10/20/gIQAaVHD1L_story.html

Funny, WayPo mentioned no lie on there application. Reckon they're shilling for Rubio ??

[Mac-7]

The Cubans received special treatment. The Rubios applied for and received that special citizenship. They lied. They entered the country illegally for financial benefits....not political asylum. Their citizenship was applied for and awarded illegally.

'U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio sold his American success story as he stumped across Florida two years ago.His parents left Havana in 1959, he told a Panhandle audience, implying, at least, that they fled Fidel Castro's communist revolution.
Now records show that they left in 1956, while Castro still plotted in Mexico — and that even when Rubio doubted his dates, he didn't correct the record.
The statement
Says his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover" of Cuba
Marco Rubio on Friday, in a biography on his U.S. Senate website
The ruling

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-false.gifRubio's parents came to the United States in 1956, while Castro was in Mexico and years before he took control of the country. Rubio says he got the years wrong because he relied on the oral telling of his family's history. Still, we rate this claim False.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/politifact-florida-marco-rubios-parents-immigration-predated-castro/1198006

If Rubio's parents returned to Cuba as capitalists and anti communists they could have been jailed.

there are liberals born in this country who would be a better fit with Castro than the Rubio's.