Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown 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 be.
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.
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 remove all doubt as to 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.
. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page) . Id. at 2893 . Id. at 2895 . Id. at 2893 . Id. at 2897 . Id. at 1291 . James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.
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:
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...
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.
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[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.
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.
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.
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 ambassador. 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.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans The 14th Amendment By P.A. Madison Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies February 1, 2005
We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction 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 and reach of law.
Fortunately, we 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.
The best way to describe the status of Federally Recognized Tribes is they are sovereign nations as far as states are concerned (although to a lesser degree in some states, such as California) but not where the federal government/federal law is concerned. For example, a Nevada State Trooper, as a peace officer empowered by the state of Nevada could enforce all the laws of Nevada on a non-indian driving on a roadway within the boundaries of Indian Tribal land, if the Trooper were to conduct a traffic stop on members of that tribe, or any Federally Recognized Tribe he/she could lawfully detain them until Tribal or federal law enforcement officers arrived on scene. The Indian person/s could only be prosecuted in tribal and/or federal court for any crimes that under other circumstances would fall under state jurisdiction. Tribal sovereignty is most just that from states, but not from the feds.
It is complicated, however a Arizona trooper one inch over the Mexican border has NO authority, just as a Mexican law enforcement officer has no jurisdiction one inch over the US border, given that Mexico asserts it's status as a sovereign nation, and to a degree, we still do as well.
You meant to "bear arms" as in to carry or possess arms and not to wear tank tops I'm assuming.
You interpretation appears to be rooted in the ACLU leftist paradigm, which is essentially "Quote the constitution whenever it can be misused in such a manner as to harm America."
If citizens rights were given to all born on our soil, per U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, then why would a member of an Indian tribe born within the national boundaries after that date need the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?
Your attempt to include the 2nd amendment is invalid, as to read the writings of the founding fathers made it clear that the possession of weapons by free men was the intent of that amendment. I challenge you to show me where it was the intent of the founders to reward the violation of American law with citizenship for the children of the criminal invaders.
The China Metallurgical Group Corp., Jiangxi Copper Corporation, and Zijin Mining Group Company recently won a joint bid to develop the Aynak mine, the largest copper mine in Afghanistan, according to the Afghanistan Ministry of Mines and Industries. Reliable resources revealed that the project, possibly worth up to US$2.87 billion, would kick off six months later.
As one of the world's largest copper mines, the Aynak mine has a prospective reserve of 690 million tons of cooper ores. With 1.65 percent copper content, these ores are expected to produce 11.33 million tons of copper, or more than one third of the total copper reserve in China, which stands at some 30 million tons. Some geologists predicted the Aynak copper mine was probably the largest copper mine in the world.
With a huge domestic demand, China is now the world's largest copper consumer. Last year, copper consumption in China totaled four million tons, or 22 percent of the world’s whole supply. However, the country is suffering from a deficiency of copper resources. Currently, more than two thirds of the copper consumed in the country is from overseas markets.
For more details, please read the full story in Chinese
As a typical leftist, you ignore the history you don't like to offer support to those who would cut your throat if given the chance. Israel is at war, not by choice, but by necessity. If Israel has to fence off arabs and screen them through invasive security measures, it's the arabs that are to blame, not Israel.
I first pinned on a badge post-Rodney King. We were taught in the academy never to do or say anything you wouldn't want to be seen on CNN. Expect public scrutiny, especially in an age where everyone has cameras integrated into their cell phone.
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided? By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006 | 22 Comments | More United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a notable court ruling for its dramatic departure over an earlier holding in the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk v. Wilkins. It is also notable for the majorities insistence that the debates in Congress would not be admissible for controlling the meaning of the words.
Reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the Fourteenth Amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?
Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their holding to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion, or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…” Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
It's not just a moral question but a key legal question as well. Just as a bank robber is not free to pass on his criminal takings onto his children, those who criminally enter the US have no legal standing to pass on US citizenship to their children. If one fraudulently or otherwise criminally obtains US citizenship, the citizenship is revoked, the same should be true for multigenerational acts.
Were Wong Kim Ark's parents present here legally at the time of his birth? A general legal principle is that criminal conduct should not be rewarded. It's one thing if the parents are present in the US legally, another if they are not.
I can say from personal experience that the only thing I could count on Teamsters Law Enforcement League membership was the regular deduction of dues from my bank account. I was slugging it out with a corrupt police administration at the time, and they did nothing for me.
Barack Obama, Voting Present in the Middle East Noah Pollak - 06.09.2010 - 8:29 AM The question of the hour is whether the Obama administration is actually going to sit on its hands and do nothing as the Middle East edges closer and closer toward a major conflict.
Where is the administration on Turkey’s dangerous provocations and outrageous rhetoric? Where does the administration stand on the Israeli blockade of Gaza — for it or against it? What does the administration think about the impending arrival of three Iranian “aid” vessels in the Mediterranean that intend to break that blockade? What does Obama think about the rising tide of eliminationist rhetoric coming from Bashar Assad, one of the primary beneficiaries of Obama’s “outreach”? Now would be a good time for the president to clear up where America stands. Instead, we have sunk to such a sordid and embarrassing place that the Obama administration’s representative to the UN Human Rights Council said nothing after the Syrian representative promoted a blood libel about Jews during the council proceedings.
There comes a time When we need to make a show For the world, the Web and CNN There's no people dying, so the best that we can do Is create the greatest bluff of all
We must go on pretending day by day That in Gaza, there's crisis, hunger and plague Coz the billion bucks in aid won't buy their basic needs Like some cheese and missiles for the kids
We'll make the world Abandon reason We'll make them all believe that the Hamas Is Momma Theresa We are peaceful travelers With guns and our own knives The truth will never find its way to your TV
Ooooh, we'll stab them at heart They are soldiers, no one cares We are small, and we took some pictures with doves As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand So we will always gain the upper hand
We'll make the world Abandon reason We'll make them all believe that the Hamas Is Momma Theresa We are peaceful travelers we're waving our own knives The truth will never find its way to your TV
If Islam and terror brighten up your mood But you worry that it may not look so good Well well well well don't you realize You just gotta call yourself An activist for peace and human aid
We'll make the world Abandon reason We'll make them all believe that the Hamas Is Momma Theresa We are peaceful travelers We're waving our own knives The truth will never find its way to your TV
We con the world We con the people We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper We are peaceful travelers We're waving our own knives The truth will never find its way to your TV We con the world (Bruce: we con the world…) We con the people (Bruce: we con the people…) We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper We are peaceful travelers We're waving our own knives The truth will never find its way to your TV The truth will never find its way to your TV
Israel, Turkey, and the End of Stability Contempt for Israel is contempt for Washington.
Foreign policy “realists,” back in the saddle since the Texan cowboy left town, are extremely fond of the concept of “stability”: America needs a stable Middle East, so we should learn to live with Mubarak and the mullahs and the House of Saud, etc. You can see the appeal of “stability” to your big-time geopolitical analyst: You don’t have to update your Rolodex too often, never mind rethink your assumptions. “Stability” is a fancy term to upgrade inertia and complacency into strategy. No wonder the fetishization of stability is one of the most stable features of foreign-policy analysis.
Unfortunately, back in what passes for the real world, there is no stability. History is always on the march, and, if it’s not moving in your direction, it’s generally moving in the other fellow’s. Take this “humanitarian” “aid” flotilla. Much of what went on — the dissembling of the Palestinian propagandists, the hysteria of the U.N. and the Euro-ninnies — was just business as usual. But what was most striking was the behavior of the Turks. In the wake of the Israeli raid, Ankara promised to provide Turkish naval protection for the next “aid” convoy to Gaza. This would be, in effect, an act of war — more to the point, an act of war by a NATO member against the State of Israel.
Ten years ago, Turkey’s behavior would have been unthinkable. Ankara was Israel’s best friend in a region where every other neighbor wishes, to one degree or another, the Jewish state’s destruction. Even when Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP was elected to power eight years ago, the experts assured us there was no need to worry. I remember sitting in a plush bar late one night with a former Turkish foreign minister, who told me, in between passing round the cigars and chugging back the Scotch, that, yes, the new crowd weren’t quite so convivial in the wee small hours but, other than that, they knew where their interests lay. Like many Turkish movers and shakers of his generation, my drinking companion loved the Israelis. “They’re tough hombres,” he said admiringly. “You have to be in this part of the world.” If you had suggested to him that in six years’ time the Turkish prime minister would be telling the Israeli president to his face that “I know well how you kill children on beaches,” he would have dismissed it as a fantasy concoction for some alternative universe.
Yet it happened. Erdogan said those words to Shimon Peres at Davos last year and then flounced off stage. Day by day what was formerly the Zionist entity’s staunchest pal talks more and more like just another cookie-cutter death-to-the-Great-Satan stan-of-the-month.
As the think-tankers like to say: “Who lost Turkey?” In a nutshell: Kemal Ataturk. Since he founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities.
Question I'm a muslum married to a chretien who asks a lot of time for convert: read first,do research and see if he will be conveinced or not..... i wants to get a child with him and my age doesn't allow me to wait too mutch.can i conceive a child with him even he is not convert yet to islam??
Answer In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
At the outset I wish to bring to your notice that it is not permissible for a Muslim female to marry a non Muslim male. Thus, your Nikah (marriage) has not taken place and according to the law of Shari’a, you are not married.
Alhamdulillah, you have stated that you tried on numerous occasions to convert him; don’t give up. Try your level best to show him the beauty of Islam; advise him to go to the ‘Aalim/ Sheikh (Religious leader) of your locality, in order that he may be explained the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam. If he embraces the Deen of Islam then the Nikah has to be performed
Unfortunately, at this very point in time you may not have any sexual relations with this man, nor are you allowed to have children. If a child had been conceived during this period, then this child will be an illegitimate child. Also, if there had been any intimacy between the two of you, then you should make sincere Taubah (turning to Almighty Allah) and Istigfar (seeking forgiveness) because no Nikah had taken place and every act of intimacy is considered as Zina (fornication).
If after all your efforts have been exhausted to convert him, he still does not accept the Deen of Islam, then we advise you leave this man. This will be in your best interest in this world and the Hereafter. Bear in mind that the ultimate aim of every Muslim is to please Allah Ta’ala and be admitted into Jannah (Paradise). Perhaps one day when you become a mother you would hope for your children to be righteous and pious and be good leaders for the nation. For them to reach that goal they would require a sound upbringing and a good father; a father who will advise them to do good actions and to worship Allah by performing Salah, Fasting in the great month of Ramadan, giving Zakah to the poor and needy, going for the magnificent journey of Haj etc.
Besides your feelings for this man, think of the outcome of your children if and when you have them. The pleasures of this world are temporary and short lived but the life of the Hereafter is eternal. Therefore, make sincere dua to Allah asking for His help and guidance. May Allah make this easy on you. Ameen
It appears that the US Coast Guard boards ships with more than teddy bears and lollypops when facing potential terrorists. Exactly what sort of greeting might a jihad flotilla get trying to enter US waters?
Politicians pandering to various groups, as well as the uninformed love to second guess those that actually go into harms way to face things the sheltered critics would never dream of facing. Violence is sometimes the only answer, and real violence is never pretty.
"But it was a fiasco. I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."
Everyone keeps repeating this. It was not a fiasco. It was a confrontation. Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.
I suppose it a matter of opinion. Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say a group of aggressive civilian protestors armed only with a few slingshots, a pipe or two, and a few knives were marching in your town. Let's assume it was an illegal (no permit) rally and therefore the police were called. The police move in to disperse the crowd. The crowd resisted. The police became more aggressive. Somehow one or two handguns were stolen from the police. Shots were supposedly fired. The police were then instructed by their onsite commander to fire upon the crowd. Results:
"Autopsy results by forensics experts revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds. Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head". Plus, nearly 60 civilians were injured.
I'm not saying it wasn't justified. And I'm not a policeman, but I bet your city council, your mayor, your governor, the press, and privately even the Chief of Police would call this a giant "fiasco" as he/she tried to quell the fallout. And there would be a thorough impartial investigation.
Rioters armed with edged and impact weapons attempting to attack poliice officers would be shot early and often, until they no longer are a threat.