[Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate

[Donovan Arnold]

Keely,
   
  Not being a US citizen is not a crime. So to deny its citizenship would not be a punishment. Why should the US recognize events as relevant if they happen during the commission of a crime?
   
  Best Regards,
   
  Donovan

keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
      .hmmessage P  {  margin:0px;  padding:0px  }  body.hmmessage  {  FONT-SIZE: 10pt;  FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma  }      "Donvan says:

"If someone born here is born here in the commission of a crime against the country, I don't think you can argue that always necessarily entitles automatic citizenship."

Your argument presumes that the criminal and the one punished would be one and the same.  And what crime, exactly, would the infant thusly born be committing?  "Exodus a Felonius Uterus"?  

Perhaps you've spent too much time with students of Latin . . . 

Keely







    
---------------------------------
  Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:40:56 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
To: ophite at gmail.com; jampot at roadrunner.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate

  "They also note that this understanding of birthright citizenship has
persisted in Anglo-American common law since at least the 1500s. Your
argument is, by contrast, an entirely novel interpretation of the law;
one that isn't in accord with anything other than right-wing
conspiracy theories about "anchor babies." This is why nothing like
your interpretation has been tried *in the past century*."

-- ACS
  
 
  Andreas,
   
  Native Americans were not considered US citizens until after the 1920s. African Americans were not considered citizens until after 1865. So, it has not always been so that just because someone is born in the United States they are automatically entitled to be a US Citizen. 
   
  If someone born here is born here in the commission of a crime against the country, I don't think you can argue that always necessarily entitles automatic citizenship. 
   
  If you argue, as you have, that someone who has lived in the United States since they were 2 years old, and now at the age of 32, should not be sent back to Mexico because they have not managed to get their papers in order; then it should also follow that just because someone was born in the United States they are always entitled to live here. 
   
  It makes more since to me to be a citizen of a country of your parents then the one you happen to be in when you are born. It is also much easier to establish blood relationship then where you were born. A DNA test can establish disputed parents, what test can you do to establish where you were born?
   
  Birth papers can be forged, DNA is a little bit more difficult. I for example, am related to dozens of people in the Palouse. So my DNA would match up to bones going back to the 1880s, and lots of other people. If I was to prove where I was born, that would be harder because A) I don't remember that. B) There were a limited number of people there that do may not recall or may be dead C) Gritman might have lost or misplaced my birth certificate : ). D) Someone could forge my birth certificate to establish I was in fact born in Mexico City, Mexico. : P
   
  Best Regards,
   
  Donovan

Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
  On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, g. crabtree wrote:
> What part of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" do you not
> understand?

Individuals residing within the territorial boundaries of the United
States, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. This is why we can, for instance, try and convict
visitors to the United States.

Foreign visitors have always been subject to US jurisdiction and thus
have birthright citizenship (though no Supreme Court case has been
decided on this issue). Foreign ambassadors are excluded on the
grounds that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in
which they reside (cf. "diplomatic immunity."). Native Americans were
excluded until 1924 on the fiction that Indian reservations were
sovereign territories not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

And though Chinese-Americans could not become US citizens until the
repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the one Supreme Court case on the
issue (US v. Wong Kim Ark) decided that even the children of
noncitizen US residents can become US citizens. The one remaining
ambiguity is the actual relationship between the immigration status of
Wong Kim Ark's parents and the status of modern illegal immigrants.
Wong Kim Ark's parents entered the United States well before the
complex system of visas and immigration statutes we have today.

As they entered through San Francisco, they likely just showed up on a
boat -- didn't have to take an immigration test; didn't have to pledge
allegiance to the United States; didn't have to sign any paperwork or
carry a green card. Rather, they were just assumed to be US citizens.
The rationale of the decision is in line with this thinking: the court
argues that because Wong Kim Ark's parents were not *agents* (such as
occupying soldiers or diplomats) of a foreign power, and were
domiciled in the United States (intending to make the United States
their place of residence), Wong Kim Ark was entitled to birthright
citizenship.

They also note that this understanding of birthright citizenship has
persisted in Anglo-American common law since at least the 1500s. Your
argument is, by contrast, an entirely novel interpretation of the law;
one that isn't in accord with anything other than right-wing
conspiracy theories about "anchor babies." This is why nothing like
your interpretation has been tried *in the past century*.

-- ACS

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


  
---------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
  
---------------------------------
  Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're online. =======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080505/f03b6d8a/attachment.html