Sunday, February 1, 2009

Hypocrisy and the 14th Amendment - twofer.

This is what you call a hypocrite, people.
Dee said...

Good Ole Liquid. Stated proof by wikipedia, the revisionist view of history you choose to believe.


And yet, if you look on her blog, she gives an answer to the 14th Amendment, from where you ask?? Wiki. the revisionist view of history she chooses to believe, only she changes the paragraph to fit her agenda, shown below.
Anon,
Why dont you read the case law:

Wong Kim Ark[1] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.[2] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, having returned, was granted entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States". Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs and denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could constitutionally be denied U.S. citizenship and excluded from the country.

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent, at the time of the child's birth, BECOMES A CITIZEN of the United States at the time of birth.


ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION. HAS BEEN RULED UPON BY THE SUPREME COURT. AND IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

GET OVER IT ANON.

THE CONSTITUTION WILL NOT BE CHANGED!!!

IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE CONSTITUION, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE OUR GREAT USA!!
January 31, 2009 6:29 PM

Do you see where she states the OPINION of the Held 6-2? Here is the actual paragraph from the wiki she has spun to fit her agenda:
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
As you can clearly see, not quite what she says it says.

The only problem is that she fails to paste the more relevant information, such as the following:
It has been suggested by some critics of U.S. citizenship policy relating to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants that Wong Kim Ark does not hold such children to be U.S. citizens, because Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents of the United States at the time of his birth.[7] Those advocating this view assert that a subsequent case before the courts, dealing with U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, would easily be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark by virtue of this difference in the parents' legal status. Proponents of the conventional view argue that the Wong Kim Ark majority defined the "jurisdiction" exception to the jus soli rule very narrowly; that references in the majority opinion to the legal resident status of Wong's parents were obiter dicta and not an essential part of the holdings of the case; that the court majority's reason for mentioning the legal resident status of Wong's parents was simply to illustrate that they were in the United States as ordinary people and not as representatives of a foreign government; and that the 1982 Plyler case affirmed the conventional, mainstream interpretation of Wong Kim Ark with regard to the question of what being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means. In the end, no one can really know how the Supreme Court might rule in a new case challenging the citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants until and unless such a case were actually heard, and ruled upon, by the court.

Also note that Wong Kim's parents were here and given LPR status through the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, and that Wong Kim himself was born between the years 1868 and 1873 as pointed out by Dee above:
The Burlingame Treaty, between the United States and China, amended the Treaty of Tientsin and established formal friendly relations between the two countries, with the United States granting China Most Favored Nation status. It was ratified in 1868.

The treaty:

* Recognized China's right of eminent domain over all her territory;
* Gave China the right to appoint consuls at ports in the United States, "who shall enjoy the same privileges and immunities as those enjoyed by the consuls of Great Britain and Russia";
* Provided that "citizens of the United States in China of every religious persuasion and Chinese subjects in the United States shall enjoy entire liberty of conscience and shall be exempt from all disability or persecution on account of their religious faith or worship in either country"; and
* Granted certain privileges to citizens of either country residing in the other, the privilege of naturalization, however, being specifically withheld.

Importantly, Chinese immigration to the United States was encouraged. Opposition in Congress to Chinese immigration led President Rutherford B. Hayes to authorize James Burrill Angell to renegotiate the treaty in 1880. The treaty was amended to suspend, but not prohibit, Chinese immigration, while confirming the obligation of the United States to protect the rights of those immigrants already arrived. [1]

The treaty was reversed in 1882 by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Take note from the wiki page on the 14th Amendment:
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[3] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[4] although it has generally been assumed that they are.

So, is it possible, that after all this information, that the precedence could be challenged in court overturning the common perception of the citizenship clause? I say look to Dr. John C Eastman.

4 comments:

Liquidmicro said...

As if the PRO idiots could understand the actual "case law" they cite.

From the Indigenous Xicano (IX) in response to Dee's 14th Amendment propaganda.
What part of legal do these bigots not understand? I thought they were for the rule of law. Or is it just the laws that are congruent with their bigotry?

Bigots were trying to take the rights afforded from the 14th amendment away from the Chinese as early as the latter part of the 1860s.

These guys are funny.


Lets pick apart IX's ignorance, shall we.
1) What part of legal do these bigots not understand? Well, since you brought it up, Wong Kims parents were "legal" LPR holders during Wong Kims birth, also they fall under the Burlingame Treaty, which you obviously have no clue about.
2) I thought they were for the rule of law. Or is it just the laws that are congruent with their bigotry? The "Rule of Law" has yet to be determined, since according to your picking and choosing o information in regards to the 14th Amendment, you fail to accept the statements of The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are.
3) Bigots were trying to take the rights afforded from the 14th amendment away from the Chinese as early as the latter part of the 1860s. Actually, what you are referring to is the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1882, not from the 1860's. Please get your information correct.


And then the ignorant Dee comes in and praises IX.

IX,
You've hit the nail on the head! They are not for Rule of Law. They are only for Rule of Law they agree with and this proves it!!


Again, the "Rule of Law", from your own wiki link you used, states:It has been suggested by some critics of U.S. citizenship policy relating to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants that Wong Kim Ark does not hold such children to be U.S. citizens, because Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents of the United States at the time of his birth. Those advocating this view assert that a subsequent case before the courts, dealing with U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, would easily be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark by virtue of this difference in the parents' legal status.

So Wong's parents were legally here when he was born, kinda makes for a whole different argument now doesn't it?

patriot said...

Another point is that we honor the 14th Amendment with the birthright citizenship clause in its present form. What we are advocating is getting it re-interpreted. How is that being against the rule of law as Dee is claiming? Isn't she and her pro-illegals buds trying to get our immigration laws changed? How is that any different than us wantiing the 14th Amendment changed? Her hypocricies never stop do they?

We aren't even asking that those who were born from illegal alien parents already be stripped of their citizenship. What we are asking is to have birthright citizenship changed to require that at least one parent be a citizen for their newborn to gain instant citizenship and only for those who were born AFTER the change to the 14th has passed. Dee twists and spins and lies and is such a hypocrite that it makes you sick to even read her tripe in her blog anymore. Bet she deleted every refute to her nonsense after that. What a coward!

Liquidmicro said...

It is becoming quite comical reading the spin put on her rhetoric of which she claims to be factual, yet can't even copy and paste an article or paragraph correctly without spinning it.

Alie said...

If you read some of the debates leading up to the passage of the 14th amendment, it is easy to see that this amendment was meant to confer citizenship upon the newly freed slaves and their children after the Civil War. They really went to great lengths to try to exclude people who were here as citizens of another country. However, this was in the 18th century and our country not even fully formed!

I cannot imagine that those voting on the 14th amendment would have ever imagined a day when there would be a massive influx of foreign nationals here illegally and that their children would become automatic citizens. It is just not common sense.

At the very least, the parents--if not citizens--should be here in legal status. Is that too much to ask?

Also, don't forget that Mexico confers citizenship to children born here of Mexican parents. So they are dual citizens, not merely U.S. citizens.

And as for the "bigot" factor: once again this is meant to intimidate. I can't think of anything more bigoted than advocating for illegals from your own ethnic group. However the reinterpretation of the 14th amendment would apply to ANY child born to ANYONE here illegally from ANY nation in the world, whether Mexico, Ireland, Canada, Europe, China, etc. Equally applied to everyone. Which one is really "bigoted?"

The double standards and hypocrisy never end, do they?