Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (1515910)	1/24/2025 6:56:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571789

Bill, children born on U.S. soil are automatically U.S. citizens regardless of the immigration status of the parents. Ark already established that. Many legal scholars over the history of birthright citizenship have argued over the concept of "illegal aliens," e.g. the status of Gypsies in the late 19th century. But ultimately it was decided that the legal status of the parents should not matter: ***** americanimmigrationcouncil.org Gypsies as the “Illegal Immigrants” of 1866 Some argue that there was nothing like an “illegal alien” at the time of the Framing, and thus the Framers could not have intended to include the children of illegal aliens in the citizenship clause. Immigration restrictionists are concerned that “illegal aliens” in their presence and their conduct constitute a threat to the American system of law. They have come here without permission (or have remained after temporary permission has expired); they live here in defiance not only of entry restrictions but in evasion of domestic laws. They constitute a population that has deliberately chosen not to become part of the American system and that thus threatens the very American idea of assimilation. The “gypsies” in the U.S. were the closest thing the U.S. had at that time to “illegal” immigrants—a shadow population that was considered to be living in defiance of American law. Senator Cowan referred to them as interlopers “who recognize no authority in [Pennsylvania’s] government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own—an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes, who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen.”4 Sen. John Conness of California, a proponent of the Amendment who was himself an immigrant from Ireland, responded categorically that these criticism of “gypsy” parents had no bearing on their childrens’ citizenship. The Clause, he said, was “a simple declaration” that these children “shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having our claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.”5 It is thus ahistorical to suggest that the Framers did not foresee the legal and social characteristics of what we today call “illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants. They did; and they rather categorically stated that these characteristics—ineligibility for citizenship, unacceptability as members of the body politic, isolation from American culture and systematic evasion of American law—would not constitute exceptions to the Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship. The proponents of the amendment gave an unqualified affirmation of the citizenship of American-born gypsy children. ***** Tenchusatsu