View Full Version : Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
Whiskey_Bravo
10-30-18, 07:53
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
Trump attempting to end birthright citizenship with an executive order? Is this even possible? The left is going to be extra frothy at the mouth over this I would assume. Que the "Trump is a racist" in 3,2,1
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 08:48
Now if we could just deport the illegal alien sympathizers too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-30-18, 09:10
Legal? That's for SCOTUS to decide. The left is going to go NUTZ.
So birth certificates are a local (county?) document. My guess is the first challenge will be for a Social Security card application. Probably the form would have to change and you'll have to prove the parents legal status. So some baby will get denied and that will kick off the legal battles, my guess is up through the 9th, but you will probably get some cases from more conservative circuits too, where you might get some pro-Trump decisions. I hope that they do it on SS number or something like that and not on some medicaid application. You don't need the imagery of trying to take medical care away from a baby.
1. Trump sometimes does stuff with out the leg work done, so this may be a crap show for a bit.
2. Interesting that he does it now. Most pols would have waited until after the election.
We really need to put the Commerce Clause and the 14th into proper legal usage.
I'll call it now:
Roberts F's this up.
RetroRevolver77
10-30-18, 09:14
deleted
Averageman
10-30-18, 09:14
He was saying he could do it by E.O., heads would spin if he tries it.
I think this is something that is long past due.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 09:15
He was saying he could do it by E.O., heads would spin if he tries it.
I think this is something that is long past due.
If he actually goes through with it I say we start a campaign to add his face to Mt Rushmore.
He was saying he could do it by E.O., heads would spin if he tries it.
I think this is something that is long past due.
I would like to see it just for the entertainment factor when the Leftists start screaming and crying.
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 10:02
I would like to see it just for the entertainment factor when the Leftist’s start screaming and crying.
If for no other reason! Theyll lose their shit fo sho.
I just love our Prez...the balls on this guy!
Now if we could just deport the illegal alien sympathizers too.
That would end sales of chicken in grocery stores and restaurants for months, perhaps even years.
There already is some legal precedent for this. If a foreign diplomat has a baby inside the US, that baby isn't automatically a US citizen.
Guaranteed this will go to SCOTUS quickly after several emergency injunctions, BUT...
If the parent(s) is/are in the US ILLEGALLY, it should only be logical for said child NOT to have birthright citizenship. I know... There I go trying to apply logic again. Imho, this will come down to Justice Obabacare again. Of course the (D)s will ask Kavanaugh to recuse himself which he will not. I'm no lawyer, have stayed at many Holiday Inn Express' over the years, but IMHO the 14th amendment was not "intended" to cover illegal alien births.
The NEXT E/O should TAX at 50% all of the money wired out of the US... The caravan would stop in it's tracks.
Coal Dragger
10-30-18, 11:27
The 50% tax on remittances back home for illegals, would ironically enough make Mexico pay for the wall. Just have those taxes go into a fund for building a wall and other border security measures.
Totalitarian leftists heads would explode, along with the President of Mexico and other “Shit hole” countries.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 11:28
Ironically, I think the caravan triggered this. In the process of coming up with a way to deal with the mob of people headed this way, Trump hit upon the need to take care of this problem.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-30-18, 12:05
This needs to be on the table for any kind of immigration reform. Any 'comprehensive' immigration law has to end the anchor baby issue and make it so that if it is found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law and all the pro-immigration provisions are thrown out too.
Trump is smart. He actually hasn't signed it, but it makes the base happy- with out a legal fight, for now.
Dr. Bullseye
10-30-18, 12:08
This is absolutely awesome and an act which far, far exceeds any expectations. Trump is Great!
morbidbattlecry
10-30-18, 13:03
I find it unbelievable some poeple who are supposedly pro constitution are ok with the president changing an amendment on a whim. If Obama had done something like this it would have been apocalyptic.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 13:06
I find it unbelievable some poeple who are supposedly pro constitution are ok with the president changing an amendment on a whim. If Obama had done something like this it would have been apocalyptic.
I've heard on a couple of radio programs today that his lawyers say he can do it within the bounds of the Constitution. I'm anxious to see what they come up with.
RetroRevolver77
10-30-18, 13:39
deleted
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 13:42
TEXT:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Just on its face it looks like if you're born here you're a citizen. Trump's lawyers have their work cut out for them if they're going to find a loophole to that.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
MountainRaven
10-30-18, 14:06
All Trump has to do is ask if the 14th Amendment was ever properly ratified- which it wasn't. All the Southern States were barred from voting on the Amendment at that time. They rammed through the 13th with the help of the Southern States, then blocked the Southern States from voting on the 14th. If Trump manages to get anchor babies and their chain migration families legally removed- he will be the greatest President ever, if not already, but just poking the bear about this, simply amazing.
Why am I not surprised that you think Dred Scott v. Sandford should be the law of the land.
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 14:24
Why am I not surprised that you think Dred Scott v. Sandford should be the law of the land.
Brother- theres PLENTY of us who loathe & despise Dred Scott & other similar truly racist laws, that support The President on this. Lindsay Graham is introducing legislation to the Senate to do the same. DAMN letting these illegals into our country, knocked up just to have anchor babies. Six months of enforcement and that shit will stop ASAP, forever.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 14:26
Amen. It's not about race; it's about Americans retaining control of the culture and prosperity of our country. I'm part Irish and I don't want any damn Irish coming into the country illegally either.
MountainRaven
10-30-18, 14:30
Brother- theres PLENTY of us who loathe & despise Dred Scott & other similar truly racist laws, that support The President on this. Lindsay Graham is introducing legislation to the Senate to do the same. DAMN letting these illegals into our country, knocked up just to have anchor babies. Six months of enforcement and that shit will stop ASAP, forever.
Amen. It's not about race; it's about Americans retaining control of the culture and prosperity of our country. I'm part Irish and I don't want any damn Irish coming into the country illegally either.
Cool.
Y'all realize that Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th Amendment, right?
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 14:30
I find it unbelievable some poeple who are supposedly pro constitution are ok with the president changing an amendment on a whim. If Obama had done something like this it would have been apocalyptic.
IF he has the authority under the Constitution...whats the prob? If not, itll go to SCOTUS and either way, itll be THEIR baby then. And FYI..the diff between Trumps motives and Obamas are as different as Heaven & Hell. Trump has done EVERYTHING..FOR...America. That demon Obama...did everything TO America. Ill takes Trumps ulterior motives ANY DAMN DAY over that f-in Obama.
MountainRaven
10-30-18, 14:31
Brother- theres PLENTY of us who loathe & despise Dred Scott & other similar truly racist laws, that support The President on this. Lindsay Graham is introducing legislation to the Senate to do the same. DAMN letting these illegals into our country, knocked up just to have anchor babies. Six months of enforcement and that shit will stop ASAP, forever.
Amen. It's not about race; it's about Americans retaining control of the culture and prosperity of our country. I'm part Irish and I don't want any damn Irish coming into the country illegally either.
Cool.
Y'all realize that Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th Amendment, right? So an argument that the 14th Amendment was improperly adopted is an argument that Dred Scott is the law of the land.
Something-something-something the road to hell, something-something-something paved with good intentions. Something-something-something be careful what you wish for.
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 14:32
I find it unbelievable some poeple who are supposedly pro constitution are ok with the president changing an amendment on a whim. If Obama had done something like this it would have been apocalyptic.
Cool.
Y'all realize that Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th Amendment, right?
Of course- you aint talking to some punk kids here- YOU brought it up, do YOU realize it?
MountainRaven
10-30-18, 14:41
Of course- you aint talking to some punk kids here- YOU brought it up, do YOU realize it?
I think y'all couldn't give two shits if, in your desire to find something to burn people at the stake you perceive as enemies of the Constitution, you used the Constitution as kindling.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 14:43
I think y'all couldn't give two shits if, in your desire to find something to burn people at the stake you perceive as enemies of the Constitution, you used the Constitution as kindling.
And, at that..Ill bow out and simply say...MAGA BABY.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 15:10
Cool.
Y'all realize that Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th Amendment, right? So an argument that the 14th Amendment was improperly adopted is an argument that Dred Scott is the law of the land.
It's a moot point how, when, or where the 14th Amendment was or was not ratified because it's been enforced as the law for so long that it IS the law. Dred Scott was a horrible decision born out of the zeitgeist that whelped it.
My only point was whether Trump's lawyers can legitimately prove through legal maneuvers whether the 14th would not be violated by an executive order disallowing illegals born here to automatically be citizens. I'm anxious to see how this comes out.
Ironically, just as the Dredd Scott case pushed the country toward civil war, I wonder if this new executive order will push us to a second civil war?
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
Trump attempting to end birthright citizenship with an executive order? Is this even possible? The left is going to be extra frothy at the mouth over this I would assume. Que the "Trump is a racist" in 3,2,1
Bruce Lee was a US citizen because his parents happened to be in the US when he was born, his father was a member of the Peking Opera and performing in the US. The difference in his case vs many others is that his parents were here LEGALLY.
I think that is the only thing that needs to change. If your parents were illegals and dropped a kid in the ER, too bad - it means nothing and we shouldn't reward criminals. In fact illegals should be arrested and forced to have their kids in prison hospitals.
But if you are here on some kind of lawful work visa or similar status and you have a kid, that kid should be a US citizen. Obviously "are you pregnant" should be a strong consideration in granting temporary legal status.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 15:33
But if you are here on some kind of lawful work visa or similar status and you have a kid, that kid should be a US citizen. Obviously "are you pregnant" should be a strong consideration in granting temporary legal status.
I don't know if I even like that. I think we should draw the line at "if you are a naturalized citizen your children are automatically born US citizens."
Now if we could just deport the illegal alien sympathizers too.
Stop, you giving me a hard on
I don't know if I even like that. I think we should draw the line at "if you are a naturalized citizen your children are automatically born US citizens."
I don't like the fact that communists have free speech which is almost always intended to undermine the Constitution itself, but the wording and intent of the Constitution permit both.
Ironically, just as the Dredd Scott case pushed the country toward civil war, I wonder if this new executive order will push us to a second civil war?
If there actually IS a civil war, you and about 1,000 other guys are going to be pretty lonely when nobody else shows up.
Personally I wish we could get the alt right and antifa guys into a stadium gladiator style for our enjoyment.
Doc Safari
10-30-18, 16:07
Personally I wish we could get the alt right and antifa guys into a stadium gladiator style for our enjoyment.
See what all that porn does to ya? :jester::sarcastic:
My girlfriend says we should divide the country into two halves: them on one side of the Mississippi and us on the other. Then we bomb their half. :jester:
Bruce Lee was a US citizen because his parents happened to be in the US when he was born, his father was a member of the Peking Opera and performing in the US. The difference in his case vs many others is that his parents were here LEGALLY.
I think that is the only thing that needs to change.
The problem with that is you can say Bruce Lee's parents were here on business. Nowadays though people will 'vacation' here and oops, that baby just wouldn't wait until we got home.
So are they illegal? No, but they are creating a US citizen in a rather shady way which should be illegal.
I find it unbelievable some poeple who are supposedly pro constitution are ok with the president changing an amendment on a whim. If Obama had done something like this it would have been apocalyptic.
Wrong.
The 14th Amendment was never intended to give citizenship to an anchor baby of illegal aliens.
It was intended to give citizenship to newly freed slaves after the civil war.
It has been intentionally mis-interpreted by leftist politicians and judges.
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"
[The 14th amendment] 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 person.[2]
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Diplomats and combatants are the only one's excluded from jurisdiction. I don't see how this will fly but now that Trump has raised that flag, I'm sure Liberal judges are being put on notice to block his EO.
RetroRevolver77
10-30-18, 17:02
deleted
The problem with that is you can say Bruce Lee's parents were here on business. Nowadays though people will 'vacation' here and oops, that baby just wouldn't wait until we got home.
So are they illegal? No, but they are creating a US citizen in a rather shady way which should be illegal.
So we'd have to find a way to address that specific issue. But right now something is better than nothing and we'd have a better chance of passing this than some "all or nothing" version. Illegals getting anchor baby footholds is currently our biggest problem and many of them for various reasons could not legally "vacation" in the US either.
What I don't want to see is people who are legally in the US, whose children should be granted citizenship if they were born here, have to lose that opportunity because of the actions of criminals. And the Constitution is pretty clear that your parents don't have to be US citizens if you are born here. It's a lot like how we shouldn't lose our rights because of the criminal acts of others.
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 17:56
I don't like the fact that communists have free speech which is almost always intended to undermine the Constitution itself, but the wording and intent of the Constitution permit both.
Im not going to derail this thread...go to my new thread titled QUESTION: DOES THE CONSTITUTION GIVE/GRANT THE RIGHT TO USURP OR ADVOCATE AGAINST IT?
Im not going to derail this thread...go to my new thread titled QUESTION: DOES THE CONSTITUTION GIVE/GRANT THE RIGHT TO USURP OR ADVOCATE AGAINST IT?
It grants free speech, not actions. So you can talk about it, just like you can talk about shooting "black people, white people, whatever people" but as soon as you try to actually put that into action, it's a crime.
Straight Shooter
10-30-18, 18:05
I don't like the fact that communists have free speech which is almost always intended to undermine the Constitution itself, but the wording and intent of the Constitution permit both.
It grants free speech, not actions. So you can talk about it, just like you can talk about shooting "black people, white people, whatever people" but as soon as you try to actually put that into action, it's a crime.
Brother- talking about or advocating shooting ANYONE, is it not a crime?
Anyway- lets take this to my thread, so as not to derail this one.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-30-18, 18:58
It will get shot down at every level until it gets to SCOTUS to decide the Constitutional issue. You can make a good argument either way. Pretty clear that illegal aliens could be excluded, just depends on the justices. Seeing how Roberts was willing to overlook a clear Constitutional issue in deference to current law and practice, I don't see this passing unless RBH croaks and more reliable vote is part of the conservative block.
Ex Post Facto
So we'd have to find a way to address that specific issue. But right now something is better than nothing and we'd have a better chance of passing this than some "all or nothing" version. Illegals getting anchor baby footholds is currently our biggest problem and many of them for various reasons could not legally "vacation" in the US either.
What I don't want to see is people who are legally in the US, whose children should be granted citizenship if they were born here, have to lose that opportunity because of the actions of criminals. And the Constitution is pretty clear that your parents don't have to be US citizens if you are born here. It's a lot like how we shouldn't lose our rights because of the criminal acts of others.
PatrioticDisorder
10-30-18, 19:14
The fact that some on this very forum are brainwashed into believing the bullshit notion that anchor babies are supported by the constitution is pretty scary. This will be upheld by SCOTUS, as it should. Neither the wording or the intent of the 14th amendment was to allow anchor babies.
So we'd have to find a way to address that specific issue. But right now something is better than nothing and we'd have a better chance of passing this than some "all or nothing" version.
Totally agree with all you said. I also wonder from a Trump standpoint. Let's say he pushes this with an EO, the Left pushes back with a Judge. Now Trump can be more in his lane by saying that he got the ball rolling but it doesn't appear that Congress, Courts, whatever are going to make any sort of a timely bipartisan solution. So now he is faced with no option but to err on the side of protecting America and classify anyone at the border without papers to be combatants. After all, Mexico has offered them a means to a safe new home and they chosen not to accept it. That's a pretty clear statement as to their intentions. They full well intend to not fall under the jurisdiction of the USA, nor Mexico for that matter. One could only conclude they are a foreign evasion.
Not to mention that Trump has now shifted the media focus back to the mob evasion and he is acting to protect.
Trump doesn't do much without a plan or three.
You know how when we get entangled in various life situations we will have a convoluted dream of all these mis-connected pieces that reflect on all the things we have run into lately. The dream makes no sense as it happens but the next day it's as though the slate was wiped clean and we can now deal with all that had been a worry.
Trump seems to do that while he's awake. He's like an Octopus. I find it very difficult to believe he's just throwing this out as a spur of the moment situation. I also seem to recall he mentioned this in his campaign. I could be mistaken about that though. ... and Lindsay Graham introducing the bill...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/that-time-democrat-harry-reid-said-e2-80-98no-sane-country-e2-80-99-would-have-birthright-citizenship-video/ar-BBP7oP9
I think --this-- is the October surprise.
By next Tuesday Dems will see the Harry Reid video, the will hear Lindsey Graham, they certainly will hear Trump. What will they all think or do? If it makes a Dem stay home to ponder, it's a win. If it rallies a Red, it's a win. If it does both, it's a double win. This is the time Trump lives for. "Crunch Time"
I think y'all couldn't give two shits if, in your desire to find something to burn people at the stake you perceive as enemies of the Constitution, you used the Constitution as kindling.
I don't care anymore. We're so far past anything resembling what our forefather's envisioned that it no longer matters. We are tax slaves all to support tens of millions of welfare rats who are voting and out breeding us out of our own country.
So you acknowledge that you're willing to shred/burn/ignore the constitution as long as it helps you to achieve your political goals.
What does that make you?
you can talk about shooting "black people, white people, whatever people" but as soon as you try to actually put that into action, it's a crime.
Not quite that loose, you can get words into crime pretty easy. Other thread.
I haven't read through all the responses closely, so forgive me if this has already been covered:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As was mentioned, the 14th Amendment was one of several amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans.
Some folks contend that illegal aliens, and therefore their new-born children are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' because of their allegiance to the country from which they came.
When I first read this strategy/line of thought I was immediately perplexed by twisted logic which one has to use to arrive at such a conclusion. Isn't their such a thing as dual-citizenship? Don't folks inside our borders have to obey our laws? Doesn't that mean they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Turns out I was correct:
As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.[11]
Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.
Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/
I'm okay with giving the parents a choice - leave your citizen within the U.S. when you leave, or take them with you and we will allow them to return, as a citizen, when they are of age. The last part might require some legislation.
Or, amend the 14th Amendment.
Some of you guys seem to be advocating following the constitution only when it suits your purposes, and embracing a more Imperial Presidency, one where the President can do damn well as he pleases, regardless of law or custom.
RetroRevolver77
10-30-18, 21:47
deleted
I don't care anymore.
That's what they want.
A little over two hundred forty years after the sacrifices of our founding fathers to give us the greatest country ever known and their own decedents are being bred out of existence by the very actions of the government that has allowed forty million illegals to reside within it's borders. Illegals pumping out anchor babies with rewards of chain migration, voting rights, and tax payer funded welfare to support them all. We are now leveraged with $115 trillion in debt in unfunded liabilities with nearly ninety million people on some form of taxpayer funded subsistence that vote themselves more of our tax dollars each time they make it out to the polls. A piece of paper stopped the government from completely squandering our future? I see things for what they are and the situation is not sustainable.
Nice bit of rationalization, but you didn't answer the question.
But if you honestly believe the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper to be ignored when it suits your purpose, I'd say that's answer enough.
RetroRevolver77
10-30-18, 22:20
deleted
Some of you guys seem to be advocating following the constitution only when it suits your purposes, and embracing a more Imperial Presidency, one where the President can do damn well as he pleases, regardless of law or custom.
So.... did Scalia mean subject to under the reasonable course of living ones life in the USA or under any possible imagined circumstance. I would suggest it is the former and not the latter.
I would find it incredibly hard to believe that Scalia would state our laws in words and then simply say ...yep, if they want to play hit and run, too bad, so sad.
Guerilla birth warfare is not the same as a legal birth occurrence.
Having said that... I don't see this happening outside of SCOTUS and they will have to decide what's more important. USA or politics.
These jackasses get paid to sort this out. Now it's time for them to earn their keep. So before it gets to SCOTUS -maybe- there will be bipartisan reasonableness. It's not like both sides don't see what's up. Do you really think if America was flooded with Mexicans they would give a rip about someone like Hillary? We are the only ones that pay that tub of lard any mind.
Is it legal under The Constitution for Trump to write an EO? If it is, you can bet your ass he is going to push the envelope. Along with that are gone the days where you can sit this one out. From now on the polls will show higher and higher percentages of voters.
No one has burned The Constitution..... yet.
Some of you guys seem to be advocating following the constitution only when it suits your purposes, and embracing a more Imperial Presidency, one where the President can do damn well as he pleases, regardless of law or custom.
Please. If it's so simple that it was meant to only exclude the children of diplomats...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States except to diplomat parents... is how it would have been written.
The argument at it's most basic is, What did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" MEAN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. If you are an originalist that should matter, if not then the words just mean whatever you feel like they should anyway.
"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." Senator Howard
That's the key right there. EXCEPT... if you read it, that is not what has occurred.
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." Senator Howard
Commas removed.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, but will include every other class of persons." --- that doesn't work.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are, aliens, but will include every other class of persons. --- you could argue that.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are, 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." --- now the grammar just sounds wrong.
If you don't take Howards statement as a whole it seems to make no sense. It seems he speaking of ambassadors and foreign ministers. -- Not that I agree with him. But it's my understanding he was the guy. He was the Schumer or Pelosi or McConnell or whomever. He was pushing a deal through and someone objected so he eliminates the ruling class that may present itself.
Just my take... but it's not like this is a cut and dried oversight.
If this flies it will boil down to the underlying spirit of the founding. Which boils down to who is supposed to be here and why.
Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, one of the principle authors of the 14th Amendment, said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/fourteenth-amendment-debate.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-31-18, 00:58
There is some case from the late 1800s where the citizenship of a ethnic Chinese baby was questioned and the parents were born in China. The baby was given citizenship, but I think the key is what was the status of the parents. Obviously, just because you were born somewhere else doesn't deny your kids citizenship, but I don't even know if there was anything about being here illegally back then.
Frankly, I would leave it alone. Make it part of the solution for the immigration overhaul, and if it gets declared unconstitutional, the whole legislation is thrown out. That should be enough incentive for people like Roberts to vote for it, since that is what he did with Obamacare.
The advantage of getting it now, is that you don't have to trade anything away to get it in the bigger deal. I think that is risky.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In short he was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who were in the U.S. legally and engaged in business.
There is some case from the late 1800s where the citizenship of a ethnic Chinese baby was questioned and the parents were born in China. The baby was given citizenship, but I think the key is what was the status of the parents. Obviously, just because you were born somewhere else doesn't deny your kids citizenship, but I don't even know if there was anything about being here illegally back then.
Frankly, I would leave it alone. Make it part of the solution for the immigration overhaul, and if it gets declared unconstitutional, the whole legislation is thrown out. That should be enough incentive for people like Roberts to vote for it, since that is what he did with Obamacare.
The advantage of getting it now, is that you don't have to trade anything away to get it in the bigger deal. I think that is risky.
MountainRaven
10-31-18, 01:35
Arguing that, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," means that it does not extend to the children of non-US citizens born in the US isn't figuratively the same as arguing that, "A well regulated militia," means that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of state militias to have guns... it is literally the same argument.
Please. If it's so simple that it was meant to only exclude the children of diplomats...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States except to diplomat parents... is how it would have been written.
The argument at it's most basic is, What did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" MEAN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. If you are an originalist that should matter, if not then the words just mean whatever you feel like they should anyway.
"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." Senator Howard
The chief intent behind the verbiage was to avoid giving aboriginal Americans living in the US citizenship. The original wording included, "untaxed Indians," but was dropped due to fear that it would lead to some sort of requirement for wealth before one could become a citizen.
Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. Cowan: I think not.
Mr. Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.
During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens." He further added that "they [the Chinese] all return to their own country at some time or other".
(The Civil Rights Bill, later the Civil Rights Act, was written by most of the same men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The, "Chinese of the Pacific States," were, at that time, brought to the US as temporary labor.)
By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of these races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States.
See also: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) - in which SCOTUS determined that a person born to parents who live in the US, who are not in the employ of a foreign government, is granted United States citizenship at birth.
I think it would be interesting to see if our current SCOTUS would hold that being the child of an illegal alien suspends birthright citizenship, as there is no clarity offered in the US Constitution for whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to those born to people legally in the United States. However, I am reasonably certain that before any such change can come before SCOTUS, it would have to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. I do not believe that SCOTUS would or should allow the President to unilaterally interpret the Constitution to deny rights that had heretofore been practically enshrined by precedent.
There is some case from the late 1800s where the citizenship of a ethnic Chinese baby was questioned and the parents were born in China. The baby was given citizenship, but I think the key is what was the status of the parents. Obviously, just because you were born somewhere else doesn't deny your kids citizenship, but I don't even know if there was anything about being here illegally back then.
Frankly, I would leave it alone. Make it part of the solution for the immigration overhaul, and if it gets declared unconstitutional, the whole legislation is thrown out. That should be enough incentive for people like Roberts to vote for it, since that is what he did with Obamacare.
The advantage of getting it now, is that you don't have to trade anything away to get it in the bigger deal. I think that is risky.
That baby had been given citizenship at birth, under the law.
That "baby" made two trips back to China as a young adult. When he returned from the second trip (at the ripe old age of 20-something), he was detained by US Customs officials who said that there was no way he was a US citizen. Ultimately, the courts (including SCOTUS) upheld his citizenship.
RetroRevolver77
10-31-18, 09:17
deleted
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-31-18, 09:56
The United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) case seems pretty definitive. I'd like to hear why that isn't relevant. You can make an argument about the verbiage, but if SCOTUS has ruled on what it means, it doesn't leave much wiggle room.
RetroRevolver77
10-31-18, 10:18
deleted
PatrioticDisorder
10-31-18, 10:24
Please. If it's so simple that it was meant to only exclude the children of diplomats...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States except to diplomat parents... is how it would have been written.
The argument at it's most basic is, What did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" MEAN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. If you are an originalist that should matter, if not then the words just mean whatever you feel like they should anyway.
"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." Senator Howard
The parents were here legally on business, that's not the case with these illegals.
This.
Arguing that, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," means that it does not extend to the children of non-US citizens born in the US isn't figuratively the same as arguing that, "A well regulated militia," means that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of state militias to have guns... it is literally the same argument.
"and subject to" clearly means BOTH requirements must be met. While your incorrect reading of the 2A must SKIP over the comma and the part where it says "the right of the PEOPLE..."
Disagreement on what "subject to the jurisdiction" means is reasonable debate, your attempt to compare to the 2A is not.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-31-18, 10:33
The parents were here legally on business, that's not the case with these illegals. One of the reasons the government has been soft on immigration is partially because of the ponzi schemes they created with social security and medicare. The same failed notion that we need to replace a declining population to support those ponzi schemes is just that. Population wouldn't be declining if they weren't taxing nearly all the surplus out of households to support these socialist programs.
You need family's with 3+ kids to have the SS and other programs have enough generational inertia to work. So now we have 2 kids in a family that we send to good schools and spend resources on, and then we import two poor kids to take the place of the missing kids that we don't have in our nuclear family, don't spend the half million or whatever it takes to raise a middle class kid. It used to be that we'd send the oldest or the smartest of the kids to college, now 'all' kids go to college, but not so much for the imported kids. People look at me odd when I say it that way, but it totally true. Now, if the Ponzi scheme will keep working is another issue.
RetroRevolver77
10-31-18, 10:40
deleted
Bottom line is that we don't need a third of the population living here illegally nor rewarding that behavior. Being here illegally should automatically disbar them from receiving any form of government benefits and being given birthright citizenship.
Not disagreeing with you, but adding to: I heard on Tucker last night that 1 in 12 births in the US are currently from illegals. I'll see if I can find the segment and post it. Here you go: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-birthright-citizenship-is-a-scam-there-is-no-other-word-for-it
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-31-18, 11:57
The Young Turks are now saying that Trumps kids would be deported because some of their mothers were not citizens at the time birth. Leave it to TYT to go full stupid. Not like their dad was legal, not like their mom's didn't have a legal immigration status. When the other side pulls crap like that, it makes me think that there might be something to the 14A having a hole in it.
Dr. Bullseye
10-31-18, 12:24
Bottom line is that we don't need a third of the population living here illegally nor rewarding that behavior. Being here illegally should automatically disbar them from receiving any form of government benefits and being given birthright citizenship.
That is next. A law prohibiting government benefits and services for illegals. No welfare, education, hospitalization and other medical services, student loans (yes, they get them anyway), bar them from military service, social security, unemployment benefits.
Diplomats and combatants are the only one's excluded from jurisdiction.
I think Native Americans living on reservations were also excluded at the time.
How is it, we can be nearly 2 years into the Trump Administration, and people still fail to see his strategy. Trump plays long ball, focusing on the outcome, not the process.
Trump absolutely knows his EO will not fly. Like so many other things, this is how he starts the ball rolling towards his end goal. He already has Graham on-board to introduce legislation to change it. He literally WANTS courts to shoot down his EO to create support for legislation/amendment. Anyone who does not see this strategy has not been paying attention, as he repeatedly does it.
Doc Safari
10-31-18, 13:19
How is it, we can be nearly 2 years into the Trump Administration, and people still fail to see his strategy. Trump plays long ball, focusing on the outcome, not the process.
Trump absolutely knows his EO will not fly. Like so many other things, this is how he starts the ball rolling towards his end goal. He already has Graham on-board to introduce legislation to change it. He literally WANTS courts to shoot down his EO to create support for legislation/amendment. Anyone who does not see this strategy has not been paying attention, as he repeatedly does it.
And you win the internet for the day.
Not one word of what you typed is incorrect.
Ex Post Facto
The Lautenberg Law? Ex Post Facto right out the window......
How is it, we can be nearly 2 years into the Trump Administration, and people still fail to see his strategy. Trump plays long ball, focusing on the outcome, not the process.
Trump absolutely knows his EO will not fly. Like so many other things, this is how he starts the ball rolling towards his end goal. He already has Graham on-board to introduce legislation to change it. He literally WANTS courts to shoot down his EO to create support for legislation/amendment. Anyone who does not see this strategy has not been paying attention, as he repeatedly does it.
Pretty much, he did more or less the same thing with the travel ban.
Alright- I must be really stupid.
How does an anchor baby work?
If a baby is a US Citizen, just deport the parents. Someone here can take the baby, or it goes back with mom and dad. Right?
Okay, educate me.
If a baby is a US Citizen, just deport the parents. Someone here can take the baby, or it goes back with mom and dad. Right?
For decades we have posted our military overseas, and they could choose to bring their families with them or not. You would think illegal aliens would be allowed to make the same decisions.
Straight Shooter
10-31-18, 22:47
For decades we have posted our military overseas, and they could choose to bring their families with them or not. You would think illegal aliens would be allowed to make the same decisions.
wut...
wut...
Some assignments/postings allow dependents to accompany the troops. IIRC Korea, Japan, Kuwait, and similar allow the option of bringing families.
eightmillimeter
10-31-18, 23:45
I believe this whole issue is simply going to be the first of a lengthy salvo of issues designed to lead us down the path of “build the wall.”
Shortly before he died, Charles Krauthammer did a 10-minute presentation for one of the Internet think tanks that occasionally pops up as a pre-video ad on YouTube about what to do with all the illegals here.
The summary of that presentation was basically that it is almost impossible to do anything with illegals until an effective barrier (wall) to illegal immigration is in place and fully functioning. An effective barrier he defined as not completely preventing illegal entry but otherwise reducing the flood to a manageable “trickle” of offenders that can be dealt with. Once that is done then you can legalize the 13 million or so here, give them employment authorization, etc, but not citizenship. Since their kids would be citizens, the problem eventually solved itself over time; but the rub here is that you can’t do anything without a wall first.
Now looking at the 14th Amendment, it is unfortunate that the wording simply does not align with the authors intent. If they really didn’t want it to apply to the children of aliens it should have said as much. I think you can quote the intent as much as you want, but if that’s really what they wanted then they f-d up, because that’s not what they wrote in the law.
In comparison to the 2nd Amendment, what the authors meant IS relevant, because that’s what the law actually says. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is pretty damn clear, and relates perfectly with the written explanations of the authors (which the left chooses to ignore).
We don’t see this in the 14th, they said one thing, then wrote something else.
Straight Shooter
11-01-18, 05:14
Some assignments/postings allow dependents to accompany the troops. IIRC Korea, Japan, Kuwait, and similar allow the option of bringing families.
Yeah, right, I know THAT-its the last part of that statement got me scratchin my head.
Very simple solution (barring a highly unlikely new Constitutional Amendment) would be the following, and Trump could enforce it as long as he is POTUS:
Anchor baby can stay and be put into foster care or adopted, OR the parents an take them back with them as they are deported and the kid can come back later on in life alone. Either way the parents have to go, NEVER to return, i.e. the kid cannot come back later and file to have them brought over because they were here illegally so that forever removes them from eligibility for even a guest visa.
RetroRevolver77
11-01-18, 09:20
deleted
wut...
When the govt sends a soldier to an overseas base, his family has a choice - go with him or stay behind. But either way HE IS going overseas.
Why should illegal aliens be any different? They can either stay in US if they are legal, or go with their deported family member.
Instead we play this assinine "cannot separate families routine". Nobody is being forcibly separated, they choose to separate or not.
Now looking at the 14th Amendment, it is unfortunate that the wording simply does not align with the authors intent. If they really didn’t want it to apply to the children of aliens it should have said as much. I think you can quote the intent as much as you want, but if that’s really what they wanted then they f-d up, because that’s not what they wrote in the law.
They wrote with a different idea of what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Saying it should conform to the modern usage is absurd.
Other things were very different then as well. Dual citizenship is a much more modern concept (mid 1900's) for example. By your logic the 14th forced the children of even travelling aliens to have only US citizenship.
Also disproving the absolute birthright citizenship is The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The SC ruled that tribal citizenship excluded them from the 14th.
Elk v. Wilkins
The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
I don't think it is a difficult argument to say that illegal immigrants have not completely subjected themselves to US political jurisdiction.
When the govt sends a soldier to an overseas base, his family has a choice - go with him or stay behind. But either way HE IS going overseas.
Why should illegal aliens be any different? They can either stay in US if they are legal, or go with their deported family member.
Instead we play this assinine "cannot separate families routine". Nobody is being forcibly separated, they choose to separate or not.
And NOWHERE is it written into law that we cannot separate families, or more importantly that they MUST be kept together. Sorry, but Libtard tears do not constitute ink with which laws are written.
The biggest entitlement of them all, and it has become a mockery. Enough free stuff for just being here and having a pulse. Legal entry and some sort of significant public service. One violent felony and you're history. Automatic revocation and deportation same day.
How is it, we can be nearly 2 years into the Trump Administration, and people still fail to see his strategy. Trump plays long ball, focusing on the outcome, not the process.
Trump absolutely knows his EO will not fly. Like so many other things, this is how he starts the ball rolling towards his end goal. He already has Graham on-board to introduce legislation to change it. He literally WANTS courts to shoot down his EO to create support for legislation/amendment. Anyone who does not see this strategy has not been paying attention, as he repeatedly does it.
Absolutely correct.
eightmillimeter
11-01-18, 23:22
They wrote with a different idea of what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Saying it should conform to the modern usage is absurd.
Other things were very different then as well. Dual citizenship is a much more modern concept (mid 1900's) for example. By your logic the 14th forced the children of even travelling aliens to have only US citizenship.
.
Why is the “modern usage” suddenly a problem, the law only says what it says, it’s very clear.
On the second part no, my logic does not force any such thing.
Come on. Being called gay at the time the 14th was written didn't mean what it does now. Word usage, as above obviously shows, can change over time.
There is also nothing sudden or new about looking at legislative history to understand what a law meant when written. Look up textualist.
The SC came to a different conclusion about "the evident meaning" than yours. And your definition would not have required the Indians to be given birthright citizenship in a later law.
If ALL children born in the US are automatically citizens under the 14th, and the idea of dual citizenship didn't exist... Then the children could not have been given the citizenship of their family.
Averageman
11-02-18, 11:40
We are letting the enemy set the tone of the argument here.
These people are not Refugee's by any sort of interpretation of the word Refugee that has ever been used before.
Lets be real, this is a mass migration of unskilled labor that intends to force their way across the border. Obviously since we've seen how these mobs have dealt with the Mexican Authorities, violence isn't off the table, so lets not Bull Sh-T ourselves here.
These folks aren't Refugee's.
Why is the “modern usage” suddenly a problem, the law only says what it says, it’s very clear.
On the second part no, my logic does not force any such thing.
Modern usage is the problem with the 2nd A as well.
Well regulated meant common or regular, not controlled. Its a re-inforcement of the rest, not a qualifier like the left tries to make it.
Knowing the language at the time if writing is critical.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.