President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

[HomerJS]

Wasn't this 'invasion' rhetoric what led someone to shoot up a synagogue just a few days ago?

Yes it was. Jews were killed over it according to shooter's own words.

A few thousand people converging on a football stadium is less of an "invasion"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have a novel idea, how about birthright citizenship gets rolled up into a package that includes immigration fixes where everyone gets something they want but nobody gets everything they want.
We could call this new process compromise.

What do you think guys?

 

[fskimospy]

Has that interpretation ever been tested in court?

Specifically the children of undocumented immigrants having birthright citizenship has not, no, in large part because it is so obvious that nobody has ever bothered. After all the people who wrote the amendment explicitly discussed this and all agreed that’s what it meant. There’s no need to divine what they thought, they came right out and said it.

There is no rational argument that a child born in the United States who is not the child of a diplomat is not both 1) born in the United States and 2) subject to its jurisdiction. #1 is a truism. For #2 to be true that would mean that such a child could commit crimes within the US and be immune from the law. Does anyone want to make the argument that either is true?

The way anti-immigrant conservatives attempt to weasel out of this is by making up some ‘full jurisdiction’ nonsense out of thin air.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And yaknow, I'm starting to think the Republicans weren't being completely honest when they said they only wanted to stop illegal immigration..

Republicans have no issue with legal immigrants. These are country shoppers. Amazing how thousands and thousands of people want to come here despite how you guys try and constantly say things are so terrible with Trump.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

A militia is an armed force created from civilians. You think there is room for interpretation there, I don't. I think there is room to stop anchor babies in the interpretation of the 14th. Guess we just see it differently.

I really hope Trump can stop this madness. It is good for America and seeing him set the left off in a tizzy over things that are good for America is always fun for me.

So what State Militia did the Synagogue Shooter belong to? How about the Vegas Shooter? How about the kids shooting at schools?

 

[fskimospy]

I have a novel idea, how about birthright citizenship gets rolled up into a package that includes immigration fixes where everyone gets something they want but nobody gets everything they want.
We could call this new process compromise.

What do you think guys?

If that’s the route you want to go the bargain will have to be something on the order of repealing the second amendment. That’s the level of bedrock change you’re looking to enact.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I’m not sure how good a piece this is as some of what they are quoting is demonstrably wrong:



First, ‘green card holders’ (presumably meaning legal permanent resident status) didn’t exist when the 14th amendment was passed and there was no such thing as illegal immigration then.

Second, the congressional record clearly shows that the individuals passing the 14th amendment considered and acknowledged the fact that it would confer citizenship on the children of aliens. Here’s a good piece that discusses it at length:

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

In short some people at the time of enactment were AGAINST granting citizenship to those individuals but they all agreed that’s what it would do.

IMO what the article does isn't to present a case for or against as much as the interpretations. AXIOS is doing better than most at explaining the situation from a news perspective, or at least it seems that way to me. In the end I believe courts will weigh in against Trump however I respect the fact that I wasn't told what I should think but was instead offered more than I get elsewhere.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If that’s the route you want to go the bargain will have to be something on the order of repealing the second amendment. That’s the level of bedrock change you’re looking to enact.

Yup and that implies many concessions. I’d be fine with it because that is they way it’s supposed to work. People who want to end birthright citizenship need to evaluate what they are will to give/concede to all the states and representatives to move the deal forward vs how important making the deal is.
For example end birthright citizenship in exchange for an easy consistent process that is guaranteed to have appropriate funding plus a tax increase to cover it. Then maybe another tax increase to cover some project I want like healthcare. They’ll cave in seconds, guys like spider want everything and are not willing to give anything of value in return. They claim to be free market experts but can not comprehend the most basic aspect of a market. Value & negotiation.

 

[fskimospy]

A militia is an armed force created from civilians. You think there is room for interpretation there, I don't. I think there is room to stop anchor babies in the interpretation of the 14th. Guess we just see it differently.

I really hope Trump can stop this madness. It is good for America and seeing him set the left off in a tizzy over things that are good for America is always fun for me.

Nope, you’re just a dishonest hack that abandons his principles whenever they are inconvenient. If you care about original meaning and what the text of the amendment means the 14th amendment is far more clear than the 2nd. You don’t though, and now you’ve proven it.

As for setting people into a ‘tizzy’, the only people that’s doing it for are people like you. Trump doesn’t have the power to do this and it’s unlikely he will even try. Much like with his lies about middle class tax cuts or his lies about pre-existing condition protections he’s just saying anything and everything in the hopes that his base is dumb enough to believe him. In your case you were!

 

[fskimospy]

IMO what the article does isn't to present a case for or against as much as the interpretations. AXIOS is doing better than most at explaining the situation from a news perspective, or at least it seems that way to me. In the end I believe courts will weigh in against Trump however I respect the fact that I wasn't told what I should think but was instead offered more than I get elsewhere.

Yes to be clear the article isn’t discussing the merits of birthright citizenship, it is discussing the merits of the legal argument that birthright citizenship was not guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That argument has no merit.

In terms of the news that means Trump’s proposed order would be unconstitutional so the other debate is kind of moot.

 

[dawp]

I think he's only contemplating this is because he knows he can not change the constitution in the normal ways.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup and that implies many concessions. I’d be fine with it because that is they way it’s supposed to work. People who want to end birthright citizenship need to evaluate what they are will to give/concede to all the states and representatives to move the deal forward vs how important making the deal is.
For example end birthright citizenship in exchange for an easy consistent process that is guaranteed to have appropriate funding plus a tax increase to cover it. Then maybe another tax increase to cover some project I want like healthcare. They’ll cave in seconds, guys like spider want everything and are not willing to give anything of value in return. They claim to be free market experts but can not comprehend the most basic aspect of a market. Value & negotiation.

That much is true, they are not actually interested in compromise. We know that because an actual compromise was already passed by the senate and hard line conservatives refused to let it be brought up for a vote in the House. (This is because they were afraid if it came to a vote it would pass)

That being said, I’m serious about what I would consider a compromise. If they want to repeal one of the foundations of the 14th amendment I want to repeal the 2nd.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So what State Militia did the Synagogue Shooter belong to? How about the Vegas Shooter? How about the kids shooting at schools?

The militia forms when it is needed. The personal right to firearms (and the right to assemble) allows for that.

 

[Vic]

Republicans have no issue with legal immigrants. These are country shoppers. Amazing how thousands and thousands of people want to come here despite how you guys try and constantly say things are so terrible with Trump.

Quit lying. You obviously do have issue legal immigrants as you are right here trying to close down one of the avenues to legal immigration. We can only assume that Republicans are looking for ways to close down other avenues to legal immigration as well.
And I've never said the economy was bad under Trump, so don't put other peoples' words in my mouth. Everyone knows fascism makes the trains run on time, as Mussolini described it.

But, and I have to say this.. the ratification the 14th amendment right after the Civil War has a colorful and well-documented history, and I think it's funny that the Republicans are making all the Confederate arguments against it, while trying to pretend that the Democrats are still the Confederates. Like the clause you're trying to reinterpret here was actually put there to ensure that freed slaves were granted full citizenship, rather than deported to Africa like the Confederates wanted.
But hey, i guess that's what propaganda and a willful ignorance of history gets you.

 

[Greenman]

Specifically the children of undocumented immigrants having birthright citizenship has not, no, in large part because it is so obvious that nobody has ever bothered. After all the people who wrote the amendment explicitly discussed this and all agreed that’s what it meant. There’s no need to divine what they thought, they came right out and said it.

There is no rational argument that a child born in the United States who is not the child of a diplomat is not both 1) born in the United States and 2) subject to its jurisdiction. #1 is a truism. For #2 to be true that would mean that such a child could commit crimes within the US and be immune from the law. Does anyone want to make the argument that either is true?

The way anti-immigrant conservatives attempt to weasel out of this is by making up some ‘full jurisdiction’ nonsense out of thin air.

What's absolutely obvious to you may not be to the Supreme Court, that's why I was looking for case law. The interpretation I just read stated the "the full jurisdiction" qualifier was to used to exclude American Indians as they were under tribal law. I doubt that allowed them to commit crimes without consequence.
My hunch is the anchor baby concept is going to be challenged in court in the not to distant future. The makeup of today's court makes me think it might not be as cut and dried as it appears.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The militia forms when it is needed. The personal right to firearms (and the right to assemble) allows for that.

So what well trained militia did they belong to?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Quit lying. You obviously do have issue legal immigrants as you are right here trying to close down one of the avenues to legal immigration. We can only assume that Republicans are looking for ways to close down other avenues to legal immigration as well.
And I've never said the economy was bad under Trump, so don't put other peoples' words in my mouth. Everyone knows fascism makes the trains run on time, as Mussolini described it.

But, and I have to say this.. the ratification the 14th amendment right after the Civil War has a colorful and well-documented history, and I think it's funny that the Republicans are making all the Confederate arguments against it, while trying to pretend that the Democrats are still the Confederates. Like the clause you're trying to reinterpret here was actually put there to ensure that freed slaves were granted full citizenship, rather than deported to Africa like the Confederates wanted.
But hey, i guess that's what propaganda and a willful ignorance of history gets you.

I'm find with legal immigration. Those are people that are vetted and go through a process to become citizens. This caravan has broken through borders and ignored Mexico's offers, they are not looking for asylum but to get around the system. They're in such danger and need asylum that they can mass together by the thousands in wide open spaces...

 

[Viper1j]

What a nutbag.

Mary, Donald was one load you should have swallowed.

Nope, anchor babies need to be stopped.

Let's start by deporting your great grandfather. And then you can go.

 

[fskimospy]

What's absolutely obvious to you may not be to the Supreme Court, that's why I was looking for case law. The interpretation I just read stated the "the full jurisdiction" qualifier was to used to exclude American Indians as they were under tribal law. I doubt that allowed them to commit crimes without consequence.
My hunch is the anchor baby concept is going to be challenged in court in the not to distant future. The makeup of today's court makes me think it might not be as cut and dried as it appears.

While I freely admit that it is not above SCOTUS to act creatively to reach whatever conclusion they want it's not like case law would stop them either. I mean look at the Janus case.

I would suggest reading the piece I linked before as it pretty conclusively destroys every possible argument for birthright citizenship not including all aliens.

Here's a few quotes from the people who wrote the amendment:

The proposition before us … 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. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

As for the 'full jurisdiction' argument it's a nonstarter as it doesn't apply here. Specifically, tribal members in Indian lands were NOT subject to most US laws, having an individually sovereign status within US borders, meaning they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States. This is in marked contrast to aliens who visit the US who are under the full jurisdiction of US law at all times. So yes, I can provide you with plenty of circumstances where members of Indian tribes could engage in acts that would violate US law within the boundaries of the US where they would not be subject to US law. In order for your argument to have merit for the children of aliens you need to be able to show a single, solitary case where that is true for them. There isn't one. (again, outside of children of diplomats where this already doesn't apply)

In all fairness though I should have read my own article more carefully as it specifically cites judicial precedent where birthright citizenship DOES extend to all children regardless of the immigration status of their parents in Plyler v. Doe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Texas officials had argued that illegal aliens were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."

That should be the final nail in the coffin, no?

 

[SlowSpyder]

No. If there is anything I've learned from the left, it is that an item in the Bill of Rights / an amendment can mean one thing for several hundred years, then mean something different today.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the left's hatred of the 2A undid them here?

 

[fskimospy]

No. If there is anything I've learned from the left, it is that an item in the Bill of Rights / an amendment can mean one thing for several hundred years, then mean something different today.

Gee, I'm totally shocked that even when provided with conclusive evidence you won't change your mind.

This is because you reason emotionally and not factually. You feel that the 14th amendment shouldn't confer birthright citizenship like this so for you that's true. The thing is, facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Gee, I'm totally shocked that even when provided with conclusive evidence you won't change your mind.

This is because you reason emotionally and not factually. You feel that the 14th amendment shouldn't confer birthright citizenship like this so for you that's true. The thing is, facts don't care about your feelings.

Like I said, if there is anything the left has shown me, it is that an amendment can mean one thing for several hundred years and then mean something else today.

 

[Vic]

I'm find with legal immigration. Those are people that are vetted and go through a process to become citizens. This caravan has broken through borders and ignored Mexico's offers, they are not looking for asylum but to get around the system. They're in such danger and need asylum that they can mass together by the thousands in wide open spaces...

Stay on topic. Assuming the mother is in the country legally, birthright citizenship is a form of legal immigration, and you're trying to get rid of it. Ironically, by using the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which was put in the 14th amendment in order to ensure that freed slaves were recognized as citizens.
Regardless, if you're opposed to this form of legal immigration, one can only guess at other forms you're against.

But I must say, the best evidence that anyone needs that Trumpers are opposed to freedom can be found in the fact that they believe that a person can be born on American soil and yet not born free.

 

[Viper1j]

Nope, anchor babies need to be stopped.

Let's start by deporting your great grandfather, then we can get rid of your silly ass.

I dont know a ton about all the rules of this, but if you were on vacation pregnant and gave birth way early, does that child have citizenship even though you are just on vacation in our country? If so, that would be kind of silly, but not at all for the reasons im sure Trump has.

The original purpose of the 14th amendment, was to guarantee citizenship to all the freed slaves, those that chose to stay. There have been many instances of people vacationing, or even working, and their children were citizens when they were born here. A prominent example, as martial arts legend Bruce Lee, whose parents were traveling with a Chinese theater group in San Francisco when his mother gave birth. He returned with his family to Hong Kong, and came back to the United States as an adult, with full citizenship rights.

If Donny thinks he can just wipe out a constitutional amendment because he doesn't like it, then no one is safe. It wouldn't surprise me to see him try to reinstitute slavery, and his cult (base) better be extremely careful about what they wish for. It's only a matter of time before there WILL be another Democratic president. I can't wait to see what they can do with the Second Amendment following the precedent set by Donny and the 14th amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, if there is anything the left has shown me, it is that an amendment can mean one thing for several hundred years and then mean something else today.

Now you're just pouting.