Trump To Ban Anchor Babies

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1057258267909517319

 

[pastera]

No it doesn’t. The Indians were considered a special case as Indian land is within the borders of the US but at the time wasn’t considered OF the United States due to treaties and Indians could not be birthright citizens because they were already birthright citizens of their own nations. The jurisprudence around the issue all specifically referenced Indians. Your trying to stretch this argument to cover someone other than Indians is the same as an anti trying to argue 2a only protects the militia and that’s the National Guard.

I am not stretching any argument - try looking into the debate over the 14th and the meaning of the language at the time of enactment.

Ending Birthright Citizenship Does Not Require A Constitutional Amendment

During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

“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.”[1]

Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

[1] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on the Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Howard. Available at A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

 

[Bob P]

View: https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1057258267909517319

Exactly! So don’t be that guy!

 

[pastera]

EO is the WRONG way to do this.

While an EO is the wrong way to do this, it will put it before the SCOTUS where true jurisdiction lies...

 

[Bob P]

I am not stretching any argument - try looking into the debate over the 14th and the meaning of the language at the time of enactment.

Ending Birthright Citizenship Does Not Require A Constitutional Amendment

[1] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on the Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Howard. Available at A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Yes the first half is the accurate quote. The second half is a bullshit extrapolation by the author of that website telling you what to think. ‘Subject to the jurisdiction of’ means precisely what it sounds like - subject to the laws of. Period. Not some BS about someone ‘having a claim on their allegiance ‘. There you go again. And FURTHER the kid being born here does NOT have another monarch etc with a claim to their allegiance as they were NOT born elsewhere but here - so that argument doesn’t even work on its face.

 

[Bob P]

While an EO is the wrong way to do this, it will put it before the SCOTUS where true jurisdiction lies...

Yes it will but it sets a precedent of an executive ignoring the current interpretation of the law to put his own spin on it and make it do what he wants it to do. Kinda like a certain AG we all know and loathe

 

[Lip]

And if my Aunt had a dick she’d be my Uncle. Make all the straw man arguments you want it doesn’t change the intent and the letter of the Amendment.

Um the amendment was written for emancaped slaves not illegals. You speak with forked tongue. Kind of like a senator we don't like.

 

[Bob P]

Um the amendment was written for emancaped slaves not illegals. You speak with forked tongue. Kind of like a senator we don't like.

It wasn’t just written for them. It was written to kill Dread Scott which had implications well beyond slavery. The author specifically stated that it was about more than slavery and the courts affirmed in in 1898

 

[Lip]

It wasn’t just written for them. It was written to kill Dread Scott which had implications well beyond slavery. The author specifically stated that and the courts affirmed in in 1898

Oh goody do you infer they suspected an invasion of illegals? Word for the wise don't use what you sell.

 

[pastera]

Yes it will but it sets a precedent of an executive ignoring the current interpretation of the law to put his own spin on it and make it do what he wants it to do. Kinda like a certain AG we all know and loathe

There is no current judicial interpretation of the law for the particular case of children born to illegals - every time this issue is brought up those questioning the status quo are called out as racists and shouted down by the left.
Trump by issuing an EO would be stating a clear position on the matter which then could be brought before the court for a full examination.
Any child not afforded citizenship would be made whole if the SCOTUS decides against his EO - however, once granted citizenship cannot be revoked haphazardly (IE: I believe that any child born before an EO signature would be considered a natural born citizen)

 

[Bob P]

Oh goody do you infer they suspected an invasion of illegals? Word for the wise don't use what you sell.

Lip you can block your ears and go ‘la la la I can’t hear you’ all you want but that doesn’t change the reality that it’s the law.

 

[Lip]

Lip you can block your ears and go ‘la la la I can’t hear you’ all you want but that doesn’t change the reality that it’s the law.

Well there were other unjust laws that since have been revoked, don't pull that bovine scatology with me. You are being simply obtuse.

 

[Bob P]

There is no current judicial interpretation of the law for the particular case of children born to illegals - every time this issue is brought up those questioning the status quo are called out as racists and shouted down by the left.
Trump by issuing an EO would be stating a clear position on the matter which then could be brought before the court for a full examination.
Any child not afforded citizenship would be made whole if the SCOTUS decides against his EO - however, once granted citizenship cannot be revoked haphazardly (IE: I believe that any child born before an EO signature would be considered a natural born citizen)

No. The right way to do it is for Congress to take up the question and pass a law. He’s President, not king. His job is to enact the laws congress makes, not make shit up on his own via EO

 

[Lip]

No. The right way to do it is for Congress to take up the question and pass a law. He’s President, not king. His job is to enact the laws congress makes, not make shit up on his own via EO

Well since the Congress has differed since Andrew Jackson I say neigh.

 

[Lip]

Its settled law as you'd say

 

[beaker]

What do Trump and Healey have in common?

They both don't give a shit about the process of law and make shit up as they go.

You are just showing how you have no idea what your are talking about. I'll cross post this here. This is so settled as a matter of law, if it were a mattress, it would ruin your back.

The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment - Part 2 of Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment | Californians For Population Stabilization

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

In the decision, the Court firmly stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. The decision stated that the American Indian claimant was considered not to be an American citizen because the law required him to be "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." (Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who had not been citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States.)

Based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction in order to qualify children for birthright citizenship. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Another ruling in 1889 "Wong Kim Ark" was based strictly on the 14th Amendment. In this decision, the Supreme Court case again affirmed the status of the parents to be crucial in determining the citizenship of the child.

The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. It did not.

Rather, it determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the 14th Amendment and the post Civil War Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified. The authors of the Amendment never intended to use the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to illegal aliens as is being done today.

 

[beaker]

Try again... Wrong Answer

I don't think this will work either. The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't sufficiently exclude illegals.

 

[beaker]

Lip you can block your ears and go ‘la la la I can’t hear you’ all you want but that doesn’t change the reality that it’s the law.

See other posts, Trump doesn't need an EO, it is fully settled law, even before the Supreme Court. Children of alien residents have no right to Citizenship.

 

[Bob P]

Um your big defense of your position isn’t even written by a lawyer. He’s a marketing consultant. I’ll just leave that here.

 

[Bob P]

See other posts, Trump doesn't need an EO, it is fully settled law, even before the Supreme Court. Children of alien residents have no right to Citizenship.

Settled law huh? Please cite the dispositive cases.

 

[Lip]

I like Shakespeares view on lawyers.... just saying. For a friend.

 

[FiremanBob]

Wong Kim Ark is a very different set of facts from the crotch-bombs of modern times. Not relevant to the current issue and it certainly did not create a blanket right of citizenship for those merely born here.

 

[Drix]

You are just showing how you have no idea what your are talking about. I'll cross post this here. This is so settled as a matter of law, if it were a mattress, it would ruin your back.

The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment - Part 2 of Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment | Californians For Population Stabilization

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

In the decision, the Court firmly stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. The decision stated that the American Indian claimant was considered not to be an American citizen because the law required him to be "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." (Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who had not been citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States.)

Based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction in order to qualify children for birthright citizenship. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Another ruling in 1889 "Wong Kim Ark" was based strictly on the 14th Amendment. In this decision, the Supreme Court case again affirmed the status of the parents to be crucial in determining the citizenship of the child.

The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. It did not.

Rather, it determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the 14th Amendment and the post Civil War Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified. The authors of the Amendment never intended to use the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to illegal aliens as is being done today.

The correct interpretation of shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed, that doesn't meant the interpretation holds up.

 

[Bob P]

Wong Kim Ark is a very different set of facts from the crotch-bombs of modern times. Not relevant to the current issue and it certainly did not create a blanket right of citizenship for those merely born here.

So says you. The issue is what the courts say. The current interpretation is that it does.

 

[Asaltweapon]

EO is the WRONG way to do this.

Yup.
Think ahead to a president that EO’s the 2nd. This does not set a good stage.

 

[Horrible]

Lip you can block your ears and go ‘la la la I can’t hear you’ all you want but that doesn’t change the reality that it’s the law.

Birthright citizenship is the law? Can you please cite the statute?

The COTUS doesn't state this. In fact the author of the 14th Amendment, as quoted in earlier post, seems to disagree with this interpretation.

 

[Lip]

Yup.
Think ahead to a president that EO’s the 2nd. This does not set a good stage.

Well that bridge has been crossed. It's no reason for our side to play nice. That's what got us ovomit care. Hasn't the last 30 years of Democrats taught you anything?

 

[Bob P]

Birthright citizenship is the law? Can you please cite the statute?

The COTUS doesn't state this. In fact the author of the 14th Amendment, as quoted in earlier post, seems to disagree with this interpretation.

Actually that isn’t what his quote says at all. It’s an editorialized comment added to the end from a marketing consultant telling you what HE thinks it means.

Have fun boys, I need to get up and go to work in the morning. I’m going to bed.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Well that bridge has been crossed. It's no reason for our side to play nice. That's what got us ovomit care. Hasn't the last 30 years of Democrats taught you anything?

Yes it has taught me a lot.
I’m not into nice. I’m only thinking 2 years ahead in case this sticks because if it does.... we’re f***ed if Trump loses.

 

[Lip]

Yes it has taught me a lot.
I’m not into nice. I’m only thinking 2 years ahead in case this sticks because if it does.... we’re f***ed if Trump loses.

Its inevitable the repugs are gonna lose. You really think queensbury rules have ever applied to our side? Hopefully rbg. Kagan or Sotomayer or Robert's will stroke out and we can pack the courts.