Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

You've read the case, but you don't understand it....at all. Trump can't do anything with a worthless EO, because he can't go against what the SCOTUS have ruled for over a century. He needs to request a change to the amendment.

 

Supporting Democracy? What you really mean is supporting democrats by leaving this bullshit asinine anchor baby system in place. No thanks

 

We've got 25 pages of commenters that don't understand the 14th Amendment, you included. The language used had the meaning it had in 1866, not what a bunch of millennials think it means now. The man who drafted the Amendment clearly said it would not grant citizenship to the babies of aliens, foreigners and the like.

If all the comments in the previous 25 pages like yours was correct, then Congress wouldn't have had to change the law so that the babies of Indians could become citizens. That happened in 1924, 26 years after the ARK opinion.

Your post is fake news.

 

Yes, and there is a lawful way of changing the constitution.

Trump's idea of overriding the constitution with an EO is just like Trump!!

But, it certainly has nothing to do with democracy or our law.

 

Hahahaha...I have SCOTUS and precedent on my side, what have you got? and we don't even have to go all the way back to the Ark Wong case. Trump tried it on Kamala Harris, how did that turned out. Trump knows he got nothing, just like his stupid "lock her up" feeding frenzy.

 

Republicans had decades to change the law and did nothing. Trump will do nothing too, if he was to become president again.

 

Well I have reading comprehension skills and a legal background. You also had SCOTUS and precedent on your side with Roe v Wade.....until you didn't.

 

Legal background, lol, sure.

For a guy with legal background, you can't tell the difference between Roe v. Wade and the 14th amendment. How hilarious

How about ye with the legal background show me an amendment that talks about abortion. I'm waiting.

 

Wait as long as you want. I don't hold hands nor change diapers.

 

LOL. No. The footnote decidedly created a distinct new version of immigration. Again, do you think it's cool for Justices to legislate this way?

 

Only the family members of some of the highest ranking diplomats, like ambassadors, get diplomatic immunity. Which ones depends on the agreement our government has with the foreign country. All other family members and many if not most staff members are subject to arrest and conviction.

 

The law doesn't agree with the progressive opinion piece you provided. I've provided all of the contextual legal rulings etc that support as well as the legislative intent. Birthright was intended to ensure that slaves born in the US were granted citizenship as a function of the 14th amendment. Nothing else, including citizenship for Indian Nation citizens, etc was intended.

 

That all depends on the level of the diplomat and the agreement our government has with the country.

 

Deporting a legal resident seems like punishment to me.

 

Again, the contention is, as your own citation continues to call out as well, "If, ""subject to the jurisdiction thereof" conveys nationalization authority over those folks", that certainly is a broad definition. It would mean that "anyone" in the US for any reason could be re-nationalized in the US simply by being in the US. How can one as a nation "claim" the offspring of foreign nationals? More, do you intend to allow said claimants to be able to return to their national citizenship of record if they choose to do so? So, all of those folks who are not legal residents of this country would retain their dual citizenship until age of majority which they then have to decide. Are you willing to say that the US must, for example, house, shelter, feed, cloth, and protect them for their minority until they reach the age of majority and then they can simply recant and leave? that doesn't sound like good policy.

Face it. Brennan chose to legislate something that these amendments didn't intend. If foreign workers were here temporarily, the authors of the amendment, Sen Howard is on record saying: " This will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government,." For the purpose of the conversation, immigrants who are here illegally are considered aliens. At best foreigners, who are here illegally. You cannot overcome this. And the only way this has been accomplished is because one progressive SCOTUS judge chose to create a legislative kernel in a decision. He did this purposefully. his action is at best unconstitutional as it abuses the right of Congress to pass the law. It cannot be the opinion of one person to choose the immigration policy of the nation. Nor any area where the representatives of the people, duly elected, are ignored because of the imperious nature of a single judge.

 

They are incredibly conservative on the subject we're discussing: Constitutional law.
They are staunch originalists, not progressives who write in whatever the **** they feel like.
They use actual constitutional analysis. Which you're aware of because your only objection was to nitpick rather than make a substantive argument.
Your deflection is noted for the admission of the weakness of your argument that it is.

 

Staff of the embassy is covered by being an active agent of a foreign power, as with an invading soldier.
Those are the two categories: Agent of a foreign power, or kin to same brought here under diplomatic cover.
Illegal aliens aren't those things, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if physically present. Like basically anyone else.

 

Jus soli isn't about naturalization. Naturalization is what happens to someone not born a citizen by virtue of birthright. If congress, who has the sole power on naturalization, allows it, then fine. I'm not saying they have to. They DO have to comply with birthright citizenship IE children of a citizen or those physically present here who are not the offspring of agents of a foreign power or diplos.
As outlined in the quote of Congress when discussing the wording and what the **** it will do. As already linked to. Argue with what they actually SAID, don't argue with me.
Good policy, bad policy, if you want it to change you'll need to see Article V and comply with one of the two methods therein.
That's how constitutional law works.
How do we do it? We've been doing it for quite some time, see the existing process of dual citizenship and claiming it.
As to housing and feeding anyone: I don't find a power for the feds in the constitution to house and feed everyone. Where do you find that clause? If you say 'necessary and proper' or 'general welfare' as if they have legs of their own I'm going to hire an albatross to stare at you.

Face it: I quoted you members of congress debating this issue at passage, one of them bringing up exactly what you're complaining of. It passed anyway.
"who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government" < As already discussed he's talking about a single class here not 3. As already translated, that means those foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers here with permission of our government.

 

1) Its not a progressive opinion piece.
2) It literally quotes congress on the subject during passage, and the plain text, along with the ruling cases on the matter where they discuss it.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
"
A small contingent of scholars contend that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals, especially if they are in the country unlawfully. They posit that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to people who are not subject to allegiances, or loyalties, to foreign states. Volumes have been written about why these positions are inconsistent with the 14th Amendment’s original public meaning. Two historical notes will suffice.

First, in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.” The 14th Amendment, ratified only two years later, used different language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The authors were well aware how to deny citizenship to people with foreign allegiances. Instead, they focused on a person’s relationship with American law.

Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright‐citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”

Judges have affirmed Conness’s view consistently. In 1898 the Supreme Court adopted it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The justices held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”

It is true—as critics of birthright citizenship are quick to point out—that Wong Kim Ark considered only the status of a child born to lawfully resident parents. Therefore, they contend, the Supreme Court has not resolved the status of a child whose parents are not in the country legally. But this distinction makes no difference. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to aliens who are subject to U.S. laws, it does not matter if the parents are in the country legally. The reason such people are called “illegal aliens” is that they are subject to U.S. law, and not in compliance with them."

As shown, they KNEW how to word it to effect what YOU want. They intentionally did the opposite, discussed it, voted on it, and it passed.

 

Libertarian is the ultimate conservative endorsement. They just believe in very little government intrusion in all aspects of daily life. That is their core philosophy.

 

LOL, you have no clue what the process is. And yes, you do have to explain yourself. It may not be on the form, but you do have to show proof of a medical emergency for that B1 visa to be approved. You also have to show that you intend to return back home, have the financial resources to pay for said medical, etc. But this is generally done at the interview, and if you don't have proof, the chance of that visa being approved is slim. You can't find that on any website but it is known if you have been through the process or know that prcoess.

But then again, I never said explicitly that the form verifies the medical condition. i said to get the visa, you must verify your reason. That is done by several ways, one of which is medical records. Another is the listing of the bank accounts. The counselor's office will send you an email with instructions on what to bring in your interview. And that may include any medical information. Second, if a woman shows signs of pregnancy, the interviewer will ask the question no matter what your reason for coming to the US is.

You know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to have the complete understanding. Furthemore, I know what ex post facto means. However, you need to ask yourself why did his parents leave the US when they had a thriving merchant business to begin with. The Chinese exclusion act was a horrible act and now you want to make that a reality again. Please. Go home to Russia where you belong.

 

Under said law, the executive branch, by authority of Congress, has given very broad discretion on enforcement action within Immigration.

 

He was inadmissible as an alien per said law. Again, there was no remedy in which to do with inadmissible aliens who were already here. That did not come about until about 1907 or so.

As for the E1, you know I was not being very literal in that statement. And if you have been in the military as long as you have claimed, you know exactly what I meant by it.

 

You post some crap about a form used for Afghan SIVs (DS-157) and you claim that I don't know what the process is? You're a comedian. I have completed the correct DS-160 forms for one foreigner and I have one pending right now. But yeah, tell me what is and what isn't on a form....that you don't even know what the correct form is. Laughable.

Then you resort to ad Homs. Whether it's me, @Lil Mike or whoever knows the facts as opposed to your bovine excrement

 

The distinction is what the Court used to rule in Ark's favor and against the position of the US government.

If the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" had no meaning, then it wouldn't have been included as requirement of the 14th Amendment.