Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bill Carson, May 30, 2023.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the issue is the 14th amendment citizenship clause, NOT the last 22 pages.
     
    rcfoolinca288 and Reality like this.
  2. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This may shock you but we review this case in law school. This is not the first time I've heard the asinine argument you hold to.


    And AGAIN: READ the ****ing case. They discuss that if he had made himself the agent of a foreign power he'd have repudiated his citizenship. They likewise discuss that if his parents had been such agents, he wouldn't have been the kind of person who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They LITERALLY discuss what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.

    https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
    Further: "
    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.”"

    "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."


     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2023
    Alwayssa and rcfoolinca288 like this.
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

    https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate


    Emphasis mine. You've got the the framers of the 14th talking about what it will do, this exact issue being raised, and the response being "Good, motion passes".
    Then you've got the logical argument based on what the ****ing term means.

    You know.... basic ****.
     
    WillReadmore and rcfoolinca288 like this.
  4. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Him citing DIPLOS and THEIR KIDS is not him citing any alien whatsoever.

    Further: https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
    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.”
     
    WillReadmore and rcfoolinca288 like this.
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.
    https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-...imes, the convention,can get away with murder.

    Diplomatic agents are immune - NOT subject to US jurisdiction.

    The country they represent CAN if it wants reject that immunity, but that is the decision of the foreign country, not the USA.
     
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not "foreigners and aliens.". Get your own ****ed up quote right at least.

    Its "...foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Translated to modern speak: Those foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  7. rcfoolinca288

    rcfoolinca288 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    14,301
    Likes Received:
    6,629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Subject to arrest doesn't mean much since they will have to be release without charge or punishment for any crimes they have committed. Deportation isn't a punishment whatsoever. You think the family of a crime victim will just settle for a deportation? I'd think not.
     
  8. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they're here on US soil, they're subject to our jurisdiction unless they're diplomatically immune.

    Illegal aliens are aliens not in compliance with the law. If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction, they couldn't break the law.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the way the USA wants diplomats to be treated.

    We can't have diplomats in foreign countries with whom we have serious issues to discuss if that country can lock up our diplomats due to some charge that country makes.
     
    Alwayssa and rcfoolinca288 like this.
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's explore that shall we? When a diplo's kid kills someone, what occurs? He is arrested and immediately deported. Can he be ARRAIGNED? No. Can he be TRIED? No. Can he be CONVICTED? No. Can he serve prison time? No.
    Why not? Because he's not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    What about an illegal? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  11. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    4,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've read the ****ing case. You haven't. It CLEARLY only applies to LEGAL residents, NOT illegal aliens. I even linked the case.

    Furthermore, it DID NOT follow the stated intent of the 14th Amendment....and that position was argued by none other than US government lawyers.

    I don't give a **** what rinky dink fake law class you say you attended.

    And with all that said, Trump is proposing an EO that follows the ARK precedent. Deal with it.
     
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    7,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have read the case. You haven't. Clearly, it explains what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. That definition includes illegals.

    Again: Congress during passage had this pointed out to them. That anchor babies would be a thing. They said "good, its passing" and passed it anyway.

    And yet, I still have a license to practise law and I've still read the case.

    The EO does not follow precedent, and further an EO cannot override the constitution or the plain language of a statute. You DO realize its in 8 USC right?
    Further: He's not getting elected again. Keep huffing that copium son.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course - Trump has never shown an interest in how our founders intended our government to work.

    Why would anyone suspect he would start now??
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,616
    Likes Received:
    22,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Cato Institute is libertarian. It's not a conservative think tank.
     
  15. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We don't need to get rid of anchor babies. We simply need to enforce the laws we have. A person cannot sponsor an immigrant until they are 18. Babies cannot be sponsors without people being willing to ignore the law.
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, your plan is to deport a US citizen.
     
  17. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. The baby can stay but the parents have to go. Parents choice.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What kind of country do you think America is?
     
  19. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Supposed to be a country of laws. Don't make me the bad guy. The law is there. If the parents want to break the law, that is on them. Why should I feel guilty because they choose to break the law? Why should we be saddled with expense because they choose to break the law?
     
    Bill Carson likes this.
  20. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Further more, the POTUS and anyone else that does not enforce the laws should be charged with dereliction of duty since they have sworn an oath to uphold and enforce the laws.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should be thinking about how wonderful it is to be a wealthy nation and perhaps back off on grossly antihumanitarian BS.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no possibility of removing the millions of undocumented aliens in the USA.

    You can try to be seriously harsh on all foreigners at our borders, of course. But, Trump's wall idea and other ideas have not been particularly successful.
     
  23. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you thought that maybe it's a wealthy nation because we are supposed to enforce laws instead of a bribe-your-way-out-of-jail system or look-the-other-way system that the poorer countries have?
     
  24. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,332
    Likes Received:
    3,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No idea is particularly successful when you defund or stop implementation. It is successful where it is implemented.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,867
    Likes Received:
    16,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Be careful here. Our system is weighted heavily toward the wealthy and connected.

    How about starting by supporting democracy?
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.

Share This Page