Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bill Carson, May 30, 2023.
That's true. But an EO still cannot violate specific laws or the Constitution..
the only thing Obama violated was the granting of the work authorization for DACA recipients. Other than that, he was well within his authority to do so by Act of Congress.
Again: They discuss who WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. Its active agents of a foreign power (not simply foreigners) and diplos and their families present.
Read the case.
Further: No one is saying it has no meaning. In fact, I've quoted you congress during passage discussing its meaning. In response to your exact objection they said "Yes we intend that." and passed it.
Yes, the drafters spelled it out and gave examples. Foreigners; aliens; ambassadors.......yet they didn't include Indians as an example because it was very clear what the 14th Amendment's purpose was for.....Blacks and their children currently in the US at the time of the Amendment.
Indians weren't ambassadors or foreigners or aliens....yet it took a law passed 28 years after the ARK case to grant them citizenship.
That's not the quote though and you know it. It wasn't a list, it simply described those foreigners who are here under diplomatic cover.
The Indians live in a separate nation ffs. You realize that's what the res is at that time right? It takes a separate act of congress to declare their naturalization because of that.
Again: I literally quoted you the committee talking about the effects. A person raised the objection you made, that that would mean illegals could get citizenship: no one cared and it passed anyway without alteration.
Translation: "I'm resorting to ad hom because I can't come up with a thoughtful answer."
I see NO indication of your claim.
A justice stated the ONLY rational interpretation of the citizenship clause.
You can't call that a ruling or suggest that the statement created anything that wasn't already right there in our constitution.
Several times I've asked if anyone had any OTHER possible interpretation of the 14th amendment citizenship clause. So far, I've seen no suggestions.
What is yours?
The basic test is this. If a US couple have a child in a foreign country, would the US recognize the Jus Soli or not? The answer is no. Why? Because the US assumes Jus Sanguine. Just like EVERY OTHER FOREIGN government around the world. So why would Guatemala, or Mexico, or any other sovereign nation simply ignore this? When a citizen of the UK is born in the US, the UK doesn't simply dissolve the citizenship of that child. Nor does the US. It is unreasonable that the US can make the claim that just because you are within the border, that suddenly any child born on our soil is a US citizen by birth right. When Brennan made this choice to create this fabricated "right" he did it because he knew that he was asserting a sovereign right over anyone from anywhere in the world. He was arrogant. He solely decided that he didn't like the law, and he created a precedent. He didn't respect the precedents, he created one. And this is you clapping about it. We don't need to change the 14th amendment, we simply have to revisit the Brennan footnote and remove it. And suddenly, immigration get so much less contentious.
Face it. You're trying to sell a lie. And you're failing.
They are staunch originalists until you get to the subject they are passionate about, open borders. That is probably the single most important issue to the Cato Institute so everything is in deference to that goal. It's funny but the one time I see lefties using any Cato study is when the immigration issue is somehow involved. Coincidence?
Again: They quoted congress on the matter dude. Argue with the words of congress during the passage of the amendment, speaking to this specific question.
I notice this is the 2nd asinine attempt at deflection you've made and STILL you refuse to engage with the actual substantive argument.
Honestly, I thought you were better at rhetoric than this. Shame.
We've discussed your flubbing of the Chinese Exclusion Act and your still going to pretend you're right? That lets me know that no matter how wrong you are, you'll keep fighting over something no matter how ridiculous.
We have Jus Sanguine AND Jus Soli dude. As already explained.
No one gives a **** what any other nation does. That doesn't work when the grabbers want to neuter the 2a, and it doesn't work when you want to ignore the 14th.
You'll need an amendment to have what you want.
As stated: Argue with congress during their passage, speaking to this exact issue, not with me.
Not just American Indians. What till they hear how Puerto Ricans got US citizenship, and I can't wait to hear them explain how American Samoans still don't have US citizenship in spite of it being US territory!
I've quoted Congress in this thread. If you feel like I've misquoted them please issue a correction.
I don't recall the specific action but he took action through an EO for something he told an immigration activist group a month or two earlier that he could not do because it would be unconstitutional.
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.
It was brought up during the ratification debates. The issue of anchor babies, using Gypsies and Asians (two highly discriminated against and 'undesirable' groups in that time period) as an example.
The response was essentially: Yes that's correct it will do that. Thanks for pointing that out.
And it PASSED.
A year prior they had come up with language that PREVENTED just what you're worried over in a simple naturalization statute, so its not like they didn't know how to word it.
They made an intentional choice to add jus soli to our conception.
Nobody will change their mind, I can tell you that right now. We can go on another 100 pages and it will be the same. All I know is that Trump had 4 years to do this EO but he did not probably because he knew it couldn't be done. Just like he didn't get rid of Obamacare, or made Mexico to pay for a border wall. If he should become President again, this issue will go away. He can't simply interpret a law to his liking.
I don't know how or why so many people seem to give him the benefit of the doubt on everything. He's an obvious grifter.
Then you aren't reading the thread. I invite you to do so. A justice created a precedent, purposefully. It wasn't adopted in legislation. It was entirely whole cloth fabrication. If you believe that a SCOTUS justice has this power, please support your finding with some structural element, constitutionally. The point being that you think you agree that the US should have to power to appropriate citizens from foreign nations. I'd ask you why?
I haven't agued that he created a precedent.
I'm pointing out that his interpretation of the citizenship clause is exactly as it is written and not opposed by the SC in the plenty of other cases.
So you didn't answer my question:
What would be YOUR interpretation of the citizenship clause.
Congress isn't the issue here. it's the determination of one SCOTUS judge that you simply ignored. We agree on the idea that you cannot ignore the 14th amendment. We shouldn't. We also shouldn't assume that just because a child is born on our soil that the term "under the jurisdiction of" applies to their citizenship. it shouldn't. And that is as plain as anyone can put it. If, and this is a big if, IF you think that one rogue SCOTUS judge can legislate in this way, what is to stop one from adding a footnote and say entirely making abortion illegal, nationally? Or, what is to say that one SCOTUS judge could create a footnote that abridges your freedom of assembly by suggesting that churches are terrorist organizations? If you want to believe in the reasonable, I would dissuade you of it given how petty and partisan the Biden judges have turned out to be.
Sometimes, we just have to approach these conversations from the perspective that folks are using folks like us to write their term papers for them, and once you recognize the practice, stop engaging them....
LOL.. Brennan did legislate from the bench, why ignore it? The 14th amendment is clear. Those folks who are under the jurisdiction of the United States offspring are citizens. No one, certainly not me, is suggesting anything different. What I continue to suggest is that assuming jurisdiction over folks who are citizens of other nations is both arrogant and abusive of the sovereignty of those nations who those in the US then ascribe citizenship and dominion over. Do you deny that this is what is actually happening here? When illegal immigrants come here, the US hasn't granted them citizenship yet, nor likely will they. So their offspring should continue to citizens of whatever nation their parents hold citizenship in. Simple math here. Which is why anchor babies, as an issue, doesn't work for me.
The premise of the amendment was that folks, like your team, were trying to suggest that freed slaves weren't citizens, so neither could their children. Democrats in the south fought a war to ensure this doctrine. The problem with the doctrine is that at no time were slaves not under the jurisdiction of the United States. They were property. Clearly assumed to be inside of the jurisdiction of the US.
Illegal immigrants, as much as democrats want them to be slaves and property are neither. They continue to be citizens of the nations from which they came. The US has no more jurisdiction over them than any other guest in our nation. Do you typically assume the ownership of a property your guest brought to your home? I know I don't. so why should democrats get this in writing as a part or function of the law? Suddenly, democrats found that wholly dependent, shadow labor was their electioneering salvation, and here we are. Why do you support this notion?
I've asked you a lot of questions here, perhaps you will actually answer some of them, as you seem to be willing to express your histrionics about having your questions answered. So I adopt your own entitlement. Answer the questions.
If you as a private citizen go to another country, you WILL be under the jurisdiction of the country(s) you visit.
And, that holds for private citizens visiting the USA.
When the immigration reform bill of 2013 was being negotiated, it was the US Chamber of Commerce who was majorly insistent that US employers be allowed foreign labor at their discretion. The fact that this is a way for people to come here and then not go home was not an argument that the Chamber of Commerce would accept.
Claims that this came from Democrats or the left wing isn't supportable. And, the slavery comments are seriously over the top.
Congress is indeed the issue. They wrote the law in 8 USC, they wrote the 14th amendment, they had the discussion at ratification.
I'm not standing on Brennan's footnote, I'm standing on CONGRESS'S DISCUSSION AT RATIFICATION WHERE THEY EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.
Separate names with a comma.