- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
how can a country slide closer to "third world" if its gdp is at all time high?
You can’t import a third world people and not move toward a third world culture.
0
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:41 pm to GeauxTrain
quote:
How was this sentence deliberately misinterpreted?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
LINK
Excerpt - "The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation."
This post was edited on 1/1/20 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:07 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits
Where does it say that in the 14th Amendment? You can't argue that's what the 14th means when no such wording - or anything resembling it - was included in the text. The wording is deliberately simple, clear and concise:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I would also argue that another big reason that argument has never been brought into any court is that no lawyer who valued their career or reputation would be found to bring it. They would be laughed out of every courtroom they tried it in and every serious lawyer knows it.
This post was edited on 1/1/20 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:22 pm to M1zz0u
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:23 pm to GeauxTrain
quote:
I would also argue that another big reason that argument has never been brought into any court is that no lawyer who valued their career or reputation would be found to bring it. They would be laughed out of every courtroom they tried it in and every serious lawyer knows it.
You must be from Missouri --
"Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 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 Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not 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."
"The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction with no foreign allegiance whatsoever. In other words, they must be United States citizens."
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:34 pm to ImaObserver
Elk vs. Wilkins was in 1884. The 14th Amendment was also misused to deny citizenship to Indians and wasn't settled for almost 50 years later. No serious person believes that would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny today. Even if it did I doubt you comprehend the Pandora's Box it would open. How many generations would immediately become "illegal" themselves because of the immigration status of their great-great-great grandparents? I'm sure there are many descendants of Confederate soldiers who would be surprised to learn that you don't consider them to be US citizens. Even so Congress would then be immediately compelled to pass a law granting them ALL citizenship in overwhelming fashion, just as it was a hundred years ago for the Indians.
Instead of making fools of themselves arguing the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it plainly says, discrediting the entire conservative side in the process, wouldn't it be better to just end chain migration via legislation?
Instead of making fools of themselves arguing the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it plainly says, discrediting the entire conservative side in the process, wouldn't it be better to just end chain migration via legislation?
This post was edited on 1/2/20 at 12:00 am
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:51 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
Maybe all the countries of Eastern Europe who survived communism.
What was the alternative? Die?
Posted on 1/1/20 at 11:52 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
But the GDP is at an all time high, so I guess all is well as we slide closer towards a third world country.
So what’s happening in your life?
Posted on 1/2/20 at 12:11 am to ImaObserver
quote:
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."
I interpret that "completely subject to...owing immediate allegiance to" argument differently. I see that argument coming into play in a situation wherein a person is claiming birthright citizenship due to having been born in the U.S., yet didn't stay in the U.S. For instance, born here but foreign parents took child back to their home country Mexico. Child grows up in Mexico as a citizen there and never "exercises" U.S. citizenship, but suddenly shows up at the border at age 30 and says "Lemme in, I'm a citizen, I was born here."
Hadn't been subject to U.S. jurisdiction his whole life, never exercised any allegiance to the U.S.
That's where I believe that argument could certainly be relevant in terms of a U.S. birth ultimately not yielding permament U.S. citizenship. Otherwise, 14th seems quite clear to me. Born here and stay here....citizen by birth. Now, the real debate and area prime for legislative revision is "anchor baby" and chain migration.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 12:14 am to M1zz0u
quote:
Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Paul Ryan and the Koch brothers killed the effort in the house possibly?
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:32 am to M1zz0u
Do you not understand what is required to get this done?
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:38 am to M1zz0u
quote:
you won’t exist in 10 years.
Explain to me how I'm going to disappear.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 7:40 am to cwill
quote:
So what’s happening in your life?
Immigrants are taking his management positions at fast food joints.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:39 am to M1zz0u
quote:
These are all just typical excuses everyone makes for Trump.
Everyone know the dems would never play by the rules and would just ram through everything they want.
Trump can just do an executive order as he has talked about during all his rallies. But I guess he is all talk and never does what he says during his rallies.
He is a super human, but still human. Have you seen any list of what he has done? This is a conservative list posted on the White House site.) Trump's accomplishments
This post was edited on 1/2/20 at 8:46 am
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:42 am to M1zz0u
quote:
The republicans had complete control during Trumps first two years and did absolutely nothing
They had a lot of swamp creatures that are no longer there. Get conservatives in to help Trump in 2020 and watch in amazement.
BTW, isn't it ironic that leftist call themselves progressives? They have only obstructed and put forth a fake impeachment (not official until delivered to the Senate).
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:46 am to GeauxTrain
quote:
Trump can't change the Constitution by himself.
nope - but he can appoint justices who don't ignore it .
Just enforcing the constitution would eliminate 'birthright' citizenship - the amendment it relies on was an ad hoc solution to an ad hoc problem - freeing the slaves.
NOTHING they did to give citizenship to former slaves is at all applicable to invasions of foreign nationals into the country to drop a kid.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:48 am to davyjones
Careful, Davy. One of the Brain Trust will be calling you a “Progtard.”
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:52 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:Well, we have identified ONE poster who is definitely not a Textualist.
Just enforcing the constitution would eliminate 'birthright' citizenship - the amendment it relies on was an ad hoc solution to an ad hoc problem - freeing the slaves.
NOTHING they did to give citizenship to former slaves is at all applicable to invasions of foreign nationals into the country to drop a kid.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 8:54 am to ChineseBandit58
Yep, and if the court can rule that Obamacare individual mandate is constitutional, they can make it say anything they want.
We need more American citizen loving justices. Strict Constitutionalist won't just make the constitution say what they want, but I am sure they can figure out how to put an end to the country wrecking policy of birthrightism.
We need more American citizen loving justices. Strict Constitutionalist won't just make the constitution say what they want, but I am sure they can figure out how to put an end to the country wrecking policy of birthrightism.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 9:06 am to DougsMugs
Once you've decided the words in the Constitution mean the exact opposite of what they say then the entire document is no longer worth the paper its printed on.
If you don't like what the 14th Amendment plainly says then the only remedy is to change the Constitution.
If you don't like what the 14th Amendment plainly says then the only remedy is to change the Constitution.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News