Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

a reply to: Nyiah

only people who are cut should bare arms. Sorry just how I feel.

a reply to: luthier

Legal precedent is also the weight of prior cases, it already is being challenged when it will be scheduled is the question.

LOL, come on... prior case decisions decided by... JUDGES!

You just proved my point.

Again this is a Congress problem. All of it. It's all the same issue with little legal tricks being tried to stretch federal executive authority. It isn't new.

And again, Congress cannot unilaterally change the Constitution. If all 435 Representatives and all 100 Senators were to all agree on every detail of a Constitutional change, they couldn't do it. It requires ratification by the states. On the other hand, enough states can call for a Constitutional Convention and make changes, which can be ratified by all the states, and there's not a damn thing Congress can do about it!

I posted the applicable section of the US Constitution for you. Did you not read it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

That's assuming this is true considering Axios is the source used.

Maybe the horse's mouth would help.

originally posted by: luthier
Uh,..no that is Congress's job. There will be whether or not it can be interpreted any other way.

No - Congresses job is to pass laws and deal with existing laws that are affected by judicial decisions. With regards to the constitution Congress does NOT interpret any amendments.

Interpretation of the Constitution is the preview of the courts / Supreme Court depending on the issue.

originally posted by: luthier
I guess you don't get the difference.

No I do.. Apparently you do not.



If it is for slaves,...it needs to be changed....there would be no application it applied to today.
An amendment to free minorities (slaves, native americans) was needed because the 3/5 clause and slaves as property was in the Constitution. There was no need for interpretation because that part was specific. An amendment was needed because it changed the constitution and extended right to new groups. Since they were considered property their citizenship status had to be changed as well.

It is not the same with the 14th amendment.

originally posted by: luthier
How do you prove a part of the amendment doesnt apply any more?

By looking at the jurisdiction wording, previous case law and interpretations and the determining why, in the early 1960's it was all of a sudden ignored.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Here's the oath naturalized citizens must take. Nowhere does it say anything about submitting to the authority/jurisdiction of the US government. That's because everyone within it's borders is subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the US government, and it's laws automatically. This is Civic 101!


"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Nothing about subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction or authority of the government. The government's authority isn't up for debate or subject to consent.

You are confusing a lack of criminality with citizenship.

No. Not at all. Illegal immigrants have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement of personal privacy protection from search and seizure. They are entitled to due process. In fact, the only crime an illegal immigrant is guilty of is the crime of trespassing, and that doesn't make them guilty of violating the law by exercising rights granted to all residents, including the birth rights of their children.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Does it make sense for someone to illegally cross our border, have a baby the next day, and that baby is now a USA citizen

The law doesnt stipulate that the birth mother has to be here for any specific length of time. It says born here.
Reminds me of that dog story again.
The beach near me has a law that dogs are not allowed on the beach. A man was on the beach with a dog. I didnt want to tell him to get off the beach so I said to him hey dude the cops ticketed a guy the other day for having his dog on the beach and they are patrolling today. The guy says how big was the dog?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Legal precedent is also the weight of prior cases, it already is being challenged when it will be scheduled is the question.

LOL, come on... prior case decisions decided by... JUDGES!

You just proved my point.

Again this is a Congress problem. All of it. It's all the same issue with little legal tricks being tried to stretch federal executive authority. It isn't new.

And again, Congress cannot unilaterally change the Constitution. If all 435 Representatives and all 100 Senators were to all agree on every detail of a Constitutional change, they couldn't do it. It requires ratification by the states. On the other hand, enough states can call for a Constitutional Convention and make changes, which can be ratified by all the states, and there's not a damn thing Congress can do about it!

I posted the applicable section of the US Constitution for you. Did you not read it?

TheRedneck

Yep, and again Congress can write laws about guns workers and what happens if they are pregnant.

Also I understand how the amendment process works.

Which is why every day I rail against party politics and getting representatives in who obey their people. If Congress and presumably the states governors etc are not corrupt they will act to change something that doesnt apply.

Is that not what has happened prior?
So what is the plan if SCOTUS rules as I am saying to do nothing?

The irony is the government was designed to not let populism or nativism get to far. Hence the electoral college, 10th, power structure etc...

Sometimes we need to look in the mirror and say well maybe its us. We can't agree enough to put people in power who can bring our immigration out of the 1800's.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Due process for illegal aliens only applies to criminal charges.

Nope. Due process also applies to illegal aliens' applications for asylum, property and tax laws.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states.

Nope just buying them.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

Cool story. I hunt with canadians who bring their guns...they can borrow mine, they can rent them while here etc...

Maybe read the law before running your mouth and look ridiculous. Had you done so you would have noticed it refers to nationals of friendly governments with the sole purpose of entering the country for legal hunting and obtaining all required permits to do so. Just as Canadian law prohibits foreign nations from bringing a weapon into their country with the exception of hunting.

Since Canadian arent trying to enter illegally or be in possession of a firearm illegally your point is moot and not applicable to the discussion.

Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.

With no loyalty to the US government and present for means of espionage. Applying the 14th amendment the correct way would still prevent their child from being a US citizen.

You are correct but there is no other application pr enforceable aspect. Surely you don't think the parents would lie...its written as its written. It's not interpretation. It was from a time gone past.

Interpretation isn't relevant. It's the words that need changing. The only alternative view is they were from another era and don't apply.

Going back to the misinterpretation, which is what this debate is based on. There is no need to change words. All that is required is to decide specifically if the wording of the 14th applies to illegals / foreign nationals. Again you are ignoring the fact the 14th was never applied to illegals / foreign nationals until the 1960's.

Just as the 2nd amendment did not need to be rewritten. Scotus looked at the wording and clarified what it meant -

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Are "the people" individuals or member of a militia?

The lefts argument is it only applied to individuals who were part of a militia and given the time frame it was written in the left argued that the section bolded above meant members of the militia could keep their weapon with their persons / in their residence instead of having the weapons controlled and locked up.

Scotus clarified that section to mean the individual and not a member of a well regulated militia.

No changes / rewriting were needed.

I believe birthright citizenship is one of the most gross violations and perversions of the words of our founding fathers ever.

When this nation was brand new a good percentage of its population was people who were coming over from Europe, and other lands as well. Upon arrival they were asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the new United States forsaking their previous national allegiance. They did so willingly. The children of these people, born on US soil (which was a new concept at the time) were spared having to swear allegiance to this new nation as it was clearly their home as their parents had been sworn to allegiance and became US citizens.

Never did our founding fathers intend this right of citizenship to be extended to people who sneak a pregnant woman across the border so she can give birth on US soil thereby gaining citizenship for her entire family. That is a gross perversion of Constitutional intent and should never have been allowed. The spirit of the law has clearly been violated.

This is a nation of immigrants, not a nation of illegal aliens. As long as we have a legal way to become a US citizen we can not ignore those who choose to attempt it illegally. The process is cumbersome, takes time, is often short sighted, and can seem unfair. But, until it changes, it is the law and must be followed. If the law needs to change then change it. Until then ignoring the existing law is not an option, irregardless of what your local democrat tells you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

By looking at the jurisdiction wording, previous case law and interpretations and the determining why, in the early 1960's it was all of a sudden ignored.

If only that were true....


I never said Congress interprets anything so that's a weird one. I said they write immigration laws
Which in other words can use the vagueness of the constitution in the birthright clause as a defense. Those laws can be challenged and then the supreme court will be more likely to side with Congress and their authority to write immigration policy.

What about the person who is going to school here and Is living here on a student visa and has a baby while here? Because numb nuts doesnt specify any of that. And he cannot alter the constitution with an executive order. Sorry trump

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states.

Nope just buying them.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

Cool story. I hunt with canadians who bring their guns...they can borrow mine, they can rent them while here etc...

Maybe read the law before running your mouth and look ridiculous. Had you done so you would have noticed it refers to nationals of friendly governments with the sole purpose of entering the country for legal hunting and obtaining all required permits to do so. Just as Canadian law prohibits foreign nations from bringing a weapon into their country with the exception of hunting.

Since Canadian arent trying to enter illegally or be in possession of a firearm illegally your point is moot and not applicable to the discussion.

Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.

With no loyalty to the US government and present for means of espionage. Applying the 14th amendment the correct way would still prevent their child from being a US citizen.

You are correct but there is no other application pr enforceable aspect. Surely you don't think the parents would lie...its written as its written. It's not interpretation. It was from a time gone past.

Interpretation isn't relevant. It's the words that need changing. The only alternative view is they were from another era and don't apply.

Going back to the misinterpretation, which is what this debate is based on. There is no need to change words. All that is required is to decide specifically if the wording of the 14th applies to illegals / foreign nationals. Again you are ignoring the fact the 14th was never applied to illegals / foreign nationals until the 1960's.

Just as the 2nd amendment did not need to be rewritten. Scotus looked at the wording and clarified what it meant -

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Are "the people" individuals or member of a militia?

The lefts argument is it only applied to individuals who were part of a militia and given the time frame it was written in the left argued that the section bolded above meant members of the militia could keep their weapon with their persons / in their residence instead of having the weapons controlled and locked up.

Scotus clarified that section to mean the individual and not a member of a well regulated militia.

No changes / rewriting were needed.

Again it's not that 2d. SCOTUS ruled against laws that were challenged. I don't get how you don't see this. They ruled the constitution applies and the states can only do so much with their own rights under public safety and the right of states to create their own constitutions. But through the process of legislation or laws being challenged.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here's the oath naturalized citizens must take. Nowhere does it say anything about submitting to the authority/jurisdiction of the US government.

Except for this part:

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

That is subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction of the US.

In fact, the only crime an illegal immigrant is guilty of is the crime of trespassing, and that doesn't make them guilty of violating the law by exercising rights granted to all residents, including the birth rights of their children.

Illegal immigration is not simply "trespassing." It is a violation of Federal law, and an attack on the sovereignty of the country being entered illegally.

No one has unrestricted right of movement. Try walking across the border into Mexico sometime and see how unrestricted you are. (No, really, don't do that; you will wind up in a dirty, uncomfortable Mexican jail where you will be lucky if they give you food to eat.) Try walking into Area 51. (No, again, don't actually do this; you will be lucky if you make to a prison cell.)

Under your hypothesis, Germany could have invaded us at any time during WWII just by claiming they had a right to unrestricted movement. Or we could have invaded them.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here's the oath naturalized citizens must take. Nowhere does it say anything about submitting to the authority/jurisdiction of the US government.

Except for this part:

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

That is subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction of the US.

In fact, the only crime an illegal immigrant is guilty of is the crime of trespassing, and that doesn't make them guilty of violating the law by exercising rights granted to all residents, including the birth rights of their children.

Illegal immigration is not simply "trespassing." It is a violation of Federal law, and an attack on the sovereignty of the country being entered illegally.

No one has unrestricted right of movement. Try walking across the border into Mexico sometime and see how unrestricted you are. (No, really, don't do that; you will wind up in a dirty, uncomfortable Mexican jail where you will be lucky if they give you food to eat.) Try walking into Area 51. (No, again, don't actually do this; you will be lucky if you make to a prison cell.)

Under your hypothesis, Germany could have invaded us at any time during WWII just by claiming they had a right to unrestricted movement. Or we could have invaded them.

TheRedneck

Most other countries also don't allow 10 million people to come work and buy homes illegally for 35 years without making a guest worker program.

originally posted by: luthier
But honestly people not compromising is most likely what the parties actually want as the lobby farms they are.

Beefing up the border is needed but it still wont catch all illegals and those who enter illegally should not be allowed to be rewarded for breaking the law by giving their child citizenship. As another poster pointed out with his child birth story where he was in mexico and was told be mexicans to just illegally enter the US and have their child there.

The 14th should not apply to illegals or foreigners.

The job of Congress and the Judicial are 2 different things. However in this case we are not talking about a law congress passed and the president signed. We are dealing directly with a constitutional amendment and a conflict over the meaning of section 1 of the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation
* -

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

* -

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since approximately 7,000-8,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

Article III Section 2

- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a limited area (IE cases that fit the criteria go directly to the Supreme Court and can bypass the appeals and lower district courts.

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (that is, the sort of cases that it can hear as the first court to consider the matter) is limited to suits between states, between a state and the United States, between a state and citizens of another state or of a foreign country, and suits involving "consuls and public ministers" (which really means lawsuits involving foreign diplomats and ministers of foreign countries).

a reply to: luthier

Yep, and again Congress can write laws about guns workers and what happens if they are pregnant.

The laws about guns can be (and have been) struck down as unconstitutional... the Constitution says nothing about workers or pregnancy.

Also I understand how the amendment process works.

Not if you think it is the purpose of Congress.

Is that not what has happened prior?

No. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are still citizens. There's hundreds of them every day, born to American parents.

So what is the plan if SCOTUS rules as I am saying to do nothing?

I dunno... move? Stay? I'm not going to play a hypothetical game with you.

We can't agree enough to put people in power who can bring our immigration out of the 1800's.

Of course not. We apparently can't agree on what being a citizen means.

That's not Congress... it's us!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

I disagree with your use of statute picking and clipping. But hey I am sure it has a 30 percent chance of going your way.

a reply to: luthier

Most other countries also don't allow 10 million people to come work and buy homes illegally for 35 years without making a guest worker program.

No, most countries apply the concept of being subject to their jurisdiction. In Mexico, it is a felony to enter illegally.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra

Due process for illegal aliens only applies to criminal charges.

Nope. Due process also applies to illegal aliens' applications for asylum, property and tax laws.

No it does not.

Immigration courts, which hear those cases, are not judicial courts but administrative courts. Due process only applies to criminal cases regardless of citizenship and legal status. Scotus has ruled that all components of due process do not apply to illegal aliens. The court has no requirement to issue bail nor is the government required to pay for legal counsel for the defendants.

Asylum cases are in the jurisdiction of immigration judges and not judges from the judicial branch.

Refugee and asylum seekers are not guaranteed admittance / right to stay in the US. US law and UN treaties specifically state this.

Tax laws is a criminal offense and falls under general courts and not administrative so full due process applies there. However, if the person is here illegally, they can be refused bail, just as scotus has ruled. The viewpoint being that they entered this country illegally and by extension are not free to be released on bond/bail back into the country.