It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

page: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   
If trump was really concerned about America and Americans he would try to put an end to tax loopholes. But that’s how he made his fortune.




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Has nothing to do with citizenship, it's equal protection that extends to everyone.


The 14th Amendment has everything to do with citizenship.



Sorry, I quoted the court. Try again.


So did I.


"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.


That means that:
"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. " is also operative.

Although the court wasn't ruling on a citizenship question, it did rule that "illegals" are "subject to the jurisdiction". Their ruling didn't/couldn't qualify one clause and disqualify the other. The whole amendment, as it applies to jurisdiction, applies to illegal and their children born on US soil.

The thing is, the US is already operating under that assumption, and has been, at least since the end of WWII, acknowledging the citizenship of children born on US soil whose parents are undocumented illegals. So, precedence has already been set. That precedence is evidenced on the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American citizens born by undocumented aliens.

That precedence and it can't be taken back.


edit on 28-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The court case has nothing to do with citizenship. It uses the same logic as is used to provide for a speedy and fair trial. I quoted the SC and what they said. Try again.


The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


Nothing to do with citizenship. Why do diplomats not convey citizenship but their kids go to public school if your argument is valid?
edit on 28-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Why do diplomats not convey citizenship but their kids go to public school if your argument is valid?


Diplomats and their families are guests who are specifically singled out as immune to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States, undocumented immigrants are not.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


It says that anyone on US soil is under the jurisdiction of the US regardless of nationality or legality. Thus, anyone who births a child on US soil is under US jurisdiction. Thus, according to the 14th Amendment, that could has US citizenship bestowed upon it at birth.

You see, that is where the logic begins to break down. These decisions are not quickly written; every word and phrase is scrutinized because they carry the weight of law. There would be no reason to specify nationality if the nationality of anyone in the United States was by definition a citizen of the United States. Their nationality is of the United States already according to your interpretation.

It's like saying "any black person regardless of color." It makes no sense.

But if you read the entire paragraph, it doesn't say that. It specifies (bolding mine):

The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Look at the 14th Amendment. There's more there than what we are discussing, even in the first section:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The part I bolded is the Equal Protection Clause which the decision references.

The next paragraph in Yick Wo v. Hopkins clarifies even farther, though:

Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.

This qualifies that it applies to people who have "the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States." Breaking the law (and yes, it is illegal to illegally cross the border per 8 USC § 1325) does not confer a right to the benefits of breaking the law.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It sounds like what we need is a SC case to determine whether or not the children is diplomats are eligible to attend public school.

The case Sookie quoted is pretty clear on whether or not the 14th applies to illegals. It is however vague when it comes to people the court has already explicitly stated are not eligible for birthright citizenship.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Why do diplomats not convey citizenship but their kids go to public school if your argument is valid?


Diplomats and their families are guests who are specifically singled out as immune to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States, undocumented immigrants are not.


Yet they are entitled to public education for the same reason as in this court case. Explain that.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


It sounds like what we need is a SC case to determine whether or not the children is diplomats are eligible to attend public school.

That would be in direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Any person present in the US, legally or not, must receive equal protection under the law. That's what it says. That does not, however, mean anyone present in the US is automatically a citizen.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It sounds like what we need is a SC case to determine whether or not the children is diplomats are eligible to attend public school.

The case Sookie quoted is pretty clear on whether or not the 14th applies to illegals. It is however vague when it comes to people the court has already explicitly stated are not eligible for birthright citizenship.

It is clear about the equal protection clause yes, all people regardless of their circumstances have these rights. Nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

Remove the 1924 act. Would native americans have equal protection of the law under the 14th? Would they give children birthright citizenship? The answer is yes and no.
edit on 28-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The thing is, illegal immigration didn't even really exist at the time that decision was made. There were laws prohibiting immigration from China, but we didn't really see anything defining illegal immigration until WWI.

So there was no reason to discuss it in the decision. Everyone on US soil was considered to be under US jurisdiction.

By the way, can we discuss the fact that the claim that illegal immigrants not being under US jurisdiction is a paradox? If US laws don't apply to them then they are technically not here illegally since they can't be charged with anything.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Native Americans did not convey birthright citizenship under the 14th. They would be entitled to equal protection under the law under the 14th.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So the only part of the amendment that doesn't apply to anyone regardless of citizenship is the Citizenship Clause despite no language stating that fact?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

That's because reservations were more or less considered to be sovereign. They set their own laws. They had their own police force. Etc. In fact,a lot of this still holds true.

That's why Native Americans weren't initially covered by the 14th.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TheRedneck

So the only part of the amendment that doesn't apply to anyone regardless of citizenship is the Citizenship Clause despite no language stating that fact?

Equal protection clause conveys protections to everyone. Citizenship is not a protection.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Has nothing to do with citizenship, it's equal protection that extends to everyone.


The 14th Amendment has everything to do with citizenship.



Sorry, I quoted the court. Try again.


So did I.


"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.


That means that:
"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. " is also operative.

Although the court wasn't ruling on a citizenship question, it did rule that "illegals" are "subject to the jurisdiction". Their ruling didn't/couldn't qualify one clause and disqualify the other. The whole amendment, as it applies to jurisdiction, applies to illegal and their children born on US soil.

The thing is, the US is already operating under that assumption, and has been, at least since the end of WWII, acknowledging the citizenship of children born on US soil whose parents are undocumented illegals. So, precedence has already been set. That precedence is evidenced on the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American citizens born by undocumented aliens.

That precedence and it can't be taken back.




What if Trump simply instructs the government not to "Jurisdict" illegal aliens anymore?

If the government stops governing them entirely, then they would NOW not be "subject to jurisdiction" anymore. Even if they were previously.

The court would have to make a new ruling based on the new circumstances. I think anyway. Wouldn't it?

I don't think deporting them is "jurisdicting" them.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xcalibur254

That's because reservations were more or less considered to be sovereign. They set their own laws. They had their own police force. Etc. In fact,a lot of this still holds true.

That's why Native Americans weren't initially covered by the 14th.

If a native had a baby off reservation they were still not a US citizen, even though Natives would be held to US laws off reservation. They would be entitled to k-12 as well, even though they would not convey citizenship if the 1924 act were abolished today.
edit on 28-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Yet they are entitled to public education for the same reason as in this court case. Explain that.


Look, I took your word for it, that the children of foreign diplomats are eligible for public school, but I don't know that they are. Can you cite proof to your allegation?

What I can say, is that foreign diplomats enjoy every public amenity, roads, parks, museums, etc., available to them just as any other member of the public, as far as I know. I would imagine that they also enjoy the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while being domiciled in the USA.


edit on 28-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How can a person be in a country illegally if they are not subject to that country's laws?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

That's what I was saying. Trump's executive order would have to declare that undocumented aliens are not subject the jurisdiction of the United States. He would probably need to include people with expired VISAs too, to be fair.

The ramification of such a declaration would send the justice department reeling, though. They'd have to free every illegal immigrant from jail and detention and immediately deport them.


edit on 28-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because they enjoy the equal protections clause of the 14th! Thank you for finally getting it. If you need a source in a few hours I will look for one.




top topics



 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join