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: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Equal Protection clause does also apply to non-citizens, as well as citizens of the United States. The citizenship clause only applies to those person born or naturalized in the United States.

One does not disqualify the other.




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Here is the source. Diplomats are Visa type A.
www.ice.gov...



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Double talk. One does not necessitate the other, which is my point.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

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

Yes, they just would not be criminally liable, and would simply be deported. Actually sounds a lot like the current situation.

That's a joke, even though it's true.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What language in the 14th precludes people here illegally? What clause defines jurisdiction? What court case makes a distinction in the definition for jurisdiction between the Citizenship Clause and the Equal Protections Clause?

The courts have defined jurisdiction in regards to the Equal Protections Clause. Why would that definition not be able to extrapolated to the rest of the Amendment when it uses similar language?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But why would they be deported?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Okay. So, someone has determined which VISAs allow certain benefits. For example, the children of type A VISAs holders may enjoy public schools, while holders of VISA types B,C,G and I may not. That doesn't mean that those VISA holders are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while within her borders.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




One does not necessitate the other, which is my point.


One can't be subject to the jurisdiction in one clause of the 14th Amendment, but not the other.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


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.

That's a large part of my point. The words of the Constitution must be considered as having the meaning that they had when it was written. Otherwise it is meaningless. This concept reverberates through Supreme Court decisions handed down almost since the document was written.


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.

I explained this earlier. The term "jurisdiction" has a different legal interpretation than the common one. It does not mean "subject to the laws"; even diplomats with diplomatic immunity can be subject to our laws under certain circumstances. It means that the United States has a duty to protect the person and the person has allegiance to the United States. It is a two-way agreement. A person cannot become a citizen of the US by declaring their allegiance to it only, and the United States cannot unilaterally force anyone to be under its jurisdiction. Citizens born into citizenship have their parents' allegiance and the US acceptance conferred onto them; naturalized citizens must take an oath of loyalty and be accepted.

The 14th Amendment does not change that; it simply codifies it for those persons born to parents legally within the United States and therefore under US jurisdiction (even if the parents' acceptance of jurisdiction is temporary, as in the case of a VISA or Green Card).

We're not talking about the Dukes of Hazzard, where Sheriff Rosco can't cross the county line to get Bo and Luke who are laughing at him from 10 feet away. That's common usage (and actually inaccurate). We're talking about the legal interpretation of jurisdiction, and to emphasize your first point, the legal definition of jurisdiction at the time of the writing of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was actually written to provide citizenship to children of former slaves. It assumed their loyalty to the US and declared acceptance of jurisdiction. It was never meant to be an open invitation to every pregnant woman across the globe. That is both a silly and unworkable argument.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What language in the 14th precludes people here illegally? What clause defines jurisdiction? What court case makes a distinction in the definition for jurisdiction between the Citizenship Clause and the Equal Protections Clause?

The courts have defined jurisdiction in regards to the Equal Protections Clause. Why would that definition not be able to extrapolated to the rest of the Amendment when it uses similar language?

The question is not one of whether you think it should be or may be, it's why it definitely is. The answer is that there is a social reason to educate children and treat all people the same with legal protections. There is no social reason to grant everyone citizenship.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




One does not necessitate the other, which is my point.


One can't be subject to the jurisdiction in one clause of the 14th Amendment, but not the other.

Except they are. Natives are not subject to jurisdiction as it pertains to citizenship, that is why they needed the 1924 act. They ARE subject to jurisdiction as it would apply to equal protection of the law under the 14th granting k-12 and speedy trials.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


That's a large part of my point. The words of the Constitution must be considered as having the meaning that they had when it was written. Otherwise it is meaningless. This concept reverberates through Supreme Court decisions handed down almost since the document was written.

So you're making the same argument that people that want to restrict the 2nd make.

Could the Founding Fathers imagine a gun that fired more than once every few minutes?


I explained this earlier. The term "jurisdiction" has a different legal interpretation than the common one.
.

But there are court cases that define jurisdiction. They define it as applying universally to anyone on US soil regardless of any kind of status.

Other court cases have defined it as applying universally except in the case of foreign sovereigns and diplomats (and their children and wives) in regards to the Citizenship Clause.

There is not a single case that has decided that the 14th doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants.

So if you argue that the 14th doesn't apply to illegals, you're no different than the people that argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to those people due to (X condition.)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think the real issue here is a misunderstanding of the word "jurisdiction." I know I was a bit confused the first time I read the 14th Amendment as well; it seemed contradictory because it is obvious that US law has jurisdiction inside the US!

But that's not what "jurisdiction" actually means in this case. Common usage of the word is not really accurate. People come to think it means "subject to the laws," but that is simply not the true definition. From Dictionary.com:

jurisdiction
    noun
      1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.

      2. power; authority; control:
      He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.

      3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority:
      This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.

      4. the territory over which authority is exercised:
      All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

Obviously, anyone present in the United States is subject to the definition in number 3; that is the common usage. However, it makes no sense to apply that definition to the 14th Amendment because it becomes repetitious... if someone was born here, they are obviously here, so why mention it?

The same argument leaves out number 4.

Numbers 1 and 2 do apply, because the concept is that the United States has power and control over those which are under its jurisdiction. The United States (or any other country) does not have power or control over someone who by birthright is a citizen of another country; any power or control is managed through diplomatic channels and can (actually has) been cause for war if abused. Also, the fact that the people being discussed are undocumented severely limits the ability of the United States to exercise power and control over them. That is actually the big issue at the border: the fact that if released before their hearing, most do not show up for the hearing and cannot be found.

Just wanted to get that out there.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So the US can't detain/imprison a person in this country illegally?

They can't enforce their immigration laws on that person?

How is describing a person and forcing them to take part in your judicial system not a display of control/authority?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


So you're making the same argument that people that want to restrict the 2nd make.

Could the Founding Fathers imagine a gun that fired more than once every few minutes?

Not exactly. The 2nd Amendment does not specify "guns." It specifies "arms," which mean any device used in wartime or for defense. I actually believe the 2nd Amendment should be changed, because at the present time, with the present wording, it applies to tanks, rocket launchers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear warheads as well as guns. They are all "arms."

Of course, the downside to that is that so many people would lobby to have it not apply to a hunting rifle because it is big and scary.


But there are court cases that define jurisdiction. They define it as applying universally to anyone on US soil regardless of any kind of status.

Jurisdiction has multiple meanings. I posted about this just above. A court can rule on what jurisdiction as regards law enforcement or court applicability means without implying what it means in the context of power and control.


There is not a single case that has decided that the 14th doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants.

If there were, Trump could not issue an Executive Order. The whole point is that this has not been decided by the Supreme Court. I am putting forward arguments in favor of my interpretation based on previous court decisions and my understanding of the law (which I believe is more than most, being an ex-hotrodder in the 70s; we pretty much had to know the law inside and out to not end up in jail). I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read and have actually successfully argued my own case before municipal judges before.


So if you argue that the 14th doesn't apply to illegals, you're no different than the people that argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to those people due to (X condition.)

Not only incorrect, but a strawman argument. My position is pretty consistent with regards to the Constitution and all the Amendments. I believe in interpretation as written, based on the definitions used at the time, with consideration of the documented or obvious intent of the writers where a lack of clarity exists.

I hope you are not abandoning this discussion in favor of strawman arguments?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not abandoning it but I do need to step away for a bit due to work.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


So the US can't detain/imprison a person in this country illegally?

They can't enforce their immigration laws on that person?

How is describing a person and forcing them to take part in your judicial system not a display of control/authority?

Not if they cannot find them.

Refusal to show up for a court case results in a forfeiture of judgement. That means that the person who fails to show up for an asylum hearing forfeits their claim to asylum and are here illegally. These people are ordered deported by the court. However, most are not deported because they cannot be found. That is a lack of control and authority.

A citizen, like myself, has a Social Security Number assigned that I have to use when opening up a bank account or accepting a job offer. An illegal alien does not, and thus cannot be traced down like I can if suspected of a crime. Many use stolen or fake Social Security Numbers to get around this obstacle. The problem with identity theft has gotten so severe that banks actually calculate into their charges the overhead created by such fraud. Your charges on your credit cards would be much less if there were no problems with identity theft.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Fair enough.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have been saying something similar. As evidence I have put forth that if we remove the 1924 act for Indians children of Native Americans would be eligible for k-12 under the equal protection clause of the 14th and them being under the jurisdiction of the state, but would NOT have birthright citizenship under the jurisdiction needed in the 14th for citizenship.

Those are both facts.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think the confusion stems from several factors... not the least of which is a desire for aliens to have birthright citizenship. I mean, really, the US is indeed built by immigrants, and it only makes sense that the generations of those immigrants born here should be citizens.

But that ignores the legality part. Legal immigration is a wonderful thing that makes us stronger as a people, because it promotes unity of purpose. Illegal immigration is a terrible thing that makes us weaker because it promotes diversity. Unity is everyone in a rowboat paddling in the same direction; diversity is them all paddling in different directions.

We are a nation of immigrants (well, most of us; I do have a small amount of Cherokee heritage), but we are also a nation of laws. If we ignore those laws for any reason, we risk devolving into anarchy, ruled by the law of the jungle. I honestly think many do not understand that. The USA has been a safe haven for the majority of its existence, especially outside the South, whereas other countries do not have the natural protections against invasion we do. We have forgotten what war and anarchy mean.

Ah, well, this case will make its way to the Supreme Court soon enough, and we will all know then what the direction of the country will be from here on out: anarchy or law. I'm betting on the latter. My life has been interesting enough; I don't need to witness the fall of a superpower as well.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join