Trump Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

originally posted by: TheRedneck

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about naturalization, not immigration. There is a naturalization process that legally immigrating citizens go through that is not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution also covers birth right citizenship which this thread is about. If it didn't exist for 100+ years why is Trump trying to change it?

My point was that one can become a citizen without being born in this country. The 14th Amendment, indeed, the entire Constitution, does not address this either way.

The Supreme Court says otherwise and so do the contemporaneous members of Congress to the Amendment.

You do realize we can debate without being disagreeable for disagreeable's sake?

On the other hand, the Executive Order can say that the Executive branch will no longer choose to allow naturalization of those not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Splitting hairs, 'jurisdiction' is clearly understood to mean diplomats and their families.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Policy =/= law

The policy has been to give citizenship to more than those who are legally entitled to it. He is changing that policy, not changing law.

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.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Constitution also covers birth right citizenship which this thread is about. If it didn't exist for 100+ years why is Trump trying to change it?

Birthright citizenship does (and should) exist for legal immigrants. The difference now is that it is being applied to illegal immigrants as well, which is not required by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court says otherwise and so do the contemporaneous members of Congress to the Amendment.

How to Apply for U.S. Citizenship

I am not going to argue the patently obvious with you. There were 22 million legal immigrants naturalized in 2017, and not via birthright, nor having anything to do with the 14th Amendment. If you want to say otherwise, you are simply arguing against factual, self-evidentiary data.

Splitting hairs, 'jurisdiction' is clearly understood to mean diplomats and their families.

You call it "splitting hairs"; I call it observing the law as written. With you trying to dispute that naturalization occurs outside the 14th Amendment, I find it difficult to believe your position. Either way, the Supreme Court will decide.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The policy has been to give citizenship to more than those who are legally entitled to it. He is changing that policy, not changing law.

What policy is that? The Constitution says if you're born here you're a citizen.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Birthright citizenship does (and should) exist for legal immigrants. The difference now is that it is being applied to illegal immigrants as well, which is not required by the Constitution.

Then the Constitution should say that, it doesn't. This is the same weak sauce that anti-2nd proponents try with semi-automatic firearms.

How to Apply for U.S. Citizenship

I am not going to argue the patently obvious with you. There were 22 million legal immigrants naturalized in 2017, and not via birthright, nor having anything to do with the 14th Amendment. If you want to say otherwise, you are simply arguing against factual, self-evidentiary data.

That's nice. Naturalization and birthright are two different things.

You call it "splitting hairs"; I call it observing the law as written. With you trying to dispute that naturalization occurs outside the 14th Amendment, I find it difficult to believe your position. Either way, the Supreme Court will decide.

You find it difficult that I take the Constitution literally? Oh effing well.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then the Constitution should say that, it doesn't. This is the same weak sauce that anti-2nd proponents try with semi-automatic firearms.

Not the same thing at all. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me, and is backed up by several of the Founding Fathers' writings of the time. "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" sounds clear to me, but apparently some people have trouble with it.

That's nice. Naturalization and birthright are two different things.

Then why have you spent two pages arguing with me when I said the Constitution does not say who cannot be citizens, only who must be citizens?

Naturalization is not covered in the Constitution. It is not a right nor a basic operation of the government, and thus is covered by laws and/or policy instead.

You find it difficult that I take the Constitution literally? Oh effing well.

That's the thing: you are not taking it literally. You are redefining the word "jurisdiction" to mean the same thing it does in the phrase "police jurisdiction" and trying to back it up with diplomatic policy (which is a mere policy and not even a law). That's not literal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not the same thing at all. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It is when you include "A well regulated militia..."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A militia at the time consisted of all able-bodied men willing and able to serve. It was not an organized military or para-military group.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Still, if it weren't for that phrase, we wouldn't have the ongoing argument about the government's ability to regulate weapons.

In other words, I think the two arguments are comparable constitutional arguments.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Probably correct.

However, that simply underscores a problem with humanity. As time marches on, words and even their meaning change. 'Cool' at the time meant a low temperature; in my day it meant something good or desirable. A 'faggot' is a flaming torch, such as is used to explore caverns... it at one time meant a cigarette... today it is considered a hateful term for a gay person. Language simply changes with each generation, so over time documents can have drastically different meanings than they originally did, unless the definitions of the time are taken into account. That's what lawyers and judges are supposed to do: understand the intent and wording of the documents and why they are read as they are, to ensure that time does not erase meanings.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except it doesn't. Ask native Americans before 1924 if it meant that.

a reply to: JustJohnny

No man, you believe the media too much. Just like y'all were shocked when Trump won, his voters weren't!!

a reply to: xuenchen

He should Start at U.S. Controlled Mariana Islands . The Biggest Immigration Loophole is there .

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Splitting hairs, 'jurisdiction' is clearly understood to mean diplomats and their families.

and foreign nationals, if you read the debate in the Senate surrounding its passage.

Else why even put the phrase in there? It goes back to the 1600s and English common law when the test whether you were under the jurisdiction came down to whether the King could compel you to fight for him. An illegal alien, or a tourist in the United States, clearly, if war broke out, couldn't be compelled to fight for the United States. Therefore, not under the jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL...They didn't have green cards back then. They didn't even have VISAs. What they did have was the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is what Ark's denial to enter the country was based on.

Fair point. But they did have ports of entry, they did recognize immigrants, and the parents of Ark were recognized as legal immigrants. They did not sneak in. They did business inside the US borders and followed the laws while they were within the jurisdiction.

My mistake was the assumption that at that time the US had some means to designate someone an immigrant and demand papers if they were so questioned. That didn't apparently become an issue until the 1880s, but not because of illegal immigration but more of economic protectionism, no doubt with some asian animus on the side.

"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's what I said, just more wordy and less snarky. Contrarian much?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL...They didn't have green cards back then. They didn't even have VISAs. What they did have was the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is what Ark's denial to enter the country was based on.

Fair point. But they did have ports of entry, they did recognize immigrants, and the parents of Ark were recognized as legal immigrants. They did not sneak in. They did business inside the US borders and followed the laws while they were within the jurisdiction.

My mistake was the assumption that at that time the US had some means to designate someone an immigrant and demand papers if they were so questioned. That didn't apparently become an issue until the 1880s, but not because of illegal immigration but more of economic protectionism, no doubt with some asian animus on the side.

"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's what I said, just more wordy and less snarky. Contrarian much?

No, that's not what you said. You said:

Their ruling was that is was difficult to impossible to determine if the children were 'subject to the jurisdiction' when they were born, so Texas just had to accept them all.

But, that's not what they said. They said:

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.

Do you understand the difference? (At the risk of sounding snarky)

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Do you understand the difference? (At the risk of sounding snarky)

By all means, please elaborate. I do look forward to the minutae. (also snark, just FYI)

Please fully detail the differences between 'distinction of lawful vs unlawful immigrants' and 'determination of who were subject to the jurisdiction'... because if you can't tell if they were lawful immigrants then by extension you can't determine if they were subject to the jurisdiction when they were born. But maybe that's just me.

Please, continue.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Please fully detail the differences between 'distinction of lawful vs unlawful immigrants' and 'determination of who were subject to the jurisdiction'... because if you can't tell if they were lawful immigrants then by extension you can't determine if they were subject to the jurisdiction when they were born. But maybe that's just me.

What?

I't's not rocket science. Read it again:

"...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."

a reply to: xuenchen

The left already has a way around this..

Illegals just have to come to the US, wear diaper's and Identify as American babies.

Nuf said..!!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But why would they be deported?

During the Cold War, if we caught a KGB agent working in the USA, what would we do with them? There is no sense whatsoever in which they could be considered to be subject to America's Jurisdiction. The Soviets would execute them if they tried to defect. They were clearly under Soviet Jurisdiction.


Illegal immigrants are subjects of Mexico, entering our country without permission. We would have cause for war if Mexico didn't deal with them once they were detained, and delivered to the Mexican authorities.

Ultimately, by doing so, we are merely returning them to their sovereign rulers.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

I agree!

But it would be worth it.

The diplomatic outcomes would be interesting. Maybe Mexico would end up having to help pay for the wall after all?