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: 15
47
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The decision specifically says it applies universally.

Do illegal immigrants not exist in this universe?




posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

My argument is case law. Your argument seems to be any case law you don't like is racist and should be ignored. Why should I answer your question when you have dodged mine over and over.

If the case you provide meant what you claimed, how did it not apply to Native Americans. If a Native American was born off reservation then if you are correct they would have been a US citizen prior to 1924, although really it would have applied on reservation too.

So if it applies as you claim, why did they not get birthright citizenship having a baby off reservation? If your answer is in 1924 everyone in power was too racist to give them their legally deserved BRC then why did those racists pass a law to make it happen? They can't both be too racist to let it happen, and not so racist as to ensure it happened.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The decision specifically says it applies universally.

Do illegal immigrants not exist in this universe?

Illegals exist. So it applies to them. The question is what exactly is being applied. The next question helps understand whether BRC is what is being applied.
The decision specifically says it applies universally. Do Native Americans exist in the Universe? Does it apply to them?



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Dred Scott decision established the basis for why Native Americans were not covered by the 14th.

The Senate Judiciary Committee further established this as law when in 1870 they stated, "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States."

So the you go. Case law and USC law that establishes why Native Americans were not initially covered by the 14th.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I explained precisely why Wong Kim Ark reasonably excludes illegals.


If you did then why does Trump even need to do anything? Why has everyone to this point born here an American citizen? Why hasn't anyone bothered to challenge this in court and win?



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


...is also pretty clear, the authors of the Amendment made it known that it's in reference to foreign diplomats.

That's some broad language to use if the intent was to only exempt foreign diplomats.


I need to tell you that this thread is about birthright? Well, it is and birthright is covered under the 14th.

You were attempting to make the point that because illegal immigrants' children born here have received citizenship in the past, it must be a Constitutional requirement. My point was that the United States can grant citizenship even where it is not required by the Constitution. The fact that in 2017, 22 million legal immigrants were granted citizenship who were not covered under any Constitutional requirement to do so, proves that previous grants of citizenship do not equal Constitutional requirements to grant citizenship.


Am I? What is the definition of the word in the context of the Amendment as contextualized by the authors?

I have explained that ad nauseum already.


ETA: Using your logic someone like myself who received Italian citizenship automatically at birth since my mother was born there is under another country's 'jurisdiction'.

I am not sure I understand your point. Can you clarify?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The decision specifically says it applies universally. So if it does not apply to Native Americans it does not apply universally. So now you are saying two things. It applies to everyone, no matter what ... but then it doesn't cover everyone and it depends. So which is it? Are you claiming Native Americans would not be covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th? Or just the BRC part? So it sounds like you are saying the equal protections clause applies to everyone, no matter what, but BRC does not apply to everyone. Odd, sounds like what I said.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I explained precisely why Wong Kim Ark reasonably excludes illegals.


If you did then why does Trump even need to do anything? Why has everyone to this point born here an American citizen? Why hasn't anyone bothered to challenge this in court and win?

Because US policy has been to not check if someone qualifies and to just give it to everyone. Who would challenge it? A challenge would require someone who got BRC to challenge the court and say they should not have, which makes absolutely no sense. I have no standing, I can not challenge it. Neither can you. It would require the government saying to someone hey you don't qualify, we aren't giving it to you. Oh wow that sounds like what Trump is doing!



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm saying that based on the racism of the time, Native Americans would not be covered by the 14th at all.

If the 14th was never intended to cover everyone on US soil, why did the Senate Judiciary Committee come back and specify that only Native Americans weren't covered by it?



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


I'm saying that based on the racism of the time, Native Americans would not be covered by the 14th at all.

Are you saying the mean racists violated the Constitution?

Sorry, but that argument gets very old very quickly. Racism is not a catch-all for anything one disagrees with.


If the 14th was never intended to cover everyone on US soil, why did the Senate Judiciary Committee come back and specify that only Native Americans weren't covered by it?

The Senate Judiciary Committee, or any legislative committee for that matter, heck even the Senate itself or the House itself, can say anything they want. That does not make it law; it makes it the opinion of someone with a big mouth. A law must be codified... it must pass an official vote by both houses and either be signed by the President or pass with a 2/3+ majority in both houses. Unless that happens, it is not law. If it does happen, that law is codified into the US Code.

Show me in the US Code where the 14th Amendment was said to only not cover Native Americans. I even linked the US Code for you... twice. You're welcome.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

That's some broad language to use if the intent was to only exempt foreign diplomats.


I think it's pretty concise, like most of the rest of the document.



My point was that the United States can grant citizenship even where it is not required by the Constitution.


Ok, I guess? The thread is about birthright which is in the 14th.



I have explained that ad nauseum already.


Then we're back to square one. If your definition is correct Trump wouldn't need to do anything.



I am not sure I understand your point. Can you clarify?


I am the son of a foreign-born citizen, I automatically get Italian citizenship at birth due to that fact, using your argument I am under the jurisdiction of Italy as well as the United States.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Who would challenge it?


Any citizen who thinks it's un-Constitutional, just like they do with anything else.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I think it's pretty concise, like most of the rest of the document.

I disagree. Something along the lines of "foreign dignitaries" would be much less ambiguous.


Ok, I guess? The thread is about birthright which is in the 14th.

Good we agree. Now would you agree that previously granting citizenship at birth is not then a guarantee of Constitutional requirement and could simply be in addition to that required by the Constitution?


Then we're back to square one. If your definition is correct Trump wouldn't need to do anything.

Trump isn't doing anything outside of normal Executive powers, which are his to wield as President. He has consulted government attorneys and will issue an Executive Order in line with his proposed change in policy. That change is that the US government will no longer grant citizenship solely on the basis of birthplace but also on the basis of US jurisdiction since it is not required by the Constitution.


I am the son of a foreign-born citizen, I automatically get Italian citizenship at birth due to that fact, using your argument I am under the jurisdiction of Italy as well as the United States.

Correct. Dual citizenship is dual jurisdiction.

In reality, whichever country you reside in at the time would exercise primary jurisdiction, but Italy could in theory pass a law that placed a mandate on all citizens and then prosecute you for breaking it while in the US if you were to visit Italy.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, there is such a thing as "court standing." One cannot just file a complaint against any person anywhere at any time; the court must recognize standing to legally file the claim. As an example, if someone tricked you out of a large sum of money, I could not file fraud charges against them for doing so; I would not have standing because I was not the one injured. You would be the only one to have standing before the court and would have to initiate the case.

A good example in the news recently is that the warrants served on Jeffrey Epstein cannot be challenged now. The only person with standing to do so was Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein is dead.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Who would challenge it?


Any citizen who thinks it's un-Constitutional, just like they do with anything else.

How would they get standing? I have no standing to file a case.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Senate Judiciary Committee can't do any such thing. They do not interpret the Constitution. If they did we would not need the Supreme Court. If your argument is the 14th was made by racists and does not cover people you think it should then that is your problem. The SC has already ruled being on US soil does not automatically convey BRC. You don't get to ignore their rulings because you think they are racist.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, there is such a thing as "court standing." One cannot just file a complaint against any person anywhere at any time; the court must recognize standing to legally file the claim.

I already explained that to him. I explained what Trump is doing is what would be required for this to go to the SC.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Abusing the loophole turned it into an industry.



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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."



The only worthy response:




posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: funbobby

It’s time to make the people in that industry unemployed .



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join