Page 91 of 94 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 938

Thread: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

  1. #901
    Eco**Social Marketeer


    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,293

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    The "answer" here is so obvious it amazes me there is room for discussion. The 14th Amendment language is easy to read and understand.
    "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."
    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power".
    While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][10] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States[.]
    (Wikipedia, citizenship clause). The Supreme Court, as noted, has also done so in Wong Kim Ark (1898) and also Elk vs Wilkins (1884), both only about 30 years after the Amendment's passage.

    The Congressional Research Service addressed this question directly in 2018 (which is why Trump changed tack, then):
    Under federal law, nearly all people born in the United States become citizens at birth. This rule is known as “birthright citizenship,” and it derives from both the Constitution and complementary statutes and regulations. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll 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.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in turn, declares certain persons to be U.S. citizens and nationals at birth. INA § 301(a) more or less tracks the Citizenship Clause in stating that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth.” (The INA also extends citizenship at birth to various persons not protected by the Citizenship Clause, such as those born abroad to some U.S. citizen parents.) Federal regulations—including those that govern the issuance of passports and access to certain benefits—implement the INA by providing that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she was born in the United States, so long as the parent was not a “foreign diplomatic officer” at the time of the birth.

    Any executive proposal to restrict birthright citizenship would probably take the approach of interpreting INA § 301(a) to mean that the children of certain aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore do not acquire citizenship by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. A bill introduced in the
    House in the current Congress, like other legislative proposals from previous Congresses, would take a similar approach to defining the “subject to the jurisdiction” language in the Fourteenth Amendment. Following the President’s statements, at least one Member of the Senate has announced plans to propose legislation “along the same lines as the proposed executive order.”
    The Citizenship Clause and "Birthright Citizenship": A Brief Legal Overview .

    Here's the problem with both, and why such a law will never pass: No one wants to give up jurisdiction over aliens. They wouldn't be "illegal" then. What would Trump campaign on?

  2. #902
    Militantly Moderate
    Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    04-01-20 @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    10,695

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by TextDriversKill View Post
    The 14th amendment does NOT say anyone born in america is an american citizen. It says "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." A child born to an illegal mother inherits the nationality of the mother's country and is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.
    It's been over four years. What happened?
    To Be Conservative - Senator Barry Goldwater, September 1981
    Aviation chat threat
    FYI: I don't debate trolls, minors or those unable to act like a sane adult

  3. #903
    Eco**Social Marketeer


    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,293

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Royal PITA View Post
    It's been over four years. What happened?
    Bluster and bombast.

  4. #904
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,301

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by TextDriversKill View Post
    The 14th amendment does NOT say anyone born in america is an american citizen. It says "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." A child born to an illegal mother inherits the nationality of the mother's country and is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.
    Only the frivolous right wing would come up with that bigotry. Anyone subject to US laws is subject to US jurisdiction.

  5. #905
    Militantly Moderate
    Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    04-01-20 @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    10,695

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    Bluster and bombast.
    That fits just like "lock her up" and Biden committed a crime.
    To Be Conservative - Senator Barry Goldwater, September 1981
    Aviation chat threat
    FYI: I don't debate trolls, minors or those unable to act like a sane adult

  6. #906
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-27-20 @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,355

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Of course he said it to pander to his supporters,
    And again. Given the information we have, that is unlikely.
    Secondly, the President has already addressed part of the problem.
    He has implemented visa rules to help prevent birth tourism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Of course he said it to pander to his supporters, who have by now simply forgotten that he ever said it. They don't care that he couldn't overturn the 14th.
    Have they? Or perhaps most have no concern of the issue like they didn't have before he spoke of it? You are just spewing nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    They don't care that he couldn't overturn the 14th. or whether or not he knows he can't.
    Lame reply as usual.
    Enforcing the Constitution as written is not overturning it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    They just like the idea that he's talking about stopping all those pregnant women streaming across the border to make their little brown babies into US citizens so that they can vote for Democrats when they grow up.
    You know not of what you speak and are apparently choosing to make a false claim about the majority of his supporters.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It's a lot like his border wall to be paid for by Mexico. They know that won't happen, but they like hearing about it anyway.
    Wrong as usual.
    Most aren't concerned, if they were they would be voicing those concerns.

    In addition; His supporters knew there were ways to get Mexico to pay in lieu of direct payment. Many see Mexico providing military support along the boarder to stop crossings as Mexico making expenditure to secure our boarder.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  7. #907
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-27-20 @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,355

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Relevant information to the question of what the wording actually means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means





    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.



    [...]

    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:


    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)


    What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means




    Cont. below.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #908
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-27-20 @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,355

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    This is Senator Trumbull the author of the language inserted into the 14th's citizenship clause.

    The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'
    [...]
    What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    The Congressional record proving that.

    A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.




    This is Senator Howard, the author of the 14th.


    I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

    The Congressional record proving that.



    A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.




    They didn't mean something other that what they said it meant.

    And what they agree they meant is the following.

    A full and complete jurisdiction that meant, Not owing allegiance to anybody else.


    This is a definitive. There is no rebuttal to it.




    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    This is settled law

    Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia
    Wrong.
    It is not settled law and you have no valid argument. (See the relevant information I posted above info.)
    1. Wong Kim Ark only applies to individuals who's parents were here legally when they were born, not those born of illegals.
    2. It can also be shown that based on what the wording of the 14th actually means, as well as precedent of past AG enforcement policy, that the case was wrongly decided.


    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant
    "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "citizen of the united states", subject to any modifying laws of the state in which the person was born.


    "Jurisdiction" refers to the state of birth.

    Therefore, there is no room for "interpretation" as the matter has been settled in precedent and law ( Civil Rights Act passed in the 60s, moreover ).
    Wrong.

    "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly what the framers of the 14th said it meant.
    "Not owing allegiance to anybody else.".
    A person born of a foreign national owes allegiance to their parents country, just as a child born of a US citizen overseas is born owning an allegiance to the US.





    Even Harry Reid once submitted such legislation. It died in committee.
    He has since flip-flopped on the issue, but it still serves as an example of what it would take.

    “TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

    S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993

    S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 | Text
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #909
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-27-20 @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,355

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    The SC spoke on this already in Won Kim Ark

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark :: 169 U.S. 649 (1898) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center.

    It is settled law.
    Wrong. (See the relevant information I posted above info.)
    1. Wong Kim Ark only applies to individuals who's parents were here legally. It does not apply to illegals.
    2. Wong Kim Ark did not define the terminology used in the 14th and does not prevent recognition of the original intent.
    3. Wong Kim Ark, in and of itself, is flawed because they did not address the actual meaning of the wording as pointed out in the dissent and did not follow known precedent of a AG issued policy to enforce the language as written. As shown, valid reason exists for Wong Kim Ark to be overturned in it's application to those here legally.


    Again.
    The only argument that can be made against this is that when challenged, the final court of record (likely SCOTUS) may not decide to follow original intent.
    While the final court of record can change how the language used will be enforced from that decision onward, it can not change the original intent of the language used.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #910
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-27-20 @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,355

    Re: Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    The "answer" here is so obvious it amazes me there is room for discussion. The 14th Amendment language is easy to read and understand.
    Yes it is. (See above posts.)
    The language means "Not owing allegiance to anybody else." as the framers of the 14th said it meant.


    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power".
    A person born of a foreign national owes allegiance to their parents country, and are subject to that "foreign power", just as a child born of a US citizen overseas is born owning an allegiance to the US and subject to a "foreign power" (the US) from that other countries point of view.


    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    The Congressional Research Service addressed this question directly in 2018 (which is why Trump changed tack, then):The Citizenship Clause and "Birthright Citizenship": A Brief Legal Overview .
    1. Hilarious. You have no idea what the President is doing.
    2. While the Congressional research service is not the authority on this subject, you seem to be ignoring the last portion of the reports last sentence which is; "the Supreme Court has not firmly settled the issue in the modern era.".
    Given that they recognized the most likely path for the change would be to reinterpret the language as reflected in INA § 301, that means the argument made is valid enough to present to the Court.



    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    Here's the problem with both, and why such a law will never pass:
    While a law could certainly be proposed, as already pointed out, it is not the only valid route. It can simply be a matter of employing a policy of supporting the original intent of the wording.


    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    Here's the problem with both, and why such a law will never pass: No one wants to give up jurisdiction over aliens. They wouldn't be "illegal" then. What would Trump campaign on?
    Oy vey! As wrong as it is dumb and just shows you know not of what you speak.
    It is not a matter of giving up jurisdiction over aliens. The country still has legal jurisdiction over a person within their borders regardless of that person's citizenship.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 91 of 94 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •