Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Having traveled world wide, I have been liable for every law in every nation that I've ever traveled to. Not one of them tried to make me a citizen, nor would they. Hell, most countries won't even entertain the notion of me becoming a citizen of those nations.

I couldn't care less about the US Chamber of Commerce. They might as well have put on their white robes and hoods at that point for the atrocity of their willingness to abuse and oppress dispossessed people who are here illegally. This is what modern day slavery looks like Yall just must be too embarrassed to wear the hoods this week.

 

Had you been a foreigner visiting America, no attempt would have been made to make you a US citizen, either. So, I have no idea what you are referring to.

If a foreigner has a baby here, the baby is a US citizen, but the parents are not. Plus when the family returns to their country, that baby would surely qualify as a citizen there, too.

The point with the US Chamber of Commerce is that it is a right wing group that demands cheap, short term foreign labor on a spot basis.

You accused the left wing of wanting that, so I offer this as a confirmation that this is a RIGHT WING demand.

 

OK so you've not been able to disprove I misquoted Congress, by using comments that again have nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

 

Different rule, but yes if the proper paperwork was filled at the state deparment whether the child was born out of wedlock or not.

You have 8 USC 1401(g) says yes by saying "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date." For those born out of wedlock, you have 8 USC 1409. But the US uses the rule jus sanguinis as the rule for allowing citizenship. Just ask Ted Cruz. He was born in Canada and still received his US Citizenship.

 

Well, the OP is about Trump saying he will override the constitution with an EO.

So, I can understand why the conversation moved away from THAT idea!

 

The DACA was through EO, but again, the executive branch has broad discretion on the enforcement of the immigration code. A lot of that is through an EO. For Obama, he made the EO to allow DACA recipients of certain ages to be barred from deportation as long as they meet the rules as described by the EO. In that EO, if you need the qualifications, Obama allowed work authorization to be issued, the I765 card. And I think that was against the law. There were several lawsuits ranging from the total abdication of the EO to the Work Authorization. Only the work authorization was the real issue.

 

This concerns those born in a foreign country, not the USA, right?

 

I am more right than you are in regard to the "jurisdiction within the US" concept and the Act itself. All you are doing is regurgitating immigration restrictionist sites and that is all you are doing. That being said, I don't think you understand the realities of the Chinese when that act was established. And if you take a look at Angel Island and the museum in SF that has been around since the early 20th century, you would have known.

 

One, we do not have open borders, not today. We have controlled borders with ports of entry. May not be very efficient, but it is controlled borders. But you want, as you have argued, zero immigration period. that is more akin to North Korea or the USSR than anything else. And that is not how our current law works.

 

Civil rights is a long, long road that started in slavery, slaughter and theft of land and still has a long way to go in spite of the dedication and sacrifice of many Americans.

 

Well I had previously responded in this thread that Trump couldn't issue an EO to accomplish that. What is it that you disagree with that?

 

How mean Americans were to Chinese workers generations ago have nothing to do with what we were discussing, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which you falsely tried to use in your silly argument. Angel Island has nothing to do with the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Kim Wong Ark case.

You've demonstrated that you have little factual to say on this issue, that it's personal for you, and I don't really care about that.

 

Sigh...I was talking about the goals of the Cato Institute in that post you replied to.

 

The 14th Amendment was not written with the Chinese Exclusion Act in mind. You know that.

 

The above comment is what happens when you have no idea what's going on.

 

I agree. The people who try to limit what the 14th Amendment means based on things that have no relevance have no idea what's going on. I'm glad we agree.

 

Yes the libertarian site who believe in as little government intrusion as possible in daily lives. However, in that op-ed piece, the only thing I saw wrong was the phrase "legal residents" in which they did not address the realities of the Chinese Exclusion Act and how the legal doctrine of inadmissibility was introduced into US law. you seem to focus on that and not on what the act really did to those who are of Chinese Origin. The Supreme court did not address that issue, just who is a child at birth from the get-go.

 

I don't agree. I don't see a justification for arguments concerning the exclusion act impacting this issue of citizenship by birth.

 

I you think it was all according to the law and the Constitution, take it up with Obama, not me.

 

It was taken up in the courts. The courts eventually allowed DACA to continue until Trump got into office, and then allowed not to continue. When Biden was elected, it was continued again.

 

Are you suggesting that the Obama EO on DACA kids not being deported was unconstitutional?

Don't we make decisions on who may stay here and how aggressively we go after deportations all the time?

You KNOW we can't deport all those here without papers. Surely singling out DACA kids for deportation is about as vile an approach as could be possible.

 

You're going to hate this, but exactly my point.

 

I've shown that your quote wasn't what congress decided it meant on ratification buddy. That's the rebuttal to your asinine quote.

AGAIN: you have no substantive argument.

 

What is happening today isn't about work, it's a migration and votes.

 

No you failed to to that. You were going to show me how I misquoted the text of the Congressional record for those debates. You failed.

Keep it up!