Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

I think the issue is the 14th amendment citizenship clause, NOT the last 22 pages.

 

This may shock you but we review this case in law school. This is not the first time I've heard the asinine argument you hold to.


And AGAIN: READ the ****ing case. They discuss that if he had made himself the agent of a foreign power he'd have repudiated his citizenship. They likewise discuss that if his parents had been such agents, he wouldn't have been the kind of person who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They LITERALLY discuss what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
Further: "
First, in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.” The 14th Amendment, ratified only two years later, used different language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The authors were well aware how to deny citizenship to people with foreign allegiances. Instead, they focused on a person’s relationship with American law.

Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright‐citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”"

"It is true—as critics of birthright citizenship are quick to point out—that Wong Kim Ark considered only the status of a child born to lawfully resident parents. Therefore, they contend, the Supreme Court has not resolved the status of a child whose parents are not in the country legally. But this distinction makes no difference. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to aliens who are subject to U.S. laws, it does not matter if the parents are in the country legally. The reason such people are called “illegal aliens” is that they are subject to U.S. law, and not in compliance with them."

 

First, in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.” The 14th Amendment, ratified only two years later, used different language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The authors were well aware how to deny citizenship to people with foreign allegiances. Instead, they focused on a person’s relationship with American law.

Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright‐citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”

Judges have affirmed Conness’s view consistently. In 1898 the Supreme Court adopted it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The justices held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”

It is true—as critics of birthright citizenship are quick to point out—that Wong Kim Ark considered only the status of a child born to lawfully resident parents. Therefore, they contend, the Supreme Court has not resolved the status of a child whose parents are not in the country legally. But this distinction makes no difference. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to aliens who are subject to U.S. laws, it does not matter if the parents are in the country legally. The reason such people are called “illegal aliens” is that they are subject to U.S. law, and not in compliance with them.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate


Emphasis mine. You've got the the framers of the 14th talking about what it will do, this exact issue being raised, and the response being "Good, motion passes".
Then you've got the logical argument based on what the ****ing term means.

You know.... basic ****.

 

Him citing DIPLOS and THEIR KIDS is not him citing any alien whatsoever.

Further: https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright‐citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”

 

No.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-...imes, the convention,can get away with murder.

Diplomatic agents are immune - NOT subject to US jurisdiction.

The country they represent CAN if it wants reject that immunity, but that is the decision of the foreign country, not the USA.

 

Its not "foreigners and aliens.". Get your own ****ed up quote right at least.

Its "...foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Translated to modern speak: Those foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

 

Subject to arrest doesn't mean much since they will have to be release without charge or punishment for any crimes they have committed. Deportation isn't a punishment whatsoever. You think the family of a crime victim will just settle for a deportation? I'd think not.

 

If they're here on US soil, they're subject to our jurisdiction unless they're diplomatically immune.

Illegal aliens are aliens not in compliance with the law. If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction, they couldn't break the law.

 

This is the way the USA wants diplomats to be treated.

We can't have diplomats in foreign countries with whom we have serious issues to discuss if that country can lock up our diplomats due to some charge that country makes.

 

Let's explore that shall we? When a diplo's kid kills someone, what occurs? He is arrested and immediately deported. Can he be ARRAIGNED? No. Can he be TRIED? No. Can he be CONVICTED? No. Can he serve prison time? No.
Why not? Because he's not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What about an illegal? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

 

I've read the ****ing case. You haven't. It CLEARLY only applies to LEGAL residents, NOT illegal aliens. I even linked the case.

Furthermore, it DID NOT follow the stated intent of the 14th Amendment....and that position was argued by none other than US government lawyers.

I don't give a **** what rinky dink fake law class you say you attended.

And with all that said, Trump is proposing an EO that follows the ARK precedent. Deal with it.

 

I have read the case. You haven't. Clearly, it explains what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. That definition includes illegals.

Again: Congress during passage had this pointed out to them. That anchor babies would be a thing. They said "good, its passing" and passed it anyway.

And yet, I still have a license to practise law and I've still read the case.

The EO does not follow precedent, and further an EO cannot override the constitution or the plain language of a statute. You DO realize its in 8 USC right?
Further: He's not getting elected again. Keep huffing that copium son.

 

Of course - Trump has never shown an interest in how our founders intended our government to work.

Why would anyone suspect he would start now??

 

The Cato Institute is libertarian. It's not a conservative think tank.

 

We don't need to get rid of anchor babies. We simply need to enforce the laws we have. A person cannot sponsor an immigrant until they are 18. Babies cannot be sponsors without people being willing to ignore the law.

 

So, your plan is to deport a US citizen.

 

Nope. The baby can stay but the parents have to go. Parents choice.

 

What kind of country do you think America is?

 

Supposed to be a country of laws. Don't make me the bad guy. The law is there. If the parents want to break the law, that is on them. Why should I feel guilty because they choose to break the law? Why should we be saddled with expense because they choose to break the law?

 

Further more, the POTUS and anyone else that does not enforce the laws should be charged with dereliction of duty since they have sworn an oath to uphold and enforce the laws.

 

You should be thinking about how wonderful it is to be a wealthy nation and perhaps back off on grossly antihumanitarian BS.

 

There is no possibility of removing the millions of undocumented aliens in the USA.

You can try to be seriously harsh on all foreigners at our borders, of course. But, Trump's wall idea and other ideas have not been particularly successful.

 

Have you thought that maybe it's a wealthy nation because we are supposed to enforce laws instead of a bribe-your-way-out-of-jail system or look-the-other-way system that the poorer countries have?

 

No idea is particularly successful when you defund or stop implementation. It is successful where it is implemented.

 

Be careful here. Our system is weighted heavily toward the wealthy and connected.

How about starting by supporting democracy?