The President Trump Immigration Thread

[mmpsteve]

Well here's the thing. The words speak for themselves. It's all well and good for even the person who originally wrote and offered the amendment to say "well I really didn't mean all", but "all" is what the amendment says. If he meant "not foreigners, aliens, etc." that should be in the amendment.

A more logical reading of the quoted portion above would be read in conjunction with the "and subject to their jurisdiction" only excludes people born here who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the states. In other words, children born to foreign nationals which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

All people in the U.S. from everywhere, except those with a brand of diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only logical reading of the text...if we care what the text says... is that if you are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of its laws, you are a citizen. Any other reading is not textual.

I will not invite activist judges to see limitations and clauses not in the text of the Constitution even if they see it "my way".

Is intent of the law not a legal consideration in interpretation of said law, if and when it is challenged, and if and when intent can be articulated?

 

[HoughMade]

I'm not sure who your question is directed toward. I'm sure some will try and argue intent vs the actual text of the amendment. I think you'll find that when the interpretation of any amendment arises. I only posted the link to the text of the debate because I found it interesting. It doesn't include my personal feelings on the matter one way or another.

Like you, I feel the text of the amendment is fairly straight forward, but I'm not a constitutional scholar or expert in case law by any means.

I am aiming my comments at the general discussion, not anyone is particular.

It's a discussion that is fine to have, but I'm on the side that the plain text wins. Only if the plain text is ambiguous do we look elsewhere and a disagreement with the plain text does not mean there is an ambiguity.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I am aiming my comments at the general discussion, not anyone is particular.

It's a discussion that is fine to have, but I'm on the side that the plain text wins. Only if the plain text is ambiguous do we look elsewhere and a disagreement with the plain text does not mean there is an ambiguity.

I think it's funny for a lawyer to concede there's ever "plain text"...unless its in your client's best interest. Because I know the opposition is splitting hairs and exploiting interpretations for his.

 

[MCgrease08]

Here's some additional context from Martha S. Jones, author of Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America.

https://twitter.com/marthasjones_/status/1057214626075680768

She seems to think it will boil down to a review of the SCOTUS decision of Wong Kim Ark (1898) which ruled that even the children of noncitizens, when born in the US, are citizens by Birthright. But, she says,

Wong’s parent were authorized or we might say legal immigrants. Their presence in the US was authorized. Wong Kim Ark did not directly address the status of children born to unauthorized immigrants."

A narrowly tailored EO that rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is an argument that can be made.

 

[EMDX6043]

Welp, if the Axios article is to be believed, it sounds like Pres. Trump will be a little more specific in the Order. I assume "unauthorized immigrants" is "illegal aliens"...I'm not exactly sure about what non-citizens means.

[video=youtube_share;H0d21nQBY8o]https://youtu.be/H0d21nQBY8o[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

I think it's funny for a lawyer to concede there's ever "plain text"...unless its in your client's best interest. Because I know the opposition is splitting hairs and exploiting interpretations for his.

 

[Denny347]

Hypocrites be hypocriting

 

[Trigger Time]

Good. There are too many people who are citizens now who should never have been. The constitution was never written to give illegals children citizenship. **** that noise. This president is awesome. Time for Congress to fix this too

 

[Dead Duck]

Illegal has baby in US and the baby is a US citizen.

This is what I thought it has been while I grew up. This is what people crossing the border have been thinking for a long time too. Are you guys saying that this isn't the way it's been now? And it's all how the judge has been interpreting it?

 

[T.Lex]

Is intent of the law not a legal consideration in interpretation of said law, if and when it is challenged, and if and when intent can be articulated?

Rarely.

What matters is what is written. In our system, there's absolutely no way to gauge the "intent" of however many legislators were necessary to pass something.

 

[T.Lex]

Illegal has baby in US and the baby is a US citizen.

This is what I thought it has been while I grew up. This is what people crossing the border have been thinking for a long time too. Are you guys saying that this isn't the way it's been now? And it's all how the judge has been interpreting it?

The "original" constitution is poor precedent for determining "citizen" status. Most should remember that it was a legal framework legitimizing slavery. The word "citizen" had a functionally different meaning than it does now.

That's why the proper reference is to the 14A, and the cases that have referenced it.

It has been the consistently applied rule of law that a person born in the US is considered a US citizen.

 

[MCgrease08]

Hypocrites be hypocriting

You mean the side that constantly trashes and twists the constitution to meet their needs and has suddenly now become staunch defenders of a literal interpretation? Or the side full of originalists and literalists who suddenly see all manner of grey shades in the language? Or both?

 

[HoughMade]

There's a way to eliminate birthright citizenship with no question of its legality.

It's the same way that abortion and gay marriage could have become constitutional rights with no question of legality...

...but I get it, those are the other​ guy's issues. My beliefs about the text of the Constitution do not change based upon the issue.

 

[T.Lex]

There's a way to eliminate birthright citizenship with no question of its legality.

It's the same way that abortion and gay marriage could have become constitutional rights with no question of legality...

...but I get it, those are the other​ guy's issues. My beliefs about the text of the Constitution do not change based upon the issue.

That outdated system is just WAY too hard these days.

 

[Dead Duck]

The "original" constitution is poor precedent for determining "citizen" status. Most should remember that it was a legal framework legitimizing slavery. The word "citizen" had a functionally different meaning than it does now.

That's why the proper reference is to the 14A, and the cases that have referenced it.

It has been the consistently applied rule of law that a person born in the US is considered a US citizen.

OK- That sounds great when US citizens have a child but we have illegals using it at a tool to get their spawn citizenship and then they have their whole family follow the kid into the system somehow.

Isn't that what the president is trying to put a stop to?..... And rightly so? So what's wrong with him doing that? Will that make it so US citizens having a child here NOT be an automatic citizen then?

We got to figure it out....

 

[Sylvain]

The president claimed we're the only country that allows this. NPR claims there's 14. Who's lying? Will we allow that party to lie to America?


Also, I really don't care for the vast generalization that "these people" are a drain on the American support system for 85 years. Is their any evidence to support that claim? Or could it be that they are an asset? I need more data, not nationalistic pandering.


I was told by INGO to not be deluded, so I'm trying to think critically.

It's like that in France as well.Well kinda.
If two foreign nationals have a baby born in France then the baby gets French citizenship ... but not at birth like in the US.
Only when the child turns 18 can they claim French citizenship (and if they lived 5 years in France since the age of 11).

Prior to 1993 the child would get citizenship at birth but they changed the law.

According to Wikipedia there are 30 or so countries with birthright citizenship.

Gotta respect that level of determination, no?

That certainly makes for a good work ethic. Far better than many native Americans... wait, that phase doesn't work right... well, you know what I mean.


PS- Why isn't Sylvain taking advantage of this?

Not sure if it's a serious question or not.

I think many people use the term "anchor baby" without knowing what it means.
They think that just having a child born in the US will automatically help the parents get legal residence.

Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years.

You have to wait 21 years and it doesn't work if you stayed or entered illegally in the country (unless you leave for 10 years).

Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions

If if you are in the US legally, with a child who's a US citizen you can still get deported ... so it doesn't really help.

It's not really a quick loophole for foreign nationals to get a quick legal resident status or US citizenship.
People who talk about illegal immigration and who mention the "anchor baby" is a bit like anti-gun folks who mention "gun show loopholes" and how folks use that to buy machine guns.

I could have "anchored" a bunch of babies while I stayed in the US during the course of several visits.
Or when my girlfriend visited me in France.

But even if having a child born in the US gave automatic citizenship I wouldn't use a child for that.
How do your explain your kid, when he/she is older, that daddy only had him/her to get a passport?

It's actually one of the reasons why I don't have kids ...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There's a way to eliminate birthright citizenship with no question of its legality.

It's the same way that abortion and gay marriage could have become constitutional rights with no question of legality...

...but I get it, those are the other​ guy's issues. My beliefs about the text of the Constitution do not change based upon the issue.

Are you of the belief that the phrase about jurisidiction thereof means what "we" now think it means? Or does it mean what it was meant when it was written (as illustrated up thread)? I'm assuming that representation is from a reputable source because I'm seeing it referenced elsewhere today. Because if it we're going to hold to "common" understanding of the plain text of the constitution, then that means in the 2A regulation allows for all manner of common sense gun laws.

 

[mmpsteve]

You mean the side that constantly trashes and twists the constitution to meet their needs and has suddenly now become staunch defenders of a literal interpretation? Or the side full of originalists and literalists who suddenly see all manner of grey shades in the language? Or both?

I used to think I was an originalist and literalist, but suddenly I'm seeing a little grey between the lines. So I'm starting to agree that Grey Rights Matter!! (GRM)

At least until 2020, or maybe 2024. After that, I'll be back to an originalist, unless Pence is elected ....

 

[Route 45]

Hypocrites be hypocriting

I know, right? Still probably not as bad as taking an oath to uphold the law, then having lawbreakers over for dinner.

 

[T.Lex]

OK- That sounds great when US citizens have a child but we have illegals using it at a tool to get their spawn citizenship and then they have their whole family follow the kid into the system somehow.

Isn't that what the president is trying to put a stop to?.....

I will politely decline (this time) to speculate on what the POTUS is trying to do, other than I suspect his motivation is primarily self-aggrandizement.

And rightly so? So what's wrong with him doing that? Will that make it so US citizens having a child here NOT be an automatic citizen then?

We got to figure it out....

IMNSHO, the proper mechanism is an Article V exercise in amending the constitution. If enough like-minded people think that's the problem, then so be it.

Anything other than that will be a combination of executive abuse of authority and legislating from the bench. Both of which are problematic around here. Usually.

But these are strange days.

(The ONE thing that might make sense about Trump's announcement - and this is totally 4D chess that I refuse to ascribe to him - is to motivate Congress to pass something to stymie him. By threatening an EO, they might pass something to take away that option, which would be VERY counterintuitive.)