The President Trump Immigration Thread

[MCgrease08]

(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.)

Or, it could just be a simple ploy to make headlines a week before the primary to take the media's focus away from wall-to-wall coverage of lunatic pipe bomb makers and anti-semites shooting up synagogues.

 

[HoughMade]

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)?...

Do you want an illegal alien arrested, prosecuted, tried and punished for murder when they commit one?

 

[Dead Duck]

Do you want a illegal alien arrested, prosecuted, tried and punished for murder when they Allegedly commit one?

FIFY

 

[T.Lex]

Do you want an illegal alien arrested, prosecuted, tried and punished for murder when they commit one?

I think there are a couple parts of that compound question that some INGOers would be willing to skip.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you want an illegal alien arrested, prosecuted, tried and punished for murder when they commit one?

So without the common understanding of that phrase, we couldn't prosecute terrorists and illegal aliens that commit crimes while here?

 

[HoughMade]

So without the common understanding of that phrase, we couldn't prosecute terrorists and illegal aliens that commit crimes while here?

Let me put it this way.

#1 Is the person born in the U.S.?

#2 Is the person subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? There is no super-secret, citizenship-only interpretation. Can the person be held liable for anything under a state's laws or those of the United States?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" = citizenship.

 

[Dead Duck]

McCarthy on Birthright Citizenship: Trump 'Right on Substance' But Executive Order Won't Work | Fox News Insider

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let me put it this way.

#1 Is the person born in the U.S.?

#2 Is the person subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? There is no super-secret, citizenship-only interpretation. Can the person be held liable for anything under a state's laws or those of the United States?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" = citizenship.

I see the point you are trying to make but its logic is faulty.

Let's go back to my earlier post and the part you ignored a few posts ago. Is the post that Indiucky posted about the what the writers of the jurisdiction language said correct? Is that truly what was meant when they wrote it? I honestly don't know. I've never delved into this before this came up. If it is correct, what is the difference between now ignoring the original intent of the language of that amendment and ignoring what the framers understood what comprises a militia or what the meaning of the word regulation is in the 2A?

I'm calling for no grey area interpretative nuance. I'm calling for consistency. If you know that that post of Indiucky's is BS or can point me to a link that says why, I'll gladly consider it and adjust my position accordingly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

McCarthy on Birthright Citizenship: Trump 'Right on Substance' But Executive Order Won't Work | Fox News Insider

Anybody that ever believed this EO would be signed and go into effect without a slew of billable hours being generated is delusional.

I believe the time has come to rescind this practice and it appears there is constitutional argument(s) that can be made to do so. After watching Trump for over a year now, I also know this is likely just part of the art of negotiation. This may well be him nudging the republicans into action. It wouldn't surprise me if it was.

 

[JettaKnight]

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....

Isn't this how it works?

1. Manufacture a crisis by taking a bad situation and blowing it up.
2. Propose a solution that goes against the Constitution.
3. Try and push that through by abrogating power with the support of the public who's been duped.
4. (optional) Send in the army to enforce the change.

This isn't specific to this case. I'm sure there's many, many, people that wouldn't hesitate to use that tactic for gun control.

 

[rob63]

I stole this from MC...He gets the credit......

Call me crazy, but when I read the highlighted part I take the intent to be that the statement only applies to people that obviously intend to remain foreigners or aliens, such as ambassadors or foreign ministers. In other words, I see it as a long explanation of a single class of people (foreign representatives here on official business), not a statement of several different classes of people. I don't think it applies to illegal immigrants at all.

 

[Dead Duck]

Isn't this how it works?

1. Manufacture a crisis by taking a bad situation and blowing it up.
2. Propose a solution that goes against the Constitution.
3. Try and push that through by abrogating power with the support of the public who's been duped.
4. (optional) Send in the army to enforce the change.

This isn't specific to this case. I'm sure there's many, many, people that wouldn't hesitate to use that tactic for gun control.

I'm curious with all your Trump Hate.
What has Trump done that you don't like?

I'm serious. Haters say he's racist and homophobic and Islamophobic and sexist and on and on and on.... And yet I have not seen any of it at all.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Call me crazy, but when I read the highlighted part I take the intent to be that the statement only applies to people that obviously intend to remain foreigners or aliens, such as ambassadors or foreign ministers. In other words, I see it as a long explanation of a single class of people (foreign representatives here on official business), not a statement of several different classes of people. I don't think it applies to illegal immigrants at all.

You have to read it in context of the entire statement. At minimum, read the sentence before and then the highlighted one and see if that makes a difference.

 

[Dead Duck]

Call me crazy, but when I read the highlighted part I take the intent to be that the statement only applies to people that obviously intend to remain foreigners or aliens, such as ambassadors or foreign ministers. In other words, I see it as a long explanation of a single class of people (foreign representatives here on official business), not a statement of several different classes of people. I don't think it applies to illegal immigrants at all.

That's how I think it should be. If you're here illegally you are null and void.
If that IS how it is suppose to be, then we need to re-educate the Gov on what to do instead of what they have been doing for a long time.

 

[Shadow01]

The simple solution is to make it clear that the parents of these anchor babies will not be allowed to stay. The parents will need to decide to allow the child to stay in foster care as a citizen or the parent can return to their native country with child and that child can return to the US at legal age.

 

[Tombs]

Let me put it this way.

#1 Is the person born in the U.S.?

#2 Is the person subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? There is no super-secret, citizenship-only interpretation. Can the person be held liable for anything under a state's laws or those of the United States?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" = citizenship.

You're assuming "subject to the jurisdiction" only means subject to the laws. This needs a supreme court case before any of us try to pretend we know precisely what that means.

My personal take is (simple example) that someone here legally on a passport is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but someone here illegally is not.

 

[T.Lex]

There is a history to birthright citizenship in the US that is older than the 14A. But, it involves slavery, so it is awkward.

The point being, there were actions that culminated in the 14A that made it important for anyone born in the US to be a US citizen (subject to the diplomatic thing).

Here is a link to part of the debate about "citizen" and what it means.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

It is fascinating from an historical perspective. These things we are wrestling with now are not new. Not by a longshot.

And, given the amount and breadth of discussion, the "intent" in entirely ambiguous.

(I haven't seen the snippet cited by Indi, but it is... tough... to read through that stuff.)

 

[HoughMade]

You're assuming "subject to the jurisdiction" only means subject to the laws. This needs a supreme court case before any of us try to pretend we know precisely what that means.

My personal take is (simple example) that someone here legally on a passport is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but someone here illegally is not.

So, how are an illegal alien or their baby NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? Were there passports when the 14th Amendment was ratified?

 

[rob63]

You have to read it in context of the entire statement. At minimum, read the sentence before and then the highlighted one and see if that makes a difference.

That is actually what makes me think the highlighted part only applies to ambassadors and ministers. The sentence before specifically says that citizens include everyone that is "born within the limits of the US, and subject to their jurisdiction." Ambassadors and ministers are the only group of people that are not subject to our laws while they are here. Thus, the highlighted part is simply clarifying that the part about "subject to their jurisdiction" was meant to exclude them.

 

[T.Lex]

That is actually what makes me think the highlighted part only applies to ambassadors and ministers. The sentence before specifically says that citizens include everyone that is "born within the limits of the US, and subject to their jurisdiction." Ambassadors and ministers are the only group of people that are not subject to our laws while they are here. Thus, the highlighted part is simply clarifying that the part about "subject to their jurisdiction" was meant to exclude them.

Keep in mind, the Senator from Michigan expressly stated that this amendment, in his view, codified the then-existent law. Which refers us back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That then also requires a re-look at Dred Scott.

But here's an interesting historical curiosity - the Confederate states were REQUIRED to ratify it, if they wanted to be re-admitted to the Union. Ain't that a kick in the head.