The President Trump Immigration Thread

[mmpsteve]

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.

Did they have a choice NOT to be re-admitted to the Union? Serious question, because it never crossed my mind that they might have had a choice.


.

 

[rob63]

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.

I'm still making my way through the "Congressional Globe" that you posted, thanks for posting that. It is VERY interesting reading, and, yes, the part about being required to ratify it to be re-admitted is fascinating!

 

[T.Lex]

Did they have a choice NOT to be re-admitted to the Union? Serious question, because it never crossed my mind that they might have had a choice.

Yeah, so think of it this way: they were conquered territory. The Union could've split them up however they wanted. I either forgot,* or never knew, the part about the required ratification. So, yeah, as the "winner" of the war, they could make the rules whatever they wanted to be... err... whatever we wanted them to be.


*I probably crammed for the test and got it right. Dodging what would have been an otherwise valuable lesson about the dangers of procrastination.

 

[Tombs]

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?

You keep conflating laws with jurisdiction. I'd be careful doing that as it might not mean what you think it means.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm still making my way through the "Congressional Globe" that you posted, thanks for posting that. It is VERY interesting reading, and, yes, the part about being required to ratify it to be re-admitted is fascinating!

Yeah - and in case you haven't found it (it took me awhile), the portion highlighted by Indi is on page 2890, of the 39th Congress, first session. Here's the index:
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39

In getting lost reading the history, there were important other considerations about being a 'citizen.' For instance, on bill suggested that if a US citizen goes into Canada to cut down some wood, but brings it back to the US, then it should be duty-free. I can only imagine that if a Canadian citizen tried that, they would be treated differently.


ETA:
Uh... not sure why I didn't just post a link to the page with Indi's portion.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

I think that's it. It basically starts that round of discussion. I suspect the house debate is available somewhere, I just don't have the time to look right now. Because I wasted time reading THAT stuff.

 

[T.Lex]

You keep conflating laws with jurisdiction. I'd be careful doing that as it might not mean what you think it means.

 

[Trigger Time]

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 ...

Dickem down sylvain
I'd put babies in French women if it would get you here faster

 

[HoughMade]

You keep conflating laws with jurisdiction. I'd be careful doing that as it might not mean what you think it means.

So what does "jurisdiction" mean? With citation.

While not the same, they are inextricably interwoven.

 

[Tombs]

So what does "jurisdiction" mean? With citation.

While not the same, they are inextricably interwoven.

You just admitted it isn't the same.

The power conferred on the Court, by a statute to decide disputes/cases is called 'Jurisdiction'. It means the limits within which the Court can exercise its authority. In other words, before a court can hear a case, it should have the jurisdiction over the person or the company against whom the case is brought or over the property involved in the suit as well as the subject matter of the dispute.Jurisdiction is an essential element to all lawsuits. A case may not be allowed by the court until it is determined that the court can accept, hear and decide such a suit.
Jurisdiction gives the Courts the power to:

• Hear and determine the cause (decide the matter of controversy)
• Adjudicate and
• Exercise Judicial power

In the course of exercising its jurisdiction, a Court will have every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

https://www.lawnotes.in/Jurisdiction#Definition

This is quite interesting.

Personal Jurisdiction

Also called in personam jurisdiction, 'Personal jurisdiction' is the jurisdiction over the court over any person or business that resides in a certain geographic area.

• A state court would generally have jurisdiction over the person or business located within the geographical limits of the state while the Supreme Court (or the highest court of the country) will have jurisdiction over all persons and business within the country.
• Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code says that every person irrespective of his/her rank, nationality, caste or creed shall be liable for an offence committed in India and of which he is found guilty. It expends to foreign nationals also.

Eg: Adultery is not an offence in America, but is an offence under Section. 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
Exceptions

The following persons are always exempted from the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts as certain rights and privileges are conferred on them.

1. Foreign Soverigns
2. Ambassadors
3. Alien enemies
4. Foreign Army
5. Warships
6. President and Governors.

President and Governors of the Country are exempted from Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts under Article 361 of the Indian Constitution.

I have a feeling this will get very complicated in the courts. I would wager an illegal alien would be under the jurisdiction of their host nation, not our's, based on what I'm reading here.

 

[T.Lex]

Total aside: it is difficult to read Dred Scott today. Not only because of the formality of language, but the content.

And the Missouri Compromise thing.

 

[Trigger Time]

Total aside: it is difficult to read Dred Scott today. Not only because of the formality of language, but the content.

And the Missouri Compromise thing.

Dred scotts!
I loved doc brown in back to the future!

 

[Alpo]

And you want to make French babies. I think the potential mothers are gonna wanna see a school transcript.

 

[MCgrease08]

Yeah - and in case you haven't found it (it took me awhile), the portion highlighted by Indi is on page 2890, of the 39th Congress, first session. Here's the index:
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39

In getting lost reading the history, there were important other considerations about being a 'citizen.' For instance, on bill suggested that if a US citizen goes into Canada to cut down some wood, but brings it back to the US, then it should be duty-free. I can only imagine that if a Canadian citizen tried that, they would be treated differently.


ETA:
Uh... not sure why I didn't just post a link to the page with Indi's portion.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

I think that's it. It basically starts that round of discussion. I suspect the house debate is available somewhere, I just don't have the time to look right now. Because I wasted time reading THAT stuff.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time. I posted the link to that page way back in post #2135.

 

[HoughMade]

You just admitted it isn't the same.

https://www.lawnotes.in/Jurisdiction#Definition

This is quite interesting.

I have a feeling this will get very complicated in the courts. I would wager an illegal alien would be under the jurisdiction of their host nation, not our's, based on what I'm reading here.

Not one or the other, many times, both.

The courts cannot enforce the laws as to a person unless there is jurisdiction over that person. Are you saying that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the U.S. which are violations of U.S. law because the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over them?

I assure you that is not the case unless there is a form of diplomatic immunity.

https://www.cato.org/blog/murder-mollie-tibbetts-illegal-immigrant-crime-facts

 

[rob63]

Total aside: it is difficult to read Dred Scott today. Not only because of the formality of language, but the content.

And the Missouri Compromise thing.

Backtracking a bit... what did you think about all of the debate regarding "Indians not taxed"? I thought it interesting that there seemed to be at least some thought that taxation played a significant role in determining whether or not there was jurisdiction.

It raises another question... considering that illegal immigrants often pay taxes, and the IRS accepts those taxes, does that play a role? Or is it trumped by the fact that they aren't supposed to get a SSN?

None of this really changes my mind about the issue overall (it doesn't confirm my previous opinion either), but it is interesting to think about what could play a role in a court decision.

The end of the debate about the Indians seemed to be settled on the idea that since "Indians not taxed" don't count for apportionment, then they couldn't be "subject to jurisdiction" and the amendment wouldn't apply to them. That could be another argument regarding modern illegal immigrants, if they count for apportionment, then the amendment applies to them.

There is also another side question in all of this that I hadn't ever really given any thought to. Reading these debates makes it clear that there were at least some members at the time that felt like the amendment would grant citizenship to anybody that was born here, while others felt like it would be more restrictive than that. How do courts decide which view takes precedence in deciding what they meant when they passed it? It's not clear to me at all.

 

[mmpsteve]

There is also another side question in all of this that I hadn't ever really given any thought to. Reading these debates makes it clear that there were at least some members at the time that felt like the amendment would grant citizenship to anybody that was born here, while others felt like it would be more restrictive than that. How do courts decide which view takes precedence in deciding what they meant when they passed it? It's not clear to me at all.

At the time it was written, it was guaranteeing the newly freed slaves and their offspring born on US soil were citizens, to my understanding. The fact that a pregnant woman can swim or waddle to the US and bear her baby to US citiizenship, I believe, will become a seperate legal issue to be settled by the courts. I think many in the US, in 2016, didn't vote for the president, but for the SCOTUS, and I hope they do so again. RBG can only live, or function so long, and I wish her no ill will, but elections matter, to quote a famous POTUS. (I hope he lives long enough to choke on those words)

 

[Tombs]

Not one or the other, many times, both.

The courts cannot enforce the laws as to a person unless there is jurisdiction over that person. Are you saying that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the U.S. which are violations of U.S. law because the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over them?

I assure you that is not the case unless there is a form of diplomatic immunity.

https://www.cato.org/blog/murder-mollie-tibbetts-illegal-immigrant-crime-facts

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

I don't believe your average citizen can be deported for committing a crime, while an illegal alien can. I don't know what it is that is on the tip of my tongue to articulate this point but I'm sure T Lex could possibly explain what I'm getting at.

 

[HoughMade]

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

I don't believe your average citizen can be deported for committing a crime, while an illegal alien can. I don't know what it is that is on the tip of my tongue to articulate this point but I'm sure T Lex could possibly explain what I'm getting at.

The very power to detain and deport someone shows that there is jurisdiction over them.

 

[EMDX6043]

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

I don't believe your average citizen can be deported for committing a crime, while an illegal alien can. I don't know what it is that is on the tip of my tongue to articulate this point but I'm sure T Lex could possibly explain what I'm getting at.

I think it's an excellent idea for any criminal, citizen or otherwise! Plane tickets are cheaper than room and board...

 

[MCgrease08]

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574381/

The Citizenship Clause Means What It Says

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear that the United States is one nation, with one class of citizens, and that citizenship extends to everyone born here.

The idea behind the attack on birthright citizenship is often obscured by a wall of dubious originalist rhetoric and legalese. At its base, the claim is that children born in the U.S. are not citizens if they are born to noncitizen parents. The idea contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, it flies in the face of more than a century of practice, and it would create a shadow population of American-born people who have no state, no legal protection, and no real rights that the government is bound to respect.

It would set the stage for an internal witch hunt worse than almost anything since the anti-immigrant rage of the 1920s.