The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Denny347]

Yeah, it shows that - even pretty early on - the Indians were viewed as "nations" or "quasi-nations." We joke about the gambling profits and things like that, but at least the effort to treat them as separate was there.

How about the Chinese? Dang, but that's REALLY awkward through today's lens. There's one part where they talk about how the Chinese don't bring over their women, so there aren't many Chinese kids born here. Because of that, they aren't worried about giving the kids citizenship, because there won' be very many of them.



Sorry, mate. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, either.

Plus, the historical definition of "jurisdiction" has some different layers to it. As in the debates above about Indians. At one point, a senator makes a rhetorical point that if one Indian kills another Indian, no one is really going to do anything about that. It would be up to their tribe to enforce whatever laws they wanted against those people. The tribe would have jurisdiction over the individuals and the crime. That is, they would enforce THEIR laws.

That's a fundamentally different approach than what we have now. But, it also, obliquely, gets to Houghs point. If one illegal Guatemalan kills another illegal Guatemalan in the US, we're still going to enforce US murder laws against the perpetrator. Guatemala doesn't have jurisdiction; the US courts do.

There's also a bit of an anachronistic historical issue: state citizenship. During the slavery era, different states - with some constitutional authority - had the right to determine what made someone a "citizen" of their state. But, only the federal government could determine what made a citizen of the US. That was a VERY important distinction that is now irrelevant.

It will be really interesting to see how a conservative court, a SCOTUS basically designed by Trump at this point, would handle this issue.

Heck, another layer of this is that it was the Republican party (basically) that pushed for the 14A.

I thought the parts about the Chinese were the most awkward parts of all, even worse than the slavery issues. However, that may just be because I'm more used to reading that type of language since I have a long interest in the Civil War.



Something I was thinking about overnight in regard to all of this, particularly in regards to interpreting the original intent of the amendment. There literally were no US immigration laws at the time it was written. There may have been state laws, but the first US immigration law was not passed until 1875. Thus, the very concept of an illegal immigrant didn't exist in US law at the time. How do you determine what the original intent of the amendment was in regards to an illegal immigrant when there literally was no such thing at the time when it was written?

That leads me to think that a conservative court is far more likely to use the simple text of the amendment since original intent seems like such a worm-hole.

The funny thing is when I started reading the link you posted I was hoping for guidance, regarding what was meant by the passage about the amendment not applying to foreigners or aliens. However, I not only haven't resolved that in my mind but, now I'm left wondering at this point how exactly they even defined a foreigner at the time? I'm guessing it had more to do with where your allegiance lies rather than your birthplace.

Are there previous USSC decisions that shed some light on these questions? Not that those previous ruling MUST be adhered to but has this question NEVER come to them since the 14th's ratification?

 

[T.Lex]

Something I was thinking about overnight in regard to all of this, particularly in regards to interpreting the original intent of the amendment. There literally were no US immigration laws at the time it was written. There may have been state laws, but the first US immigration law was not passed until 1875. Thus, the very concept of an illegal immigrant didn't exist in US law at the time. How do you determine what the original intent of the amendment was in regards to an illegal immigrant when there literally was no such thing at the time when it was written?

That leads me to think that a conservative court is far more likely to use the simple text of the amendment since original intent seems like such a worm-hole.

The funny thing is when I started reading the link you posted I was hoping for guidance, regarding what was meant by the passage about the amendment not applying to foreigners or aliens. However, I not only haven't resolved that in my mind but, now I'm left wondering at this point how exactly they even defined a foreigner at the time? I'm guessing it had more to do with where your allegiance lies rather than your birthplace.

One thing that is clear from reading those is that politics doesn't change, at a fundamental level. The discussion of "gypsies" as citizens. One senator remarked about how long he had been in politics, and gypsies had never been a problem until the 14A discussion started, and now all of a sudden that's all he hears about! Same thing today with Trump. Bad news in the news? Talk about immigration.

Anyway, this goes back to how we CAN'T really think of legislative intent in this country. (Not literally; we can think about it all we want, but should rarely be guided by it.) Elected legislators, especially at the federal level, know that what matters is what is written. They can say whatever they want in the debate for consumption by those who elected them - say the "right" things - then vote on words. They can truly have different intents.

In terms of immigration laws, I think you're kinda incorrect. Read the California senator's comments. Cali had laws about immigrants, in the absence of federal laws. State's rights was a BIG thing. They could, in effect, conduct foreign policy by how they treated foreigners. With the... uh... evolution... of the federal government, gathering and asserting more authority, that entire paradigm is different now.

Finally, there is another policy issue that is only really observable from our perspective, looking back. America needed people. We needed to settle the farmland. We had a HUGE amount of territory to defend and turn into revenue. There was a sound policy reason to make babies born here citizens: we needed those citizens to grow up and move and work.

Now, that policy issue doesn't exist now, but that doesn't change the "intent." We need human resources. This was an easy way to create some.

Based on the change of circumstance in the US, it is absolutely fair to advocate to change the law on the matter. (Full disclosure: I think it would be wrong-headed to make the change.) But that is the proper mechanism. Not some fanciful EO to cement a populist in his role.

 

[T.Lex]

Are there previous USSC decisions that shed some light on these questions? Not that those previous ruling MUST be adhered to but has this question NEVER come to them since the 14th's ratification?

Yes. But, as with most court cases, the facts and reasoning can be scrutinized and differentiated with the passage of time.

At the risk of throwing too much at you, this Wiki page is actually pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth...the_United_States#U.S._Supreme_Court_case_law

There are other cases, and there's an interesting issue about executive agencies' ability to re-define the mechanism for proving citizenship. I mean, if you control the process, you control everything.

ETA:
Shades of Trump promises past:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l-discussion/407721-trump-29.html#post6468001

 

[Denny347]

I'd like to hear a coherent argument on how talking about an eagerness to harbor illegal aliens is in any way respectful of our laws.

See, this is the rhetoric that we see from Faux News. The closest definition to YOUR term is "Harboring a fugitive" refers to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Federal and state laws, which vary by state, govern the crime of harboring a fugitive.

I never said I would refuse to assist ICE or ANY Agent investigating Federal crimes. There is a HUGE difference between hindering an investigation and being kind/respectful to the family of your child's best friend. I'm sorry if you cannot make the distinction.

 

[Denny347]

Yes. But, as with most court cases, the facts and reasoning can be scrutinized and differentiated with the passage of time.

At the risk of throwing too much at you, this Wiki page is actually pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth...the_United_States#U.S._Supreme_Court_case_law

There are other cases, and there's an interesting issue about executive agencies' ability to re-define the mechanism for proving citizenship. I mean, if you control the process, you control everything.

ETA:
Shades of Trump promises past:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l-discussion/407721-trump-29.html#post6468001

Great, thanks.

 

[rob63]

Based on the change of circumstance in the US, it is absolutely fair to advocate to change the law on the matter. (Full disclosure: I think it would be wrong-headed to make the change.) But that is the proper mechanism. Not some fanciful EO to cement a populist in his role.

One week before mid-term elections, no less. His moves often end up working out in ways I never would have predicted, but this one seems to me like an especially bad idea at precisely the wrong time. I guess we'll see if he goes through with it and how it turns out, I could be wrong again.

 

[T.Lex]

One week before mid-term elections, no less. His moves often end up working out in ways I never would have predicted, but this one seems to me like an especially bad idea at precisely the wrong time. I guess we'll see if he goes through with it and how it turns out, I could be wrong again.

One thing I will absolutely give Trump credit for is having an intuitive sense of ratings and how to manipulate people to achieve them. I think he's doing this specifically to create a wedge issue to help Trump-following candidates. In other words, he's sewing on midterm coattails.

Immigration, and his brand of "reform," gets eyeballs to news shows and people to the polls. And, I think someone else mentioned this, he hasn't really been in the news much for the last couple weeks between bombings and shootings. This was a way to recapture the front page.

 

[BugI02]

[Snip]

Based on the change of circumstance in the US, it is absolutely fair to advocate to change the law on the matter. (Full disclosure: I think it would be wrong-headed to make the change.) But that is the proper mechanism. Not some fanciful EO to cement a populist in his role.

Hmmm. If you were, say, the President and you knew it would take action by Congress to change birthright citizenship and you also knew Congress only deals with contentious issue when they have no choice; how might you get them or the courts (or both) to settle the law on this issue? Not enable you to determine the outcome but simply force the hand of the needed players to do something

I think the threatened EO would serve nicely. Even if it fails, it allows you to (truthfully) claim you went to the wall on illegal immigration (I assume you would concede anchor babies are a powerful inducement to illegal entry). Even if Congress or SCOTUS uphold the status quo, Trump still wins. Where I think you miss the boat is always concluding that he’s cynical and that’s his only motivation

 

[AmmoManAaron]

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmm. If you were, say, the President and you knew it would take action by Congress to change birthright citizenship and you also knew Congress only deals with contentious issue when they have no choice; how might you get them or the courts (or both) to settle the law on this issue? Not enable you to determine the outcome but simply force the hand of the needed players to do something

I guess I wouldn't be good at 4D chess. I'd have a well-thought out, defensible, as-fair-as-I-could-get-it package of legislative reforms with areas of compromise. I'd find friendly legislators and work with them to get through the process and end up with a deal that, while maybe not what I'd originally hoped, at least moved the issue forward.

I think the threatened EO would serve nicely.

Yeah, I guess threatening an unconstitutional action that appeals only to my partisan supporters and threatens to alienate (pardon the pun) the voters in the middle, literally on the cusp of midterms, is a totally rational way to do it, too.

Even if it fails, it allows you to (truthfully) claim you went to the wall on illegal immigration (I assume you would concede anchor babies are a powerful inducement to illegal entry). Even if Congress or SCOTUS uphold the status quo, Trump still wins. Where I think you miss the boat is always concluding that he’s cynical and that’s his only motivation

I don't think he's cynical. I think he's narcissistic.

My own cynicism of his motivations is based on observation of his behavior.

I think you are solidly on board his ship to derision, 3 sheets of unquestioning partisanship to the wind of his whims.

 

[T.Lex]

{pic snipped}

The sentence above the highlight shows that he believes the language captures the then-existing body of law. The body of law that adopted birthright citizenship.

 

[KG1]

I'm pretty sure he was, it's from an other thread. Here is the quote he is talking about.

I knew there was a discussion like that but my recollection of it was a bit different. It looks like Denny was referring to actually having someone over for dinner. I stand corrected and my apologies to Denny for the misrepresentation.

 

[printcraft]

The sentence above the highlight shows that he believes the language captures the then-existing body of law. The body of law that adopted birthright citizenship.

You can’t exclude the second part of his statement.

 

[T.Lex]

You can’t exclude the second part of his statement.

I'm not.

He spoke at great length about the amendment and the language. That highlighted sentence informs his own personal intent, and consistent with what we now consider 'birthright citizenship.'

In other words, that sentence does not mean what you think it means.

ETA:
Also, can't ignore the "include every other class of persons."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The 14th Amendment does not say "all persons born in the US are citizens". It says all born here (or naturalized) "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. What does that mean? What did it mean then? What did it mean to the writers and ratifiers of the amendment? What does it mean now?

Whatever it means/meant, it's pretty clear to me, at the time, all involved thought that term excluded foreign diplomats and "foreigners and aliens", which would likely exclude illegal aliens (and tourists, those present on temporary visas, etc). In my research, I've only seen the courts weigh in on LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS, not tourists, not illegally present, not temporary visas, etc.

The more I look at this, the more my opinion changes. Initially, I thought it was written in such a way that, unforeseen and unintended, applied to illegal aliens. Now, I'm pretty certain that it was written to EXPLICITLY exclude them, although in arcane/archaic terminology.

 

[T.Lex]

The 14th Amendment does not say "all persons born in the US are citizens". It says all born here (or naturalized) "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. What does that mean? What did it mean then? What did it mean to the writers and ratifiers of the amendment? What does it mean now?

Whatever it means/meant, it's pretty clear to me, at the time, all involved thought that term excluded foreign diplomats and "foreigners and aliens", which would likely exclude illegal aliens (and tourists, those present on temporary visas, etc). In my research, I've only seen the courts weigh in on LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS, not tourists, not illegally present, not temporary visas, etc.

The more I look at this, the more my opinion changes. Initially, I thought it was written in such a way that, unforeseen and unintended, applied to illegal aliens. Now, I'm pretty certain that it was written to EXPLICITLY exclude them, although in arcane/archaic terminology.

Your mistake (IMHO) is the "excluded foreign diplomats and "foreigners and aliens" as 2 different groups. At least, if your reliance is on Howard's debate presentation. The actual language of the amendment - the one that passed Congress and was ratified by the states - does not include that language. Language similar to that HAD been part of prior legislation, but was rejected for amendment into the 14A.

Simply put, that limiting language does not exist in the 14A.

Moreover, we need only look further in the 14A to get an idea what was intended by "jurisdiction." The last clause specifies "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[T.Lex]

Heya SD4L - have you read the Inglis case from 1830? It actually does a pretty good job of reflecting the attitudes about what "allegiance" meant. Basically, it was a legal thing. The New York convention that basically established the state of New York at the time of the revolution stated as a LEGAL matter that all people within its boundary owed allegiance to it (and the United States). Not Britain anymore. Didn't matter the person's actual allegiance (although treason was more swiftly determined back then). As a legal matter, all those within the boundary were considered to have allegiance to the US (again, there was a no-longer-applicable pass-through allegiance to the state).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/

(Make sure to pick "case" instead of "syllabus.")

From a concurrence, but this language is also reflected in the main opinion:

The fourth, as born an American citizen before the treaty of peace, but having elected to adhere to his allegiance to Great Britain.

The timing in that statement would be if the guy had been born after the Declaration of Independence, which is when US courts/government bodies circled as the date that we became a sovereign, but before the Treaty of Paris, which is when British courts/government bodies circled as the date that sovereignty shifted.

Back when this was decided, someone who was not a citizen could not inherit land here. So, there was much riding on the citizenship determination.

Also at issue was whether a child born here could reach an age and make their own determination about their citizenship.

ETA:
Another interesting quote.

Two things usually concur to create citizenship -- first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign as such, de facto. ... There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons and which indeed illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. ... So the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince. ... If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

The September 15, 1776, date is when the Brits re-took that area of NY. The functionally ceded the land - and people - to British sovereignty. But, if he was born there after the Declaration of Independence, regardless of what his parents were, he was an American citizen.

That is from a concurring opinion, though. I bring it up only to illustrate that the parameters of birthright citizenship were pretty well established. Except for the slave thing.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'd like to hear a coherent argument on how talking about an eagerness to harbor illegal aliens is in any way respectful of our laws.

Well, INGO told me that if the law contradicts God's law, government workers are suppose to disregard it.

Few things in life are so black and white... for the record, I've never advocated NOT securing the border OR deporting those illegals I arrest. But if you live a more productive life than most of the Citizens I come into contact with, I'm not going to cause you grief. i also refuse to be led by the nose by the media (Fox News or CNN) whose slant either way is pushing an agenda.

And I'll do their taxes.

 

[BugI02]

I guess I wouldn't be good at 4D chess. I'd have a well-thought out, defensible, as-fair-as-I-could-get-it package of legislative reforms with areas of compromise. I'd find friendly legislators and work with them to get through the process and end up with a deal that, while maybe not what I'd originally hoped, at least moved the issue forward.
[So, basically, that same tired Real Republican strategy that has worked so well in the past and dresses up capitulation in more respectable clothes; the better to sell it as ‘the best deal we could get’]

Yeah, I guess threatening an unconstitutional action that appeals only to my partisan supporters and threatens to alienate (pardon the pun) the voters in the middle, literally on the cusp of midterms, is a totally rational way to do it, too

[Odd, I thought SCOTUS ruled on what is constitutional; at least according to original intent. When did you get your robe?]

I don't think he's cynical. I think he's narcissistic.

My own cynicism of his motivations is based on observation of his behavior.

I think you are solidly on board his ship to derision, 3 sheets of unquestioning partisanship to the wind of his whims.

I submit your cynicism has more to do with hubris and you are onboard the ship of [strike]fools[/strike] progressives

 

[T.Lex]

I submit your cynicism has more to do with hubris and you are onboard the ship of [strike]fools[/strike] progressives

Well, if nothing else, you certainly dance well in lockstep.