The President Trump Immigration Thread

[HoughMade]

...And I'll do their taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

 

[JettaKnight]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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. the 14th does have limiting language:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Are you saying the highlighted words above mean nothing?

 

[T.Lex]

T. the 14th does have limiting language:



Are you saying the highlighted words above mean nothing?

If you go back, you grafted on the "excluded foreign diplomats and foreigners and aliens" language. It is not there, although it (or functionally similar language) was offered and rejected by Congress. (Which had earlier employed such language in other legislation.)

Those words reflect 1 senator's stated intent (sorta - I think you're reading it wrong, too, but that's less important) and perhaps some others' intent. But, that's not what ended up being adopted as an actual constitutional amendment.

There's LOTS of historical jurisprudence on "jurisdiction" and what it meant. Even later in the 14A the word is used.

I'm the one that IS saying those words matter. They just don't mean what some people around here (and in the Trump administration) want them to mean.

Take another look at Heller for an idea about how SCOTUS looks at these "original meaning" issues.

 

[Kutnupe14]

T. the 14th does have limiting language:



Are you saying the highlighted words above mean nothing?

Define what that means? It would appear to me, that the language you're citing really isn't all that relevant. Any person within our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (for the most part, diplomatic immunity aside). I don't think that language helps either side.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, then, did it only exclude Native Americans? It cannot be read as non-existant, otherwise, then why was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 needed to make Native Americans US citizens?

 

[T.Lex]

So, then, did it only exclude Native Americans? It cannot be read as non-existant, otherwise, then why was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 needed to make Native Americans US citizens?

You didn't read the debates did you?

The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because Indians were part of their tribe, which were generally recognized (when convenient) as quasi-nations within the territorial US. The Indian Citizenship Act was meant to normalize what had become a conglomeration of state and federal laws, and court cases.

The "subject to the jurisdiction" language applied to anyone that it applied to. There were still forays by Mexicans into the southwest. (The Spanish-American War was still 30 years away or so.) People - not Americans - would cross the border, maybe have kids, but do so to impose Mexican/Spanish sovereignty. They were trying to settle the land for a foreign sovereign. Those kids would not have been considered Americans if they elected to go back to Mexico/Spanish lands and hold themselves out to be non-Americans.

Under the Inglis case, though, once they reached an age to make a decision on the matter, they could possibly elect for their American citizenship.

I do not know of a case involving this, because it would've been a clear decision. Only cases that got appealed were reported. (Still that way, basically.)

The point is, those words did and do matter, but society has changed. Borders are now agreed upon and subject to treaties. We are not invaded by foreign sovereigns who exercise THEIR jurisdiction over our territory.

 

[T.Lex]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

That's a fairly easy read that gives a fair (IMHO) assessment of the birthright citizenship issue. It includes references to more cases, including one where a visiting Irish couple had a kid in the US. Court decided the kid was a "natural born citizen" of the US. This was back in the 1840s.

 

[HoughMade]

Define what that means? It would appear to me, that the language you're citing really isn't all that relevant. Any person within our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (for the most part, diplomatic immunity aside). I don't think that language helps either side.

Whatever the sides are, I have not heard a logical, cogent argument that would allow an illegal alien to be arrested, tried and convicted of a crime, and yet have them not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Don't know how we could have it both ways.

 

[BugI02]

Whatever the sides are, I have not heard a logical, cogent argument that would allow an illegal alien to be arrested, tried and convicted of a crime, and yet have them not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Don't know how we could have it both ways.

Quantum superposition? Schrödinger's birthright?

 

[mmpsteve]

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.

I know you didn't necessarily endorse this quote, but you must have found it pertinent to the argument. The 1st section in red talks about alien parents who are residents under the protection of the government. I don't believe 5 minutes over the river makes you a 'resident under the protection of the government', or a resident of any kind. The quote you yourself posted seems quite contrary to the 'anyone born on US soil' argument. I understand that the words in the 14A are, what they are. Just saying.


.

 

[jamil]

Really not concerned how it looks to you, considering that by your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about.

That's not an accurate description about what I said.

 

[jamil]

Once pandora's box is open, it can't be closed.

Might as well reap what benefits you can while you can, because you're not going to have that power for ever. The torch must be passed, and the next person is going to use that pen and phone and whether you use it or not will not make a difference.

Look at the senate nuclear option, for example. That genie is never going back in the bottle without an amendment.

Then it's just a temporary law, and then the tribes (***damn straight I called them tribes) fight over who gets to use the pen and phone. And it just devolves from there. I advocate cutting that **** off with all the volume I can muster with what small voice I have in society.

 

[jamil]

That's not an accurate description about what I said.

ETA: And now that I've seen the context, ya. Definitely NOT a binary. It's just you stating it in a way that makes it sound binary. Denny was spot on about that bubble thing.

 

[jamil]

Define what that means? It would appear to me, that the language you're citing really isn't all that relevant. Any person within our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (for the most part, diplomatic immunity aside). I don't think that language helps either side.

It's not that clear. Saying that any person within our borders is subject to US jurisdiction is then a truism. Why say it if you're not trying to distinguish some difference between people within our borders who are and aren't subject to the jurisdiction? I can't say for sure what that means in terms of who is and who isn't. But the language is there for a reason.

 

[jamil]

BTW, if you don't want to see me serial posting, maybe get Texkev to up the priority on fixing the multi-post feature so that multi-quoted posts don't stay checked after you submit.

 

[BugI02]

BTW, if you don't want to see me serial posting, maybe get Texkev to up the priority on fixing the multi-post feature so that multi-quoted posts don't stay checked after you submit.

Dude, you're a programmer and you can't focus enough to uncheck the multi-quoted posts after you use them!?

Glad I don't have to debug any of your code

 

[HoughMade]

It's not that clear. Saying that any person within our borders is subject to US jurisdiction is then a truism. Why say it if you're not trying to distinguish some difference between people within our borders who are and aren't subject to the jurisdiction? I can't say for sure what that means in terms of who is and who isn't. But the language is there for a reason.

It is not a truism if there are people within the United States who are not subject to its jurisdiction.

Even then, that is not the test. The test is: "who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Dude, you're a programmer and you can't focus enough to uncheck the multi-quoted posts after you use them!?

Glad I don't have to debug any of your code

jamil is a programmer? I did not know that! But I would be critical of the code that doesn't clear the "quote post" field after one hits Enter (or Post Quick Reply).

 

[jamil]

Dude, you're a programmer and you can't focus enough to uncheck the multi-quoted posts after you use them!?

Glad I don't have to debug any of your code

I code magnificently readable. This is of necessity because my memory capacity is horrible. I have to code so that I'll understand it next time. But anyway, it's a PITA to go back over potentially several pages to uncheck every post I've multi-quoted. My INGO time is limited enough these days. Easier/quicker just to single reply to everything.