The President Trump Immigration Thread

[jamil]

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"?

It was this that I replied to: "Any person within our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (for the most part, diplomatic immunity aside)"

The clause, "who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is a truism if "any person within our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".

I'm generally in favor of "birthright" citizenship, but I'd like to get the gray areas out of the law. It clearly doesn't include everyone. So who does it not include? Can a pregnant couple sneak across the border to give birth in the US just so the child can become a citizen, so that they, as the parents, can live here legally?

I think it's fair to say the parents have to be here legally for it to qualify as "birthright". And I think that's possibly the right line. If they're here illegally, they're certainly not as subject to US law as citizens are. They can get pulled over for speeding, or prosecuted for murder, but if they were completely subject to US laws, they'd be deported.

If they're here on valid work visas, and they have a child here, fair game. Stamp the birth certificate as a citizen of the US. If the parents aren't here legally, stamp the birth certificate non-citizen.

 

[T.Lex]

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.


.

Ok. Just sayin' that the interpretation by courts in the US disagree with your parsing of "resident" - going back to before the 14A.

People disagree with Heller. That's ok. It is what should be accepted now and for courts going forward.

People disagreed with Prohibition. That's ok. They ratified an amendment revoking it.

Frankly, Trump would be on more solid footing if he'd said that he was going to run for a 3rd term. At least there's a defensible position that separation of powers doesn't allow Congress to dictate how long POTUS should serve.

 

[jamil]

Ok. Just sayin' that the interpretation by courts in the US disagree with your parsing of "resident" - going back to before the 14A.

People disagree with Heller. That's ok. It is what should be accepted now and for courts going forward.

People disagreed with Prohibition. That's ok. They ratified an amendment revoking it.

Frankly, Trump would be on more solid footing if he'd said that he was going to run for a 3rd term. At least there's a defensible position that separation of powers doesn't allow Congress to dictate how long POTUS should serve.

I think checks and balances makes a good case for why Congress SHOULD dictate how many terms a POTUS can serve.

 

[KittySlayer]

...

 

[T.Lex]

I think checks and balances makes a good case for why Congress SHOULD dictate how many terms a POTUS can serve.

That's a reasonable position.

But, the Founding Fathers - trusting the people more than the government (in most things) - held a different position.

Importantly, can you imagine the uproard if Obama had said he was going to change the 22A by EO?

 

[jamil]

That's a reasonable position.

But, the Founding Fathers - trusting the people more than the government (in most things) - held a different position.

Importantly, can you imagine the uproard if Obama had said he was going to change the 22A by EO?

I'm in an "uproard" at your keyboarding skills.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm in an "uproard" at your keyboarding skills.

bwahahaha Ok ok ok ok. Because I'm a bit OCD about stuff like that, I feel like it rarely happens. So when it does, I'm totally cool with you calling me out for it.

/* All those who review your code after you appreciate your commenting. */

 

[jamil]

bwahahaha Ok ok ok ok. Because I'm a bit OCD about stuff like that, I feel like it rarely happens. So when it does, I'm totally cool with you calling me out for it.

/* All those who review your code after you appreciate your commenting. */

Oh. I'm not calling you out. I'm for fun at your expense.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh. I'm not calling you out. I'm for fun at your expense.

Let's get some covfefe and hashtag it out like millenials.

 

[jamil]

[...]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.

Update: it's cookies. If you clear the vbulletin_multiquote cookie after you post your multi-quote, they'll be unchecked. Would be nice if INGO's vb would do that when you post multi-quotes.

 

[Thor]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11...ing-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional/

"Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction—which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws—and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.

So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10...ental-misunderstanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

That's like what a lot of politicians do. Dont get caught taking a real position on anything

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11...ing-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional/

"Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction—which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws—and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.

So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10...ental-misunderstanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

Interesting. So, if an illegal alien swears allegiance to the US - which shouldn't be a problem - then that resolves the issue of jurisdiction.

And this part:

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations.

Is factually incorrect. There is at least one pre-14A case that holds a child born in the US to tourists is an American citizen - or at least has that option.

 

[KG1]

We can all take up a position on this and hash them out and that’s great.

The birthright issue has been bandied about off and on for quite sometime.

Trump is trying to fulfill a campaign promise by bringing it to the forefront and he’s definitely done it in a big way.

Bottom line is whatever happens if and when he decides to push through an EO it will run it’s course through the Judiciary and if it’s determined to be unconstitutional the EO will not stick.

Trump was elected in part on his campaign promises to take on the illegal immigration issue and like it or not he’s attempting to fulfill that promise

 

[T.Lex]

I will unequivocally concede that Trump promised to act unconstitutionally and is following through on that.

More seriously, yes, he is pushing as far as he possibly can to make something happen. Arguably too far, and arguably at the wrong time, but he is certainly pushing his agenda.

 

[KG1]

I will unequivocally concede that Trump promised to act unconstitutionally and is following through on that.

More seriously, yes, he is pushing as far as he possibly can to make something happen. Arguably too far, and arguably at the wrong time, but he is certainly pushing his agenda.

Sometimes the vehicle Trump choose to transport his agenda is a bit questionable I will give you that.

I think Trump was standing on firmer constitutional ground with his attempt at imposing a travel ban via EO then he does with this issue. That discussion had more merit IMO.

 

[Thor]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?utm_term=.760e41f149e6&noredirect=on

"The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically."

 

[T.Lex]

Sometimes the vehicle Trump choose to transport his agenda is a bit questionable I will give you that.

I think Trump was standing on firmer constitutional ground with his attempt at imposing a travel ban via EO then he does with this issue. That discussion had more merit IMO.

I'll actually agree with that.

IMHO he went about the travel ban incorrectly, but as the executive, he holds more authority on that topic than this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?utm_term=.760e41f149e6&noredirect=on

"The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically."

Well, there's 2 assertions there that are misleading:
1) Other than media reporting, I'm not aware of any legal or history scholar that has claimed it is "simply being born within the geographical limits" is the test. There are exceptions and situations where it does not apply. However, being here temporarily - legally or illegally - is not one of them.

2) The "absurdity" part is gross hyperbole. As I've noted in this thread, and actual scholars have written, the notion that being born in the geographic limits of the US, to non-US citizens, is a key part to obtaining US citizenship goes back to before the 14A. Literally, it can be traced back to the revolution.

 

[Alpo]

Is this about done yet? Nerds be boring.

Any girls with guns? Where is that Mexican chiquita...or is she being banned because we don't like Hondurans any more?

 

[K_W]

This is a long one... but very informative...

[video=youtube_share;UZyqQn2Uoo8]https://youtu.be/UZyqQn2Uoo8[/video]