The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Thor]

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...pVDVcLysxK0tCOXN0dVBST3V0ejNMQmtBV1RYaDcifQ==

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...pVDVcLysxK0tCOXN0dVBST3V0ejNMQmtBV1RYaDcifQ==

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

I'm not sure that says (at least not clearly) what you think it says.

 

[Fargo]

IMO There is virtually no chance that the Supreme Court reads the clause any other way than it has been commonly understood for quite some time. I am curious how many on here can prove that their first generation ancestors came here completely legally. Might want to make sure there were no inaccuracies on their paperwork when they came through Ellis Island. Might want to be careful about how many millions of people’s citizenship you are calling on voiding.

 

[T.Lex]

IMO There is virtually no chance that the Supreme Court reads the clause any other way than it has been commonly understood for quite some time. I am curious how many on here can prove that their first generation ancestors came here completely legally. Might want to make sure there were no inaccuracies on their paperwork when they came through Ellis Island. Might want to be careful about how many millions of people’s citizenship you are calling on voiding.

Well that brings up a whole different logistical nightmare. It would have to be prospective-only. IF for some reason this were legislated/adopted/ratified, it would be impossible to work through all the ramifications.

If a great-grandfather was the birthright citizen offspring of illegal immigrant parents, then all his progeny would be thus non-citizens, too? Any votes they'd taken, any juries they'd served on, if they'd been elected to anything then those official actions could be suspect....

 

[d.kaufman]

What would be so hard as to write into whatever law were to be passed...."from this date forward" problem solved. That was easy, no need to worry about the past. Focus eliminating the problem from that date forward.

 

[indyblue]

IMO There is virtually no chance that the Supreme Court reads the clause any other way than it has been commonly understood for quite some time. I am curious how many on here can prove that their first generation ancestors came here completely legally. Might want to make sure there were no inaccuracies on their paperwork when they came through Ellis Island. Might want to be careful about how many millions of people’s citizenship you are calling on voiding.

I cannot see any way the SC could read it any way OTHER than what the author(s) of the amendment said it meant.

I see the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" much like "well regulated militia" where the anit-2As mistakenly think it means the militias are Regulated (as in controlled or supervised) as opposed to meaning "well trained" in the era's vernacular.

I am in agreement with the author here; illegal aliens are subjects of their respective counties, not the USA, thus not eligible for birthright citizenship.

Is it really Trump's intention to retroactively invalidate currently classified citizenship? That's not how I took it. I thought he meant ending the practice of birthright citizenship going forward.

 

[Fargo]

Is it really Trump's intention to retroactively invalidate currently classified citizenship? That's not how I took it. I thought he meant ending the practice of birthright citizenship going forward.

He can’t do one but not the other, this is an executive order not a piece of legislation. If they ain’t citizens, they ain’t citizens and he has no power to change the law to make them so.

 

[T.Lex]

I cannot see any way the SC could read it any way OTHER than what the author(s) of the amendment said it meant.

First, SCOTUS will use the words that were passed and ratified. The recorded debates are interesting and informative, but not dispositive.

Second, the current understanding of birthright citizenship IS what the authors of the amendment intended, at least some of the significant ones. As stated upthread, they thought they were codifying the then-existent policy. That policy included birthright citizenship for otherwise transient people within the US territorial jurisdiction.

 

[printcraft]

What would be so hard as to write into whatever law were to be passed...."from this date forward" problem solved. That was easy, no need to worry about the past. Focus eliminating the problem from that date forward.

No no, we must continue into the abyss because reasons.

 

[Fargo]

No no, we must continue into the abyss because reasons.

Lol, It is good to see that it took less than 250 years for those pesky colonist to reembrace the monarchy. We aren’t talking about passing a law/amendment here, we are talking about an executive order.

 

[printcraft]

Lol, It is good to see that it will it took less than 250 years for those pesky colonist to reembrace the monarchy. We aren’t talking about passing a law here, we are talking about an executive order.

Getting a handle on current illegal immigration is going to lead us to a monarchy?

 

[jamil]

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:

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.

Well. It's important to note that it was a court ruling. An activist court doesn't necessarily make just rulings. But it is a correct ruling in that they get to say so.

 

[T.Lex]

Well. It's important to note that it was a court ruling. An activist court doesn't necessarily make just rulings. But it is a correct ruling in that they get to say so.

Yeah, but I'm not sure courts in the 1840s could be considered "activist." Well, actually back then, the activist ones were the ones giving slaves certain rights and privileges.

Truly, it would be momentous for a modern SCOTUS to re-visit the Dred Scott decision. That's been a bit of legal trivia for a long time: what case overturned the Dred Scott decision? (There wasn't one.)

 

[Fargo]

Truly, it would be momentous for a modern SCOTUS to re-visit the Dred Scott decision. That's been a bit of legal trivia for a long time: what case overturned the Dred Scott decision? (There wasn't one.)

Wasn’t it abrogated by the 14th and 15th amendments?

 

[T.Lex]

Wasn’t it abrogated by the 14th and 15th amendments?

Yeah, that's the right answer to the question, but there's no case that overturned it.

BUT, if SCOTUS is called upon to interpret the 14A, I'm not sure how they can do that in a comprehensive fashion without discussing Dred Scott.

 

[Fargo]

Getting a handle on current illegal immigration is going to lead us to a monarchy?

Well, this doesn’t just get a handle on the current situation, it calls into question the citizenship of pretty much everyone in this country. Furthermore, it takes citizenships which of been recognized as valid for decades, and now declares them void solely on the word of the executive.

Nothing it on monarchical about that.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, that's the right answer to the question, but there's no case that overturned it.

BUT, if SCOTUS is called upon to interpret the 14A, I'm not sure how they can do that in a comprehensive fashion without discussing Dred Scott.

If it's abrogated by the 14th/15th amendments, why would a decision concerning the 14th amendment require having a discussion of dred scott to be comprehensive? Would there be any precedents set by it remaining?

 

[MarkC]

Well, this doesn’t just get a handle on the current situation, it calls into question the citizenship of pretty much everyone in this country. Furthermore, it takes citizenships which of been recognized as valid for decades, and now declares them void solely on the word of the executive.
Nothing it on monarchical about that.

As an individual with derived citizenship (born abroad to US citizen parents), I was recently told at a license branch that my Department of State Certification of Birth was not sufficient; I needed to bring them a "real" birth certificate. It was eye opening, if even for a brief moment, to be told that I couldn't prove that I was in the US legally. This was from the Indiana BMV, who has continuously licensed me to drive since 1976 (the year of our Bicentennial, by the way).

Causing disruption to a large number of settled cases is a strong policy reason not to upset what was until recently taken as settled law.

Wasn’t it abrogated by the 14th and 15th amendments?

Abrogated? Isn't that one of them there lawyer words?

 

[jamil]

As an individual with derived citizenship (born abroad to US citizen parents), I was recently told at a license branch that my Department of State Certification of Birth was not sufficient; I needed to bring them a "real" birth certificate. It was eye opening, if even for a brief moment, to be told that I couldn't prove that I was in the US legally. This was from the Indiana BMV, who has continuously licensed me to drive since 1976 (the year of our Bicentennial, by the way).

Nah. The BMV just wanted to send you home. It's what they do.

 

[MarkC]

Nah. The BMV just wanted to send you home. It's what they do.

Probably so; in any event, I ended up with the clerk, a supervisor, and the branch manager poring over my documents.

I do have a real birth certificate, but it is written in one of them foreign languages!