The President Trump Immigration Thread

[MarkC]

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.

I would think they would have it, if for no other reason than to acknowledge it and then hold that it was modified or abrogated by the 14th Amendment.

 

[actaeon277]

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.



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

Sure it's not just because of a worker not knowing anything?
Cause they told me I couldn't use my birth certificate because it said "For Official Use Only" on it.
They had to consult with multiple people to get an okay, because I wasn't walking out.
I even had to explain to them that what they were doing was OFFICIAL USE.
They couldn't get that.

 

[EMDX6043]

Sure it's not just because of a worker not knowing anything?
Cause they told me I couldn't use my birth certificate because it said "For Official Use Only" on it.
They had to consult with multiple people to get an okay, because I wasn't walking out.
I even had to explain to them that what they were doing was OFFICIAL USE.
They couldn't get that.

When we first moved to Indiana, the BMV accidentally marked down "female", but only noticed it when I got home. I went right back and they wanted to see my birth certificate (for a second time).

I held my tongue because I didn't want to lose my license...

 

[actaeon277]

When we first moved to Indiana, the BMV accidentally marked down "female", but only noticed it when I got home. I went right back and they wanted to see my birth certificate (for a second time).

I held my tongue because I didn't want to lose my license...

I had the wrong middle initial on one of my car registrations.
Every time they said they changed it, the next year it would be wrong again.
I had that car for 13 years. Wrong every year.
When I finally got rid of it, I was finally able to have my name right.

 

[Dead Duck]

When we first moved to Indiana, the BMV accidentally marked down "female", but only noticed it when I got home. I went right back and they wanted to see my birth certificate (for a second time).

I held my tongue because I didn't want to lose my license...

Dude...
That was a sign. You should have just gone with it.

We won't judge you..... right guys?

 

[BugI02]

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.

Fargo, this seems like a worst case scenario. I fail to see why a EO of sufficiently narrow scope would have any such effect

I envision something to the effect of "From this day forward, children born on US soil to parents who lack legal residency, citizenship or other status will no longer automatically be awarded US citizenship"

I realize that the end product would need to be much more dense legalese extending to many pages and providing billable hours for tens if not hundreds of lawyers, but you get the general idea. Limit the scope

 

[Fargo]

Fargo, this seems like a worst case scenario. I fail to see why a EO of sufficiently narrow scope would have any such effect

I envision something to the effect of "From this day forward, children born on US soil to parents who lack legal residency, citizenship or other status will no longer automatically be awarded US citizenship"

I realize that the end product would need to be much more dense legalese extending to many pages and providing billable hours for tens if not hundreds of lawyers, but you get the general idea. Limit the scope

There is no way to do an EO like that. The Article 1, Sec. 8 grants naturalization authority to Congree, and the 14 Amendment establishes birth citizenship regardless of what Congress does.

If illegal children didn't get citizenship at birth, they can only get it by naturalization via the naturalization laws congress created. EO's are interpretations of existing laws created by the legislature, the president has no legislative power. If Trump is correct that they didn't get citizenship via birth, then all those millions of federally recognized citizenships are void, along with those of their illegal alien children.

The idea that the president gets to create/void citizenship, as you propose, is horrifyingly monarchical. There is a reason the framers gave that power to someone else, and demanded it be uniform.

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

With the two sides (maternal & paternal) theres been a few different trips across the pond but the first ones were on the Mayflower and I have the proof. Was that an illegal or a legal entry?
I also have native American on my mothers side and i promise its more than Elizabeth warren
Others I believe came from England. I cant remember but I have as much as one could ever find about their ancestry and thankfully a lot of it was already done by smart people.
Another entered on a ship from Ireland before the civil war. He personally lost a leg for the Yankees (not the ball team)
I'm not sure what the supreme court will decide, BUT they need to decide it and if this makes it happen so be it. I'll agree with whatever they decide.

 

[MarkC]

Sure it's not just because of a worker not knowing anything?
Cause they told me I couldn't use my birth certificate because it said "For Official Use Only" on it.
They had to consult with multiple people to get an okay, because I wasn't walking out.
I even had to explain to them that what they were doing was OFFICIAL USE.
They couldn't get that.

I'm totally sure they were just trying to apply the rules, as they understood them. The document I have is actually listed, by form number, on the BMV website. Fortunately, I was able to show the manager their own materials, and they finally accepted it. I went to this branch (South Meridian Street in Indianapolis) because I've had generally good service.

If it had come down to it, I could have reached out to a contact within the BMV that could have fixed the issue. (A benefit of working in my particular area of state government.) However, I did not want to have to come back. As others in this thread have noted, it is not always easy to get an issue fixed when dealing with the usually polite people at a license branch who are trying to get their customers through and go home.

Its just frustrating when stuff doesn't work like it is supposed to. I've been an American citizen all my life, and have lived most of it in the Continental US. Periods spent abroad were because of my father's military service, and later for my own. Reasonable rules designed to improve the quality and national acceptability of our Indiana drivers licenses, with a partial goal of ensuring those who are not eligible, like illegal immigrants, can sometimes smack all the rest of us around, if only a little bit.

 

[MarkC]

There is no way to do an EO like that. The constitution grants naturalization authority to congress, and establishes birth citizenship as an absolute.

If illegal children didn't get citizenship at birth, they can only get it by naturalization via the process congress created. EO's are interpretations of existing laws created by the legislature. If Trump is correct that they didn't get citizenship via birth, then all those federally recognized citizenships are void, along with those of their illegal alien children.

The idea that the president gets to create/void citizenship, as you propose, is horrifyingly monarchical. There is a reason the framers gave that power to someone else, and demanded it be uniform.

This is one of those times when conservatives have to remember that it this kind of behavior that made many of us believe that the previous president was trying to act very much like a king. Remember the disdain for congressional action when "a pen and a phone" would do?

 

[Fargo]

This is one of those times when conservatives have to remember that it this kind of behavior that made many of us believe that the previous president was trying to act very much like a king. Remember the disdain for congressional action when "a pen and a phone" would do?

It is really fabulously ironic to me that there have been repeated (unwitting?) suggestions in this thread that Trump create some sort of amnesty program for illegal aliens which would dwarf the dreamers and every other amnesty program ever created.

If they ain't citizens, but he tries to let anyone already born here stay, he will have enabled more illegal alien's presence in our country than every other president combined.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yeah, **** amnesty of any kind.
**** that.
Round them all up and kick them out. All 20 million or more I'm sure.

 

[T.Lex]

I would think they would have it, if for no other reason than to acknowledge it and then hold that it was modified or abrogated by the 14th Amendment.

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?

So, my familiarity with this is most extensive in state courts, but I've seen it at the federal level, too. There's this idea of a conversation between the legislative and the judicial. The former passes a law, the latter interprets it in a way that the former doesn't like, so they pass something different.

That kind of back and forth needs to be described for the next round of interpretation. So basically, to understand what the 14A "says," we need to understand what it was "answering." Prompted by these discussions, I re-read Dred Scott. It goes further than it needed to, in promoting states rights (of course, I say that now, having been educated in the 20th century, living in the 21st). It was decided at a time when states could literally define the classes of citizens/non-citizens, instead of the federal government.

It is against that background that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was superimposed, then with the 14A written on top of that.

Like Heller went back and re-educated people on what the operative firearm laws were at the time of the revolution, I think they'll have to dig deeply into Dred Scott, if only to inform how the 14A came to say what it says.

As an appellate geek, it would also be kinda cool if they overturned parts of it. I think there's room for parts of it to have been untouched by the 14A. But, that may be going further than they need to.

 

[Trigger Time]

We need to get the 16th amendment overturned by scotus. Then the federal government will have to be downsized and spend within its means

 

[Dead Duck]

This vid is from last year about armed citizens patrolling the border. Found it by accident. There's a bunch similar out there.
It's about 9 minutes if you have the time. These guys hid some cameras around by trails that caught some drug smugglers and cool stuff. PBS did the initial interviews so it's very left thinking. They only used peoples interviews that fit their agenda. Surprise Surprise.

I would be down there myself if I could. I lived and worked out in the western deserts for years where summers got well over 120s and the only way to know it's really winter is to look at the calendar.

[video=youtube;WDKEYlIeiVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDKEYlIeiVk[/video]

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, **** amnesty of any kind.
**** that.
Round them all up and kick them out. All 20 million or more I'm sure.

If Trump is Correct, the number is vastly bigger than 20 million. You are talking about people who’s families have been recognized as American citizens going back multiple generations, including a whole bunch who have taken up on arms and laid down their lives for this country.

 

[jamil]

This vid is from last year about armed citizens patrolling the border. Found it by accident. There's a bunch similar out there.
It's about 9 minutes if you have the time. These guys hid some cameras around by trails that caught some drug smugglers and cool stuff. PBS did the initial interviews so it's very left thinking. They only used peoples interviews that fit their agenda. Surprise Surprise.

I would be down there myself if I could. I lived and worked out in the western deserts for years where summers got well over 120s and the only way to know it's really winter is to look at the calendar.

[video=youtube;WDKEYlIeiVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDKEYlIeiVk[/video]

That’s crazy and goes against the principles of society we’ve learned from the enlightenment. The constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over the borders. Maybe you don’t think that the fed does it’s job well enough, and that’s fair, but the constitution’s remedy for that is not to join a band of vigilante border guards with no legal authority. You can protest and you can vote and you can run for public office. THOSE are the constitutional remedies.

 

[T.Lex]

That’s crazy and goes against the principles of society we’ve learned from the enlightenment. The constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over the borders. Maybe you don’t think that the fed does it’s job well enough, and that’s fair, but the constitution’s remedy for that is not to join a band of vigilante border guards with no legal authority. You can protest and you can vote and you can run for public office. THOSE are the constitutional remedies.

Yes, this is a little bit of devil's advocate, but it isn't illegal to bully people.

I mean, assuming the people who they find don't belong there or are engaged in illegal activities, they're really just shining a flashlight on the behavior. The people doing the illicit activities don't want to get caught - by anyone. These people are like flashlights to cockroaches.

As long as these civilians don't practice "shoot first and ask questions later" then I'm not sure what they're doing wrong.

You are absolutely right that they don't have any legal authority to arrest or deport anyone (citizen's arrest laws notwithstanding). And, I'm not terribly comfortable with what they're doing. I just think they can do this such that it get right up against the line, but doesn't cross it.

 

[d.kaufman]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mi...ment-claim-violation-of-constitutional-rights

12 Hondurans file lawsuit against Trump and the DOJ

 

[T.Lex]

In other news, I saw a report that Trump intends to use executive authority to require any asylum-seekers to enter at an official port of entry.

That's a totally legitimate use of his power as POTUS. He controls the process.

In fact, if he wanted to specify that asylum applications will only be accepted between 9 and noon on every other Thursday, he can probably do that. And slow-walk them through the process.