trump

[BugI02]

From your source "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."

"He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciledand resident in the U.S. at the time of birth.


Hardly the particulars that would apply to the 'anchor baby' scenario

 

[T.Lex]

From your source "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."

"He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciledand resident in the U.S. at the time of birth.


I hardly the particulars apply to the 'anchor baby' scenario

As you continue your research, you will find an unbroken line of cases and legal reasoning since at least 1898 that supports the exact "anchor baby" scenario that Trump hopes to "reinterpret" away.

Welcome to your living document.

 

[BugI02]

Fourteenth Ammendment & Legal Immigration | National Review Online

"Roger, with due respect, It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations,are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.) Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require? "

 

[BugI02]

The birthright citizenship portion of the amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which involved a man, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China but legally living in the United States. (There was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time.) Some argue that while that settles the issue of whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to parents in the country legally, it doesn’t necessarily settle the issue regarding children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally.
The only other Supreme Court involvement on the issue is a footnote in a 1982 decision in the case Plyler v. Doe, which dealt with the issue of whether states must provide education to children not “legally admitted” into the United States.

"... you will find an unbroken line of cases and legal reasoning" Well, I suppose two points do determine a line

"But Trump is saying the law could be changed by Congress with a simple bill clarifying the 14th Amendment. And there is a small group of legal/constitutional experts who agree with him.
Among them are John Eastman, a former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law; Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state and a former professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri–Kansas City; and Peter Schuck, a professor of law at Yale University.
All three seize on the language in the 14th Amendment that requires not just that someone be born within the United States, but also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In a New York Times op-ed, Eastman, a founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, argued that ” ‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States meant not ‘owing allegiance to anybody else.’ ”
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether children born to people in the country illegally are covered by the 14th Amendment.


On the one hand I do not find the case law settled to my satisfaction. But it merely needs to be settled, and SCOTUS holds sway. I confess that I am uncomfortable with the idea of ammending ammendments, as if we'll eventually get the language 'right' given enough tries. I do believe the 14th was enacted with a specific purpose in mind vis a vis Dred Scott and the current conundrum is unintended consequences but I do see a conflict between the oath Trump would take as president (...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.)"and his penchant for wanting to bend law and the constitution to align them with his desires.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Donald Trump: Don't change abortion laws - Election 2016 - CBS News

Trump on ...

Wed: Law should punish women for abortion.
Thurs: Law should punish abortionists.
Fri: Law should stay how it is.

 

[T.Lex]

"... you will find an unbroken line of cases and legal reasoning" Well, I suppose two points do determine a line
...
On the one hand I do not find the case law settled to my satisfaction. But it merely needs to be settled, and SCOTUS holds sway. I confess that I am uncomfortable with the idea of ammending ammendments, as if we'll eventually get the language 'right' given enough tries. I do believe the 14th was enacted with a specific purpose in mind vis a vis Dred Scott and the current conundrum is unintended consequences but I do see a conflict between the oath Trump would take as president (...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.)"and his penchant for wanting to bend law and the constitution to align them with his desires.

I encourage you to read the actual cases, they aren't too difficult. Wong Kim Ark, in particular, traces the common law foundation of citizenship. For the sake of Heller, I hope the analysis is not easily overturned.

Plyler is interesting because it is billed as a 5-4 case. However, on the issue of birthright citizenship, it was 9-0. The majority confirmed Wong Kim Ark in a footnote (fn. 10), and the dissent confirmed the principle that children born here are not subject to deportation, although their parents could be (fn. 6 of the dissent). The unbroken line began with the ratification of the 14th amendment through Plyler and to today.

Trump wants to change it - not by amendment, or even legislation - but by interpretation. That's what he said.

Your last paragraph gives me pause, too. With a slight tweak, maybe the "collective right" progressives will "eventually get the language" of the 2A "'right' with enough tries."

The conflict you see between Trump honoring the presidential oath and his interest in bending the law and constitution - does it impact your support at all?

 

[kiddchaos]

election insurance spoof.

see you guys in canada.

 

[T.Lex]

election insurance spoof.

see you guys in canada.

Point of order. You have to specify who has to win for you to move.

Oh wait.

This cycle, that might not be necessary.

 

[BugI02]

"The conflict you see between Trump honoring the presidential oath and his interest in bending the law and constitution - does it impact your support at all?"

Yes it does

"A President Cruz will hold Congress accountable by enacting a strong Balanced Budget Amendment and requiring that a majority of members approve any major, cost-inducing regulation. And he will reduce costs by instituting a hiring freeze and federal pay reforms."

But this ^, direct from the Ted Cruz website, doesn't make it any easier to like the alternative. I assume he means get congress to enact a Balanced Budget Ammendment not that he will enact one (because POTUS can't enact squat) but one of the long running antiTrump themes is words matter. The requiring a majority thing is really how it already is but furthers the (eronious) idea that he will tell congress how it's going to be. And I assume ammending the Constitution is bad no matter who does it or why if its for political purposes. I happen to believe tinkering with the Constitution to save us because we're 'too weak willed' to balance the budget without it is bad policy and likely unachievable.

My distaste for Kasich is deeply visceral. I've long said I would support the nominee but that would be much easier for me with Cruz than Kasich

Cruz was for the TPP before he felt which way the political winds were blowing and I don't feel any candidate embodies my concerns on fair trade.
Cruz was for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill before he was agin it

The result for me is cognitive dissonance and trying to parse my choices toward least dangerous rather than least distasteful. Thanks

Just out of curiousity, turn the question around. Is there anything that would make you reconsider your antipathy for Trump. Do you think the GOPe winning the battle to have a candidate they like (the party decides) will end with Trump, who after all can be positioned as an existential threat to the party? Or will it mean they will leverage their power in all future campaigns to have their way, which just tightens the lid on the pressure cooker but doesn't turn down the heat

 

[MisterChester]

[video=youtube_share;cph0WOdVCNg]http://youtu.be/cph0WOdVCNg[/video]

NSFW language.

 

[GREEN607]

"The conflict you see between Trump honoring the presidential oath and his interest in bending the law and constitution - does it impact your support at all?"

Yes it does

"A President Cruz will hold Congress accountable by enacting a strong Balanced Budget Amendment and requiring that a majority of members approve any major, cost-inducing regulation. And he will reduce costs by instituting a hiring freeze and federal pay reforms."

But this ^, direct from the Ted Cruz website, doesn't make it any easier to like the alternative. I assume he means get congress to enact a Balanced Budget Ammendment not that he will enact one (because POTUS can't enact squat) but one of the long running antiTrump themes is words matter. The requiring a majority thing is really how it already is but furthers the (eronious) idea that he will tell congress how it's going to be. And I assume ammending the Constitution is bad no matter who does it or why if its for political purposes. I happen to believe tinkering with the Constitution to save us because we're 'too weak willed' to balance the budget without it is bad policy and likely unachievable.

My distaste for Kasich is deeply visceral. I've long said I would support the nominee but that would be much easier for me with Cruz than Kasich

Cruz was for the TPP before he felt which way the political winds were blowing and I don't feel any candidate embodies my concerns on fair trade.
Cruz was for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill before he was agin it

The result for me is cognitive dissonance and trying to parse my choices toward least dangerous rather than least distasteful. Thanks

Just out of curiousity, turn the question around. Is there anything that would make you reconsider your antipathy for Trump. Do you think the GOPe winning the battle to have a candidate they like (the party decides) will end with Trump, who after all can be positioned as an existential threat to the party? Or will it mean they will leverage their power in all future campaigns to have their way, which just tightens the lid on the pressure cooker but doesn't turn down the heat

And this post is worth a re-print....

 

[T.Lex]

Every day, I wait for Trump to say one of two things.

1. I am proud to have influenced the diversity of the Republican party and I will contribute as much of my time, talent and treasure as I can to support the next Republican President.

2. I not only want to be elected president, I want too be presidential. I am transferring all my material wealth to a blind trust to be administered by my adult children. I am naming my vice president and cabinet now, so people can judge their experience and have comfort that we can govern effectively. I will lead America honorably.

That's what I want.

 

[BugI02]

Every day I wait for Cruz to say two things.

1. Although Donald and I disagree on many things I find his argument that fair trade is at least as important as free trade to be compelling and will address
these issues as president

2. I have come to agree with Donald that intervening in the internecine squabbles of the middle east, except in defense of Israel, and attempting to engage
in nationbuilding therein is a fools errand and as president I pledge to limit our expenditure of blood and treasure to the maximum extent possible

That's what I want

 

[BugI02]

"Yond Kasichius has a lean and hungry look"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Anyone see that Rubio requested, and received, his delegates from Alaska, which had been re-distributed to Trump and Cruz? The GOP is trying HARD to get that contested convention.

Rubio Granted Request For Return of Five Alaska Delegates

 

[churchmouse]

Anyone see that Rubio requested, and received, his delegates from Alaska, which had been re-distributed to Trump and Cruz? The GOP is trying HARD to get that contested convention.

Rubio Granted Request For Return of Five Alaska Delegates

They are loosing their grip on the reins and it scares them.

 

[BugI02]

They are loosing their grip on the reins and it scares them.

+1 I don't see the fault lines that developed this year being papered over anytime soon, especially if we have to endure 4 yrs of the evil one. The 'Reagan democrats' will lose interest when Trump finally dies the death of a thousand cuts but I think the disaffected Republicans will be up for grabs. 2017 may be a banner year for third parties or the next Donald Trump may really be Hitler. Can we organize INGO gunowner cruises on leaky, unreliable boats?

 

[jbombelli]

+1 I don't see the fault lines that developed this year being papered over anytime soon, especially if we have to endure 4 yrs of the evil one. The 'Reagan democrats' will lose interest when Trump finally dies the death of a thousand cuts but I think the disaffected Republicans will be up for grabs. 2017 may be a banner year for third parties or the next Donald Trump may really be Hitler. Can we organize INGO gunowner cruises on leaky, unreliable boats?

Hey now, I dont want to be lost in a tragic boating accident.

 

[miguel]

Every day I wait for Cruz to say two things.

1. Although Donald and I disagree on many things I find his argument that fair trade is at least as important as free trade to be compelling and will address
these issues as president

2. I have come to agree with Donald that intervening in the internecine squabbles of the middle east, except in defense of Israel, and attempting to engage
in nationbuilding therein is a fools errand and as president I pledge to limit our expenditure of blood and treasure to the maximum extent possible

That's what I want

I want, "Donald is wrong about the wall. We need towers with snipers every 100 meters who will fire one warning shot, then put the next one on target if the person(s) in question do not retreat."

If the throws in mine fields as a bonus, he gets a lawn sign.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow, Saturday Night Live got ahold of an INGO member in the cold open... "CNN vs Trump Supporter"

SNL Torches Pro-Trump Woman CNN Guest in Cold Open | Mediaite