Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4761
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Back during the Bush Administration, the joke was that if George Bush said the world was flat the headline on Fox would be:
Shape of the World: Opinions differ
That's the way it feels when I see Mike Pence try to explain Trump's position on the 14th Amendment.
Shape of the World: Opinions differ
That's the way it feels when I see Mike Pence try to explain Trump's position on the 14th Amendment.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Water Dog wrote:EAllusion wrote:I linked a paper going into a lot more detail if you are unable to parse the quote. The clause clarifies who he means by foreigners, which is deliberately chopped off by the person you are quoting to change the meaning. If you try to read it as a grocery list of who doesn't count, it's redundant and the word "who" makes no sense. And it's not like this is the only comment on the matter by the people involved in its passage.
I'm unpersuaded.
Not unpersuaded. Unpersuadable. Cheerleaders never are.
Water Dog wrote:A simple question, if 14A was meant to apply to illegal aliens - I repeat ILLEGAL ALIENS - show me explicit language from 14A authors stating as much. Where is explicit language describing the exact situation we're talking about?
A simple answer. "All persons" means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean "some persons." As EA has peen pointing out to Sub, the Supreme Court has already unanimously held that illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. So, a child born to parents not here legally is (a) born in the U.S. and (b) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and, therefore, a U.S. citizen. That's what the language says.
Water Dog wrote:I do not see how a person who is in the country illegally. By law they are specifically barred from entry. But do so anyway. How is that person somehow different than an ambassador or diplomat? The idea that a person can self-immigrate, regardless of the law, that they can just walk over the line and their jurisdiction magically changes, this is idiotic. The 14A states no such thing.
Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. The child did not "enter" illegally. He or she has never been in any other country. By international law, ambassadors and diplomats are not considered subject to the laws of the country they are stationed in. That's what diplomatic immunity is all abut. Immigrants who are here, even illegally, are subject to U.S. law. Otherwise, the U.S. could not arrest and deport them.
You are misapplying the concept of jurisdiction. People don't "have" jurisdiction. Governments have jurisdiction. and "jurisdiction" is the legal ability to enforce its laws. The U.S., can enforce its laws against illegal aliens, and so they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Water Dog wrote:By law, already right now today, we can deport an illegal mother, right? Is that not proof that we regard this person to be under the jurisdiction of another state? This person is illegal - we are deporting them. How, then, are their children subject to some other jurisdiction? How is the child of an illegal not the same as the child of an ambassador?
You have the concept of jurisdiction exactly backwards. If we regarded illegal aliens as under the jurisdiction of another state, we would have to call upon that other state to enforce its laws to remove them. But that's not what we do: we arrest them and deport them under to U.S. law. That means they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The child of an ambassador, like the ambassador, is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The child of parents here illegally is. Otherwise, the child would not have to comply with U.S. law.
Water Dog wrote:In both cases we recognize the parents to be subject to some other jurisdiction................ buuuuutt somehow in one case their children are treated differently? Makes no sense. It's even more backwards. In one case the person is LEGALLY present on our soil. And that's the one we DON'T grant citizenship to? ROFL.
You can ROFL all you want, but what's both absurd and sad is your refusal to educate yourself on basic civics. The question is not whether the child could be are subject to some other jurisdiction. The question is whether the child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. And if he is, he is a citizen by birthright.
Water Dog wrote:Oh, my. It blows my mind that we're actually debating this.
Agreed.
Water Dog wrote:Can we at least agree that this interpretation of the 14A is inconsistent with immigration law? It is contradictory to incentivize illegal behavior, offering a prize to break the law.
Even if it were, your reliance on "immigration law" is a non-starter. Immigration law cannot take away citizenship granted by the constitution. Again, basic civics.
And what exactly is the "prize?" The parents can't get citizenship. They get deported and are separated from their children. I'm not persuaded that this is a major incentive to illegally enter the country.
Water Dog wrote:And that's also why this interpretation makes no sense. One way or the other, something is way off. Say we hit the reset button and put it to a vote, where does the will of the people land? Do the American people want open borders, which is to say no borders? Or do they want borders and immigration laws to be enforced?
Of course, that's a totally false dichotomy. We currently have had birthright citizenship for over 200 years and we don't currently have open borders. The existing immigration laws also grant birthright citizenship. So this issue has nothing to do with enforcing existing law. And we have a constitution specifically to protect the rights of the minority from infringement by the majority. Basic civics again.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Levin is a credible guy.


The FOX News regular and crackpot who has argued things like, evolutionary biology isn't a real science and Darwinianism leads to tyranny. The same guy who argued George Bush was vindicated on WMDs in Iraq and that Jamal Khashoggi had terrorist friends, and that Trump is the victim of an insane media conspiracy for not criticizing Saud Arabia over his assassination.
Yes, he's credible but only to morons like you.
Only morons like you can sit through a thorough ass kicking like the one that RI and EA have been dishing out to you, while declaring this thread is just "typical lefty retardation."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13326
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
canpakes wrote:subgenius wrote: For 8 years Obama loaded the gun on using EOs to interpret the Constitution and now Trump has his finger on the trigger....
Then Trump needs to go for it already. Go ahead and knock out that executive order, and let the courts fight over it. It’ll keep the xenophobic members of his Base occupied so that they don’t realize that their jobs are still miserable, their pay isn’t getting any better and their healthcare covers less and less each year while becoming more expensive along the way.
And in the end, Trump’s gambit will expire, and his Base will still lose because they got conned yet again.
didn't get conned on tax reform
or travel bans
or judge appointments
or Russia
or Govt de-regulation
or insurance mandates
or unemployment
or trade deals
or Israel
or Coal
or School choice programs
and
so
on..
I think you are insisting that people "realize" a reality that does not exist....so maybe the burden of "not-realizing" is actually on you.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4597
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Been doing a bit of spelunking on the Clause for fun. The following are from The Congressional Globe (1866), page 2891-2897.
The first is within a statement by Mr. Conness (I am guessing Democratic Senator John Conness of CA). It is following a rather long statement (pgs 2890-2891) by Mr. Cowan (probably Republican Senator Edgar Cowan of PA). Cowan was concerned how the verbiage -- that we have today -- would allow states to be overrun with foreigners. He was against allowing the children of “Mongoloids,” the “lowest form of the Hottentot,” “Gypsies,” and “man-eaters or cannibals” from Borneo, to be granted citizenship. He also professed great concern that the Chinese would take over California, which triggered Coness’ reply.

There is then some back and forth between several senators regarding Native Americans living within their given tribal territories, and whether some verbiage needed to be added to make sure they were excluded. After that was done, and there was some additional back-and-forth of what exactly is entailed by the word “citizen,” Mr. Johnson stated the following. I’m not sure who Mr. Johnson is. It isn’t the President (as he is the one being addressed).

There is then even more dickering over Native Americans, and what language (if any) should be added regarding them (up through page 2897). The gist of all of it is that the amendment made it so that everyone born in the US was a citizen – on page 2897, Mr. Williams (not sure who he is) went so far as to suggest that as written, the child of an ambassador would potentially be a citizen if born in the US . The reason there was so much discussion about the children of Native Americans was because by being born within an Indian territory, and the treaties with the US with such territories, that they weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction…” At least that is what the surface discussion was. Most of those opposed to the language as it stood were concerned about (as stated by Jacob Howard, R-MI) “a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages… [were to become his] fellow citizens.”
Senator James Doolittle (WI-R[ish]; he switched parties in 1857) follows Howard with an acknowledgment that as the text stood – which we now have – even those who are children of a “subject” (i.e. non-citizen) when “born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.”
Also, here’s Andrew Jackson’s take (within his veto statement):
Cliff Notes: The original intent is pretty unambiguous. Any attempt to alter that original intent will likely require a change to the amendment. To me (and I may be wrong), it doesn’t seem that even a statute could put the kibosh on how it is currently implemented.
The first is within a statement by Mr. Conness (I am guessing Democratic Senator John Conness of CA). It is following a rather long statement (pgs 2890-2891) by Mr. Cowan (probably Republican Senator Edgar Cowan of PA). Cowan was concerned how the verbiage -- that we have today -- would allow states to be overrun with foreigners. He was against allowing the children of “Mongoloids,” the “lowest form of the Hottentot,” “Gypsies,” and “man-eaters or cannibals” from Borneo, to be granted citizenship. He also professed great concern that the Chinese would take over California, which triggered Coness’ reply.
Mr. Conness wrote:… children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States…

There is then some back and forth between several senators regarding Native Americans living within their given tribal territories, and whether some verbiage needed to be added to make sure they were excluded. After that was done, and there was some additional back-and-forth of what exactly is entailed by the word “citizen,” Mr. Johnson stated the following. I’m not sure who Mr. Johnson is. It isn’t the President (as he is the one being addressed).
Mr. Johnson wrote:…all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to a foreign power --- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

There is then even more dickering over Native Americans, and what language (if any) should be added regarding them (up through page 2897). The gist of all of it is that the amendment made it so that everyone born in the US was a citizen – on page 2897, Mr. Williams (not sure who he is) went so far as to suggest that as written, the child of an ambassador would potentially be a citizen if born in the US . The reason there was so much discussion about the children of Native Americans was because by being born within an Indian territory, and the treaties with the US with such territories, that they weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction…” At least that is what the surface discussion was. Most of those opposed to the language as it stood were concerned about (as stated by Jacob Howard, R-MI) “a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages… [were to become his] fellow citizens.”
Senator James Doolittle (WI-R[ish]; he switched parties in 1857) follows Howard with an acknowledgment that as the text stood – which we now have – even those who are children of a “subject” (i.e. non-citizen) when “born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.”
Also, here’s Andrew Jackson’s take (within his veto statement):
President Jackson wrote:By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood.
Cliff Notes: The original intent is pretty unambiguous. Any attempt to alter that original intent will likely require a change to the amendment. To me (and I may be wrong), it doesn’t seem that even a statute could put the kibosh on how it is currently implemented.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Doctor Steuss wrote:The original intent is pretty unambiguous. Any attempt to alter that original intent will likely require a change to the amendment.
And you illustrated that fact very clearly, yet again.
The words of the Constitution are so simple and clear that it is astonishing that anyone can entertain the fantasy that an Executive Order by Trump on this subject could do anything to alter their effect.
I think there are many senior Republicans who agree with Ryan that this is the case, even if all they are currently doing is biting their tongues and hoping the current embarrassment will go away.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4502
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Trump aside, at the very least I think we should at least admit that the "Birthright Citizenship" clause has developed an unforeseen consequence in the "Birth Tourism" industry. For example, it's been making the headlines here in Los Angeles for years:
Why birth tourism from China persists even as U.S. officials crack down (2016)
It should also be pointed out that Canada is the only other first-world country that has birthright citizenship. Europe gave up on it long ago.
So maybe as we direct our country into a more European direction as far as social programs go, our immigration policies will also need to be shifted.
Why birth tourism from China persists even as U.S. officials crack down (2016)
It should also be pointed out that Canada is the only other first-world country that has birthright citizenship. Europe gave up on it long ago.
To discourage birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have modified their citizenship laws at different times, granting citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years. Germany has never granted unconditional birthright citizenship, but has traditionally used jus sanguinis, so, by giving up the requirement of at least one citizen parent, Germany has softened rather than tightened its citizenship laws; however, unlike their children born and grown up in Germany, non-EU- and non-Swiss-citizen parents born and grown up abroad usually cannot have dual citizenship themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
So maybe as we direct our country into a more European direction as far as social programs go, our immigration policies will also need to be shifted.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
And Russians tourists who stay in Trump owned properties for the same purpose?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13326
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
EAllusion wrote:
If the executive order actually happened, it probably would create some chaos that wouldn't affect you or I, but would cause real harm in people's lives. The bigger issue is that this stuff tries to shift the overton window to greater hostility towards immigrants. That's not even remotely without consequence.
And what is it about government that leads you to believe there is no consequence?
And stop your incessant conflation of illegal immigrant and legal immigrant because it seems that only Liberals and Democrats are incapable of discerning the glaring difference between the two.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
Re: Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship
Doctor Steuss wrote:Been doing a bit of spelunking on the Clause for fun. The following are from The Congressional Globe (1866), page 2891-2897.
The first is within a statement by Mr. Conness (I am guessing Democratic Senator John Conness of CA). It is following a rather long statement (pgs 2890-2891) by Mr. Cowan (probably Republican Senator Edgar Cowan of PA). Cowan was concerned how the verbiage -- that we have today -- would allow states to be overrun with foreigners. He was against allowing the children of “Mongoloids,” the “lowest form of the Hottentot,” “Gypsies,” and “man-eaters or cannibals” from Borneo, to be granted citizenship. He also professed great concern that the Chinese would take over California, which triggered Coness’ reply.Mr. Conness wrote:… children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States…
There is then some back and forth between several senators regarding Native Americans living within their given tribal territories, and whether some verbiage needed to be added to make sure they were excluded. After that was done, and there was some additional back-and-forth of what exactly is entailed by the word “citizen,” Mr. Johnson stated the following. I’m not sure who Mr. Johnson is. It isn’t the President (as he is the one being addressed).Mr. Johnson wrote:…all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to a foreign power --- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States.
There is then even more dickering over Native Americans, and what language (if any) should be added regarding them (up through page 2897). The gist of all of it is that the amendment made it so that everyone born in the US was a citizen – on page 2897, Mr. Williams (not sure who he is) went so far as to suggest that as written, the child of an ambassador would potentially be a citizen if born in the US . The reason there was so much discussion about the children of Native Americans was because by being born within an Indian territory, and the treaties with the US with such territories, that they weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction…” At least that is what the surface discussion was. Most of those opposed to the language as it stood were concerned about (as stated by Jacob Howard, R-MI) “a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages… [were to become his] fellow citizens.”
Senator James Doolittle (WI-R[ish]; he switched parties in 1857) follows Howard with an acknowledgment that as the text stood – which we now have – even those who are children of a “subject” (i.e. non-citizen) when “born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.”
Also, here’s Andrew Jackson’s take (within his veto statement):President Jackson wrote:By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood.
Cliff Notes: The original intent is pretty unambiguous. Any attempt to alter that original intent will likely require a change to the amendment. To me (and I may be wrong), it doesn’t seem that even a statute could put the kibosh on how it is currently implemented.
Yes, but again, those are not ILLEGAL ALIENS. Those are legal immigrants. Nothing about this dialogue suggests that children of people who expressly broke immigration laws as set forth by Congress, as well as the states, and violated respective borders, should be treated as citizens.
by the way, I like your little monster figure, that's truly a nice touch :D