Birthright citizenship

[Pete F.]

So if birthright citizenship is invalid does that mean Don the Cons kids with Ivana (non citizen when she gave birth) have to go back to some Eastern European country?
Whoops

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So if birthright citizenship is invalid does that mean Don the Cons kids with Ivana (non citizen when she gave birth) have to go back to some Eastern European country?
Whoops

I don't know the details, but I would think that Don the Cons kids would be citizens because Don the Con is a citizen, and his wife would also be given citizenship by marrying Don the Con. Are his kids claiming birthright citizenship?

[detbuch]

Here's a solid explanation of what the 14th Amendment really means re birthright citizenship:



Of course, current leftists would disagree, although they agreed with Molyneux's version until they really began to need a larger pool of voters.

[scottw]

Dear Pete, Manny Machado took a better swing at the last pitch of the World Series...he missed too

[wdmso]

Anything for Votes I'll give him that ...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Here's a solid explanation of what the 14th Amendment really means re birthright citizenship:



Of course, current leftists would disagree, although they agreed with Molyneux's version until they really began to need a larger pool of voters.

So do you have an issues with a sitting President who thinks he has the Power to suspend parts of the constitution with an executive order ?


based on your response I would say no ..

please enlighten us on what This has to with new Voters ?? or are you pushing more right wing conspiracies ..

[scottw]

Wayne, watch the video again and try to pay attention this time

[JohnR]

I think it is a stunt. Paul Ryan said that Trump, like Obama, cannot change the Constitution with Executive Orders and the text in the 14th Amendment was pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So if birthright citizenship is invalid does that mean Don the Cons kids with Ivana (non citizen when she gave birth) have to go back to some Eastern European country?
Whoops

No, and you know it

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know the details, but I would think that Don the Cons kids would be citizens because Don the Con is a citizen, and his wife would also be given citizenship by marrying Don the Con. Are his kids claiming birthright citizenship?

^^^

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

[Pete F.]

From a few years ago

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. “It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil,” Eastman argued.

Kobach, who also acts as “of counsel” for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which calls for more restrictive immigration laws, argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that only children “born to parents who have allegiance to no foreign power” are subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the U.S. That language, therefore, does not cover children of parents in the country illegally, he argues.

In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Schuck argues that the founders envisioned citizenship as a “consensual” endeavor, and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “consensual idea.”

Schuck, Nov. 21, 2014: So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? The Supreme Court long ago decided this phrase confers birthright citizenship only on those who are “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance” at birth. In that case, the court denied citizenship to an Indian born on a reservation but living elsewhere, because he was subject to tribal jurisdiction even though Congress held power over his tribe. (Indians became citizens only in 1924, by statute.) Later, the court granted birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born child of Chinese parents because her parents were here legally.

But most constitutional scholars disagree.
Here's one
Garrett Epps, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a constitutional law expert, says those who argue against the need for a constitutional amendment are wrong.
“In my opinion, the arguments used to question the natural interpretation of the birthright citizenship rule are at best strained and at worst thoroughly dishonest,” Epps said. “That being said, of course, if Trump became president and appoints Judge Judy and God knows who else, the Supreme Court is perfectly capable of deciding that pi equals three, and nothing I say could stop it.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/tr...t-citizenship/

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

Pete could probably cut and paste something but I doubt that it would be short and sweet

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I think it is a stunt. Paul Ryan said that Trump, like Obama, cannot change the Constitution with Executive Orders and the text in the 14th Amendment was pretty clear

Paul Ryan is wrong about a lot of things. In this instance, it's not about changing the Constitution if Trump is right. And the text in the Constitution is very clear (especially when you read what the originators of the 14th Amendment SPECIFICALLY WROTE WHAT THEY MEANT by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Watch the video which has a detailed presentation of what those who wrote the Amendment said what those words meant. And consider this, every word in the Constitution, and in the Amendments to it, is important and necessary. Unnecessary words and phrases and repetition of those words, are not inserted, especially because they can lead to erroneous interpretation. If the creators of the Amendment meant to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, they could have simply stated that. It would not have been necessary to add caveats such as "subject to the jurisdiction" and then repeat it. Those words absolutely qualify what the Amendment means and the writers, as shown in the video, specifically commented on exactly what they meant.

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

There's a lot of detail necessary to sufficiently explain the issue. Brief synopses, such as PeteF presents (lengthy as they are) don't give enough information for a novice on the issue to be able to convincingly understand it. Stefan, as annoying as he often is, usually does go into the details needed to present a clear picture to us layfolks.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So do you have an issues with a sitting President who thinks he has the Power to suspend parts of the constitution with an executive order ?

If the 14th Amendment is properly interpreted, as in what its writers specifically say they meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," then it would not be suspending any part of the Constitution, but actually it would be upholding that part.


based on your response I would say no ..

As usual, when you give your opinion about what I think, you're wrong.

please enlighten us on what This has to with new Voters ?? or are you pushing more right wing conspiracies ..

Please enlighten us on where I've mentioned new voters in this thread. And what conspiracy am I pushing here? Your good at simply throwing out labels, but not so good at thinking critically or even understanding what others say.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

Wayne, watch the video again and try to pay attention this time

I may be wrong, but I doubt that he watched it. And if he did, I doubt that he could actually grasp what was being said.

[Jim in CT]

The author of the 14th amendment was Senator Jacob Howard. It was intended to apply to newly-freed slaves. When Senator Howard introduced the amendment on the floor of the US Senate, he is credited with saying this...

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 person"

I have no clue whether or not Trump has the authority to dictate by executive order, who the amendment applies to. As to whether or not the amendment was intended to apply to children of foreigners? If Senator Howard indeed made this statement, isn't it clear that it was not intended to apply to the children of foreigners?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So do you have an issues with a sitting President who thinks he has the Power to suspend parts of the constitution with an executive order ?


based on your response I would say no ..

please enlighten us on what This has to with new Voters ?? or are you pushing more right wing conspiracies ..

Please read what the man who wrote the 14th amendment, said about who it applies to, and who it doesn't apply to...

"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 person"

Now WDMSO, you tell us how you'd interpret this, as intending for the amendment to apply to children of illegals.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The author of the 14th amendment was Senator Jacob Howard. It was intended to apply to newly-freed slaves. When Senator Howard introduced the amendment on the floor of the US Senate, he is credited with saying this...

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 person"

I have no clue whether or not Trump has the authority to dictate by executive order, who the amendment applies to. As to whether or not the amendment was intended to apply to children of foreigners? If Senator Howard indeed made this statement, isn't it clear that it was not intended to apply to the children of foreigners?

Your bold stopped short of the rest of the statement. Had he said "this will now of course include persons born in the United Stated who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong..."

It would better support the argument put forth. As transcribed I'd say it actually reinforces the status quo.

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

Wait a second. Are you saying that you conclude that the liberal position is the correct position? Shocker...

What do you suppose, exactly, the reason was for including the statement that this doesn't apply to persons born who are foreigners? Who was he referring to?

You are hinging your opinion on the lack of the word "or". The "or" doesn't need to be there...he articulated the classes not covered by the amendment, then said everyone else is covered by it.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are hinging your opinion on the lack of the word "or". The "or" doesn't need to be there...he articulated the classes not covered by the amendment, then said everyone else is covered by it.

The "or" does nothing to change the meaning of the quote, but the fact he changed the word "Not" to "Now" definitely alters the meaning.

he's a tricky one, that Spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The "or" does nothing to change the meaning of the quote, but the fact he changed the word "Not" to "Now" definitely alters the meaning.

he's a tricky one, that Spence

Context. It's all about context.

[Pete F.]

I find it quite comical that Trump would propose to rule by executive order after decrying and demonizing Obama for doing the same, but it's not the first time.
And from the article I posted earlier in which Bill O'Reilly (noted liberal) was arguing with Trump that Congress could not write a bill, never mind Trump penning an executive order, the considered opinion is this.
Unless or until one of those bills were to pass — and the law were challenged in the Supreme Court — we can’t know for certain whether Trump is right. But it is a speculative idea, and certainly not one that has been settled legally.


Keep in mind that he already has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, all he needs now is Judge Jeanine.

[Pete F.]

You could read the research done by The Congressional Research Office that goes thru the history of this issue in congress.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...hip-Report.pdf

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I find it quite comical that Trump would propose to rule by executive order after decrying and demonizing Obama for doing the same, but it's not the first time.
And from the article I posted earlier in which Bill O'Reilly (noted liberal) was arguing with Trump that Congress could not write a bill, never mind Trump penning an executive order, the considered opinion is this.
Unless or until one of those bills were to pass — and the law were challenged in the Supreme Court — we can’t know for certain whether Trump is right. But it is a speculative idea, and certainly not one that has been settled legally.


Keep in mind that he already has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, all he needs now is Judge Jeanine.

gorsuch and kavanaugh are exactly like judge jenine, no more intellectually serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

its comical to see the lovers of the constitution who will shout from the rooftops what part of shall not be infringed. dont you understand

need to take their own advice

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


for over 150 years this is the standard supported by text history and judicial precedent.. has confirm this claus reaches most US born children of Aliens including illegal aliens

But the Guy in the you tube video knows best

[wdmso]

https://youtu.be/YtrFvqXamzw


The Truth About the Pittsburgh Massacre


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3...EGUiBC252GHy3w

more from detbuch Favorite :arbiter of truth described as "one of the alt-right's biggest YouTube stars"

[wdmso]

some other views from people much smarter than me which isn't hard

"I think it's kind of a lunatic fringe argument," said Margaret Stock, an attorney at the Cascadia Cross-Border Law Group in Anchorage, Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Trump's proposal seems to rely on the work of a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars who argue the 14th Amendment has long been misread.


"This is about getting the base worked up before the midterms," Hamlin said. "He may not ever even issue the executive order that he floated in the Axios interview."

"You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan said Tuesday

Trump may have a lawyer who is telling him the 14th Amendment means something else, but that lawyer is like a unicorn," said Rebecca Hamlin, a professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

But but you tube guy

[Slipknot]

wdmso, I skimmed this thread and you are almost getting me to watch the youtube video if I have time. If you ask my opinion , but you probably don't care, I think Trump is distracting with this birthright subject and yes, probably one lawyer said he could use executive power or whatever. I would rather he concentrate his effort on something else like loopholes in tax laws for millionaires and billionaires rather than birthright loophole. THAT is what is ridiculous

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The "or" does nothing to change the meaning of the quote, but the fact he changed the word "Not" to "Now" definitely alters the meaning.

he's a tricky one, that Spence

Typo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

wdmso, I skimmed this thread and you are almost getting me to watch the youtube video if I have time. If you ask my opinion , but you probably don't care, I think Trump is distracting with this birthright subject and yes, probably one lawyer said he could use executive power or whatever. I would rather he concentrate his effort on something else like loopholes in tax laws for millionaires and billionaires rather than birthright loophole. THAT is what is ridiculous

Generally agree but this isn’t a distraction, it’s another log on the anti immigrant fire.

I do wonder, are kids of illegal immigrants born here
being given citizenship even a problem? The anchor baby argument doesn’t even hold water when you look at what it takes under the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

wdmso, I skimmed this thread and you are almost getting me to watch the youtube video if I have time. If you ask my opinion , but you probably don't care, I think Trump is distracting with this birthright subject and yes, probably one lawyer said he could use executive power or whatever. I would rather he concentrate his effort on something else like loopholes in tax laws for millionaires and billionaires rather than birthright loophole. THAT is what is ridiculous

I too would rather he would dispense with all the outrageousness and focus on those kind of things .. but now he has his new 10% tax cut floating around as well , but I feel it will never end. like his never ending self promoting rallies

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside . . . for over 150 years this is the standard supported by text history and judicial precedent.. has confirm this claus reaches most US born children of Aliens including illegal aliens

But the Guy in the you tube video knows best

The meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is in dispute and has not been determined by SCOTUS regarding illegal aliens. And the current notion of automatic birthright citizenship for aliens has not actually been the standard in the past 150 years. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)—a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship—a majority of the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".[51]

The guy in the video is detailing the opinions of "experts" who oppose the notion of automatic birthright citizenship given to children born here to illegal aliens.

If you could point out why specific items he presents in the video are wrong, that would be appreciated. But if you can only present opposing views and claim their validity lies in being more numerous, that is not proof that they are right. Truth is not up to a vote--except by vote of the Supreme arbiter which has not yet decided upon it.