Birthright Citizenship

[relapse98 634]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Arguing that a child born to foreign immigrants is not subject to our jurisdiction is arguing that we can't deport him because he's, you know, not subject to our jurisdiction.

Great, now we're going to have illegals claiming to be sovereign citizens.

Edited November 2, 2018 by relapse98

[relapse98 634]

7 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

And this is high irony after all the Republican talk about Obama "abusing power" and "playing king" with all his executive orders.  Donald Trump is on pace to obliterate Obama's total of executive orders if we're stupid enough to re-elect him, even without this threatened executive order, which is, you know, illegal.

Hint: It wasn't about the executive orders.

[seven 1368]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This silliness is why plain language should matter.

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms because the plain language of the text says so. It gives the necessity of a militia as the main reason for that right to be protected but in no way limits that as the only reason. If I write the sentence "because reproduction is necessary for the species and therefore society to continue, the right of the people to have sex shall not be infringed" that doesn't mean that people only have the right to have sex if they're doing so to reproduce. It means that reproduction is so important that we're going to be safe and point blank say that sex is a right and you can't infringe on it in any way whatsoever because we don't want to start a slippery slope.

Similarly, the 14th Amendment's language is clear. If you are born here and are subject to our jurisdiction then you're not a citizen. The only people who are born here and aren't subject to our jurisdiction are children of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, etc. Arguing that a child born to foreign immigrants is not subject to our jurisdiction is arguing that we can't deport him because he's, you know, not subject to our jurisdiction.

*Well regulated reproduction 

[Huckleberry 33096]

12 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Neither of those are as clear as you just said, which is the problem of textualism. Plain language is never plain. Heller and the longstanding understanding it overturned shows that. 

 

 

They really are. The fact that lawyers like arguing about law neither surprises anyone nor changes that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It's hilarious that Trump, the conservative, is taking the most NOT-CONSERVATIVE position on this and the GOP gleefully follows along.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

Wasn't there an illegal slave trade back in the day until shortly before the 14th was passed? Seems like if the slaves brought into this country illegally and their children were granted citizenship, then it is pretty clear that the whole jurisdiction thereof business should include the children of illegal immigrants.

[RDCanecutter 26473]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Wasn't there an illegal slave trade back in the day until shortly before the 14th was passed? Seems like if the slaves brought into this country illegally and their children were granted citizenship, then it is pretty clear that the whole jurisdiction thereof business should include the children of illegal immigrants.

Yep. There was the death penalty if you got caught, but it still happened. This might have been the last slave ship in the US:

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/where_the_clotildas_story_ende.html

[DixonHur 11376]

On 11/1/2018 at 9:25 AM, Huckleberry said:

Your logic is here is questionable at best. How do you figure more citizens makes these things less fiscally attainable? You realize that new citizens pay taxes just like old citizens, right? Or would you rather more people be illegal and therefore less likely to pay income tax (although we still obviously collect lots of other taxes even from those who don't pay income tax).

Hell, some of our entitlements wouldn't just continue with an ever-growing population, they actually depend on it just like a ponzi scheme.

Sorry, been traveling.  Saw this question, or a form of it several times so I'll reply to this one since it was the first, and also because you brought up being born without a country.

Birth tourism is a thing, and not just from Mexico.  I have many friends who were born in the US but raised in other countries... Mexico, Bahamas (mostly Bahamas because I used to live and work there), Russia, etc.  Their parents are not citizens, nor do they live in the US so no taxes in.  If, as I stated I'd like, we had universal free college/technical education they would be eligible without having paid into the system.  

Because the number of birth tourism seekers would likely increase in line with any advances in social programs, I think it would become too expensive.  I'm happy to change my mind with data.  Are there any other countries successfully implementing universal healthcare and/or universal higher education that offer birthright citizenship?  Honest question, I have no idea.

As for being born without a country, is this a big issue in other countries without birthright citizenship?

And to whoever brought the 2nd amendment into the discussion, I have no idea how they are related, but if you've read any of my posts on the subject, I'm totally down with amending the 2nd.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by DixonHur
Typo

[RDCanecutter 26473]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Birth tourism sounds pretty rad actually. 

People wouldn't object if it included Gettin Pregnant Tourism too.

EG Non-pregnant Russian ballerina comes here, taps some dude on the shoulder-- you're up, buddy. She gets pregnant, leaves, shows up 9 months later, has kid, takes herself and kid back to Russia. Send some Legos when he's 5, whatever.

[TexArcher 38067]

2 hours ago, relapse98 said:

Hint: It wasn't about the executive orders.

Right.  It was because he was a Kenyan Muslim N.  Just say it.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

I don't think Rubio gets enough credit for being one of the most sniveling, spineless politicians in America. He needs to run for president again. 

[Fozzz 152]

You don't need to be an Originalist to find the 14th amendment covers the children of the undocumented.  Infuriatingly dumb take from never-but-anti-anti-Trump world.

[David Dennison 18946]

9 hours ago, tjhooker said:

This will be up to the Court.  I am glad Trump is forcing it.  He is right this shouldn't be the case but unfortunately legally it is.  I don't agree an executive order can counteract the 14th amendment.  It has been a long time since I read the Federalist Papers.  They have any views on this?   I'd guess not.  So unfortunately, this is a shit loop hole it is legal.  So what you do is keep as many people trying to have babies here to a min.  Otherwise, at least pass a law.  Otherwise, a president can't order that.

The Supreme Court will never have to decide this case. It's never going to get that far.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Supreme Court will never have to decide this case. It's never going to get that far.

They've already decided it in the past.  Just because the ruling was from the 1800s doesn't make it less relevant than if they had decided it last year.

SIAP, current judge on the 5th appeals court (Trump appointee) and former Texas Solicitor General, James Ho says the following:  

Quote

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

 

[David Dennison 18946]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

They've already decided it in the past.  Just because the ruling was from the 1800s doesn't make it less relevant than if they had decided it last year.

SIAP, current judge on the 5th appeals court (Trump appointee) and former Texas Solicitor General, James Ho says the following:  

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

 

I meant that every circuit will agree on the issue and SCOTUS will deny cert.

It's that cut and dry.

Edited November 2, 2018 by David Dennison

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Supreme Court will never have to decide this case. It's never going to get that far.

That's not the only thing moronic about that post.  It's a smorgasbord of stupidity.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

They've already decided it in the past.  Just because the ruling was from the 1800s doesn't make it less relevant than if they had decided it last year.

SIAP, current judge on the 5th appeals court (Trump appointee) and former Texas Solicitor General, James Ho says the following:  

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

 

The people on the Mayflower probably hated on boat number 2 and thought of themselves as the last good immigrants also.  Sadly, its a time honored American tradition to think you are the very last "good" immigrant and want to shut the door behind you.

Its like "Keep Austin Weird."  Everyone says that Austin started to become less cool about 3 years after they got here, whether they moved to Austin in 1955, 1975, 1995, or 2013.  But everyone always thinks of themselves being comfortably on the "before it was big" side of the line.

[wildcat09 29388]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I meant that every circuit will agree on the issue and SCOTUS will deny cert.

It's that cut and dry.

SCOTUS heard King v. Burwell. Nothing is too cut and dry for the Republicans on the Court to change at their whim.

[NBMisha 224]

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I meant that every circuit will agree on the issue and SCOTUS will deny cert.

It's that cut and dry.

Dried😀