Planned Parenthood on Tuesday castigated President Donald Trump's intention to issue an executive order that would end automatic citizenship for the children of non-citizens who are born on U.S. soil, calling the plan "despicable" and "unconstitutional."
"Eliminating #birthrightcitizenship would be incredibly harmful & is part of this [Trump] administration's radical, hateful agenda to stoke fear in our communities and contribute to many people's already very real fear of deportation," tweeted Planned Parenthood's nonprofit advocacy arm.
Everyone who is currently a citizen should remain so. Everyone who illegally enters this country should be deported to their country of entry or origin. Every child they have on the way should, of course, be with their parents as the recent scandal needlessly confirmed.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
powerlifter54 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:28 pm
Let it go to the Supreme Court.
I'd guess that's Pres. Trump's intention. That, and to keep the invasion, err "caravan," on the media front burner.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court's take on the meaning & intent of a Constitutional Amendment written to grant citizenship to freed slaves.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
powerlifter54 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:28 pm
Let it go to the Supreme Court.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court's take on the meaning & intent of a Constitutional Amendment written to grant citizenship to freed slaves.
The pertinent passage: 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.
The phrase "born in the United States" really isn't subject to much interpretation, no matter the original motivation. I guess its "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for wriggle room.
powerlifter54 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:28 pm
Let it go to the Supreme Court.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court's take on the meaning & intent of a Constitutional Amendment written to grant citizenship to freed slaves.
The pertinent passage: 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.
The phrase "born in the United States" really isn't subject to much interpretation, no matter the original motivation. I guess its "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for wriggle room.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
powerlifter54 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:28 pm
Let it go to the Supreme Court.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court's take on the meaning & intent of a Constitutional Amendment written to grant citizenship to freed slaves.
The pertinent passage: 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.
The phrase "born in the United States" really isn't subject to much interpretation, no matter the original motivation. I guess its "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for wriggle room.
You've certainly mastered the bold font. Care to expound? We're throwing them in jail, so it's not like they have diplomatic immunity.
The point is that, despite the defeatist bleating of the herd, there's quite a bit of room for interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was originally intended to prevent southern states from denying citizenship to native-born black Americans.
Common sense dictates that you do not reward illegal entry with a ticket to ride. There's really no disputing that.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." -Senator Jacob Howard on the intent of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Sen. John Bingham was the principal author of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; because it did not have enough support to pass, the so-called "citizenship clause" which is now the subject of such debate, was added by Sen. Jacob Howard, who speaks to its intent in the quote above. The 14th Amendment was intended to address freed slaves, it did not even apply to native Americans.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:10 am
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." -Senator Jacob Howard on the intent of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Sen. John Bingham was the principal author of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; because it did not have enough support to pass, the so-called "citizenship clause" which is now the subject of such debate, was added by Sen. Jacob Howard, who speaks to its intent in the quote above. The 14th Amendment was intended to address freed slaves, it did not even apply to native Americans.
The kids born here aren’t “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States”
Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:38 pm
They are indeed foreigners born to foreigners.
And, if you are intent on word games, please advance the reasons why it would be desirable or sensible to reward illegal entry into this country?
Meh. The Wong Kim Ark ruling was pretty specific. It even included the exact phrase "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction. So unless you're claiming that people that overstay their visa or cross into the country illegally (for example) are immune to the laws of the United States and therefore their US-born children are in fact NOT American?
Let’s be honest— if the orange one came out in favor of expanding birthright citizenship, IGx progressives would oppose it just as hard as they are this.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
The two aren't very closely related, are they? Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanent residents, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States. An illegal alien is not.
Unless your position is that everyone, everywhere is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which I could come around to...
But again, explain to me why it is desirable to reward illegal entry into the US with citizenship for their children?
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
Suppose the agent of a foreign, hostile military gave birth on US soil. Would the child be a US citizen? Most people would find that absurd.
Re: your examples - I'd think guest soldiers are not "subject to the jurisdiction," therefore not granted US citizenship, similarly to diplomats.
So, not even the US grants unrestricted birthright citizenship.
That being the case, where is the line drawn? Ark Wong Kim (1898) was born to parents who were legal residents in the US, so may not apply.
Today's birthright controversy concerns various degrees of permissive presence: parent/s who cross the border illegally & who never had permission to reside in the US, those who overstay their visas, and those who use visas to the US to birth babies and then return to their country of origin to raise the children.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
johno wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:50 pm
Suppose the agent of a foreign, hostile military gave birth on US soil. Would the child be a US citizen? Most people would find that absurd.
Re: your examples - I'd think guest soldiers are not "subject to the jurisdiction," therefore not granted US citizenship, similarly to diplomats.
So, not even the US grants unrestricted birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment contains the caveat. We sign SOFAs (status of forces agreeements) with host countries to deal with precisely these sorts of issues.
Though actually upon reading up, this was dealt with and cited in the Wong case...
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established...."
nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:38 pm
The 14th Amendment contains the caveat. We sign SOFAs (status of forces agreeements) with host countries to deal with precisely these sorts of issues.
I doubt that an SOFA overrides the Constitution.
And when you say "the caveat," I assume you mean the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause? If so, yes. The point is: where do you draw the line?
nafod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:38 pm
Though actually upon reading up, this was dealt with and cited in the Wong case...
Some say it was dealt with. The Supreme Court did discuss it.
The question is: is the discussion that exceeded the bounds of the case, binding law or dicta. Dicta is basically "shit the court said that doesn't carry the force of law."
Wiki: A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta (often simply dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument".[2] Unlike ratio decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. The so-called Wambaugh's Inversion Test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the statement been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter.
Should we end Birthright Citizenship? Whether that's through an EO that gets vetted by SCOTUS or by an amendment which clarifies the constitution.
The originalist perspective would look to the fact pattern in place at the time of those amendments and possibly conclude on thing...a more Living Doc perspective might look at the facts on the ground today and weigh our overall immigration policies against our challenges and reach a radically not progressive conclusion out of necessity.
The money don't know where it came from. IDC if Trump is a broken clock on this one, I can see no downside to much sterner immigration policies including dismissing BR Citizenship and go back to letting the states handle State Citizenship questions which they are quite capable of answering.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:39 pm
IDC if Trump is a broken clock on this one, I can see no downside to much sterner immigration policies including dismissing BR Citizenship
This is the point of my asking, "what is the upside?" And thus far, no one can articulate any reason why the current way of doing things makes sense. The essence of their objection is *muh Trump*.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
I'm betting that there would be unintended consequences to ending it. It'd have to be replaced with something...what?
What's the science say on the negatives of it? What is the typical career of an anchor baby? Is it actually a problem, or is it like the "invasion" of women and children trying to walk 1000 miles, just a fodder for fear mongering?
Bring it up to the Supreme Court and let them decide.
I like Starship Trooper's approach, where you have to have served in the military to be a citizen. French Foreign Legion too.
