Trump violates 14th Amendment, assaults Birthright Citizenship

[Kujako]

the obvious intent here is to force the issue into the courts and ultimately to have the supreme court rule on the application of the 14th amendment once and for all.

They already have, this is "we don't like what the courts said, so we're gonna ask again and pretend we didn't hear the last time".

[Endus]

Apparently someone missed the part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Kids of diplomats for example are not US citizens even if they're born on US soil.

Legally speaking, an illegal immigrant is still in the country where he migrated from. No checkpoints were passed, no passports verified. The US never consented to have them in their jurisdiction.

This would be kind of like being responsible for a murder committed on your property even though it was two trespassers killing each other and you had nothing to do with it and weren't even home at the time.

The Founding Fathers also never intended for pregnant women to simply set foot on US soil, dump a kid and leave just so the kid could get US citizenship.

Apparently, you don't understand what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means.

It means the law applies to you. If you're standing on the Mexican side of the US border, US law does not apply to you; you are not subject to its jurisdiction. If you apply to immigrate, that immigration process is subject. If you enter the USA, legally or not, you're also subject, as you're within its borders.

There are very few exceptions to that, and diplomats which you mention are one of those. This is literally what the concept of "diplomatic immunity" means. That the diplomat, by virtue of being a diplomat, is agreed to not be subject to the laws of their host nation, to at least some extent.

If you're arguing that illegal immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, then you're arguing illegal immigrants can murder people and deal drugs and face no legal consequences nor criminal convictions. Is that your argument?

[Deficineiron]

So if he were to succeed in doing this (somehow), then nobody is effectively a citizen anymore except for Native americans.

this is a good example of the 'absurd absolute' argument. the poster takes the most extreme extrapolation possible (and one which is patently silly) and acts like that is what is going to happen.

[Belize]

So wait, if we're playing the Constitutional Interpretation game, does that mean that the 2nd Amendment only applies to well regulated militias?

Since we're on the "what they meant was..." phase.

[Deficineiron]

They already have, this is "we don't like what the courts said, so we're gonna ask again and pretend we didn't hear the last time".

i am not aware of a supreme court ruling on this application of the 14th amendment. can you link this case?

[Skroe]

Oh, i remember that you said that some time ago... you need to try (if you havent already) the arepas, they're a godly gift from the heavens

Mom makes them every Christmas!

[Deficineiron]

I guess Newt Gringrich was right "We'll see if the Kavanaugh fight was worth it."

see my comment about Kagan. I consider her a wild-card on any issue with a rational constitutional basis for arguing against a liberal position.

[Acidbaron]

I wonder what political ideology also made laws so it essentially created a two standard for 'real citizens' and the rest.

Believe it had something to do with arians, you know that funny looking guy with the wierd moustache.

[Blade Wolf]

this is a good example of the 'absurd absolute' argument. the poster takes the most extreme extrapolation possible (and one which is patently silly) and acts like that is what is going to happen.

As if republicans haven't been doin that with the 2nd amendment forever?

[petej0]

Also, how many times did you right wingers claim that Obama was breaking the Constitution, and now Trump is attempting the same thing with an EO (which he can't do) you're happy with it?

And how many times were liberals happy with Obamas EO when the Right Wingers claimed he was breaking the Constitution? I swear liberals and conservatives argue from both sides of the issues depending on which party is in power.

[Skroe]

So wait, if we're playing the Constitutional Interpretation game, does that mean that the 2nd Amendment only applies to well regulated militias?

Since we're on the "what they meant was..." phase.

Yes and the 8th Amendment only applies to goats. Why? I dunno. It sounds like a good idea tho. Something something MAGA.

We're at the "make shit up because we like it" stage of the discourse.

[Thepersona]

I wonder what political ideology also made laws so it essentially created a two standard for 'real citizens' and the rest.

Believe it had something to do with arians, you know that funny looking guy with the wierd moustache.

And also with sending other people to special camps, in order to concentrate... or something

[Deficineiron]

As if republicans haven't been doin that with the 2nd amendment forever?

now misdirection? the absurd absolute is pointed out and the person who did it now is talking about something completely different 'they did it too on this other topic.'

there is no critical thinking here in your posts. just 'my side good' 'your side bad'

I could write a script for this.

[Kujako]

i am not aware of a supreme court ruling on this application of the 14th amendment. can you link this case?

United States v. Wong Kim Ark comes to mind. But there are others as well i believe.

[Belize]

Yes and the 8th Amendment only applies to goats. Why? I dunno. It sounds like a good idea tho. Something something MAGA.

We're at the "make shit up because we like it" stage of the discourse.

I mean, who would want to be cruel and unusual towards goats?

[Deleted]

The Ethnonationalism and monoculturalism undercurrent of every single Trump supporter, especially when we discuss immigration, is abundantly clear.

It's absolutely fricken nuts. Ethnonationalism is one of the great scourges of the world. It is literally the foundation of most of the major continental wars of the last 300 years. And something we've never experienced. And you Trump supporters, like the brilliant people you are, want to import it here.

And you think this can be simply solved by abolishing borders, you are very naive.


Now, in America at least, nobody but a fringe wants a strict "monoculture", that said it's perfectly reasonable to expect that America maintain a dominant American culture with American values such as free speech, free and fair elections, limited government etc. Basically a western culture with no FGM, no Sharia, no gang culture or other such nonsense.

A country without a common set of values will in time deteriorate and make civil war more likely.


Also nobody but a fringe opposes non-white people. Nobody is calling for example for legal Mexican immigrants to go away.

You post can be summed up to "Wah, me not like borders, they're mean".


Now, you say ethnonationalism caused all the last 300 years' wars. That's actually only an issue if you have a supremacist interpretation of nationalism where you're not fine with merely looking after your own people, but want to subjugate others. For less powerful nations, ethnonationalism is about mere survival, not conquering others.

Ethnonationalism can also prevent conflicts, for example Iraq would be far more peaceful split into 3 countries. You can't just force certain groups to live peacefully within the same borders if they don't have enough in common.

Yugoslavia was a mess united, now that it's actually divided into other countries there is peace again.


If you feel that strongly about a borderless world, then your course of action should be to create a common culture first.

[johnhoftb]

Did you oppose Obama’s EO establishing DACA? SCOTUS will soon rule that unconstitutional, but I have a hunch you didn’t mind that.

Trump is going to assist in getting SCOTUS to rule on whether the 14th amendment applies to Chinese tourist who come here to get citizenship and whether illegals get citizenship conferred on their offspring.

We all know the 9th circuit will place a stay on this the day after Trump signs it. It’s what SCOTUS will do that matters. And it’s 5-4 against the “living, breathing document” jurisprudence.

The DACA is not unconstitutional, especially if Trump's EO's on immigration are.

The DACA is also not birthright citizenship and is not enshrined in the constitution, which means it can be destroyed easily by any branch of our government.

[Deficineiron]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark comes to mind. But there are others as well i believe.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
Full case name United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Citations 169 U.S. 649 (more)
18 S. Ct. 456; 42 L. Ed. 890; 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1515
Prior history Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California; 71 F. 382
Holding
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan · Horace Gray
David J. Brewer · Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr. · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham · Joseph McKenna
Case opinions
Majority Gray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
Dissent Fuller, joined by Harlan
McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] T

I read a synopsis of the case and the court's reasoning. the issue of illegal presence in terms of this case should be resolved one way or another as it does not appear to have been a particularly common legal circumstance back then. Once SCOTUS rules on it (unless they do a dodgy narrow ruling), the matter will be resolved one way or another.

I am not a lawyer nor a court historian and cannot speculate on how the late 19th century supreme court might have written their majority opinion if there also existed a large population of people who were explicitly in the country illegally at the time, or if for some reason this couple had not been legally in the US or not legally permanent residents, but it seems likely they would have clarified the matter one way or another. The majority opinion clearly did not consider the 'tourist passing through' example to be needful of writing in an exception for, but it seems a bit different than having no legal right to be in the US in any capacity, period.

[Keile]

Kinda funny how Trumps supporters don't give a rats ass about any Amendments before or after Amendment 2.

It's like they cherry pick which ones they support and while they claim to want to protect our constitution...they really only mean Amendment 2.

If a president came in and decided to change Amendment 2 with an Executive Order you bet your ass conservatives would be going off the wall shouting for impeachment. And this is a valid comparison as Amend 2 is open to interpretation, much like they claim Amend 14 is. It simply says the "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say how many...or of what kind. It could literally be ruled that a person is only legally allowed to have side-arms and non automatic rifles and the 2nd Amendment technically wouldn't be violated as you still have the right to bear arms. It is only violated when they say: "Nope...you can't have any weapons whatsoever at all."


Most importantly: If you care anything about the Constitution VIOLATION OF ANY AMENDMENT, ESPECIALLY BY THE PRESIDENT, should piss you off. Anyone who is praising violating the 14th is someone who doesn't care about our Constitution, they only pretend to when it suits them.

[Blade Wolf]

now misdirection? the absurd absolute is pointed out and the person who did it now is talking about something completely different 'they did it too on this other topic.'

there is no critical thinking here in your posts. just 'my side good' 'your side bad'

I could write a script for this.

And which side are you assuming i'm on?