Immigration

[Irishize]

Excellent point.

My country is a shithole and I'm still proud of it. When do we march north?

I wonder what Canada would do if they kept marching north. The USA is Canada’s border wall.

 

[ickythump1225]

A photo from the Associated Press shows protesters burning an American flag with a swastika painted on it in support of the migrant caravan heading through Central America for the United States.
“Two people burn a United States flag during a protest in favor of the caravan of migrants that is currently stuck on the Guatemala-Mexico border, in front of the American embassy, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Friday, Oct. 19, 2018,” the AP Images description reads in part.

https://www.breitbart.com/immigrati...stika-on-american-flag-burn-it-in-the-street/

Wow, what kind of Nazi heartless RACIST DRUMPFT supporter wouldn't let this caravan of "refugees" through? Something something the inscription on the Statue of Liberty! Orange man bad!

 

[Irish YJ]

I wonder what Canada would do if they kept marching north. The USA is Canada’s border wall.

The Koch brothers need to charter a fw cruise liners, pick them up in Tijuana, and drop them all off in Vancouver. Keep the ships running till all CAs (Central Americans) are in CA (Canada).

 

[loomis41973]

The Koch brothers need to charter a fw cruise liners, pick them up in Tijuana, and drop them all off in Vancouver. Keep the ships running till all CAs (Central Americans) are in CA (Canada).

Too many Asians there. They would not stand for it.

 

[Irish YJ]

Too many Asians there. They would not stand for it.

Very true.

Canada is much smarter in the way they deal with immigration....

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship

 

[IrishLion]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship

So even Trump supporters have to agree that this is a huge red flag, right?

The Donald is trying to sign away Constitutionally protected rights via Executive Order... regardless of the issue and topic, that's basically worthy of an intro to a dystopian novel.

 

[NorthDakota]

So even Trump supporters have to agree that this is a huge red flag, right?

The Donald is trying to sign away Constitutionally protected rights via Executive Order... regardless of the issue and topic, that's basically worthy of an intro to a dystopian novel.

I did some reading on it this morning. Some legal types seem to think Congress has the right to take away citizenship by birth. The President, however, doesn't.

The key wording they seemed to focus on was "subject to the jurisdiction."

I have been on the train for years to get rid of citizenship by birth. I'll be surprised if they can pull it off, but it'd be a wonderful thing to pull off. Anchor babies aren't American.

 

[Rogue219]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/constitutional-originalism-requires-birthright-citizenship/

 

[IrishLion]

I did some reading on it this morning. Some legal types seem to think Congress has the right to take away citizenship by birth. The President, however, doesn't.

The key wording they seemed to focus on was "subject to the jurisdiction."

I have been on the train for years to get rid of citizenship by birth. I'll be surprised if they can pull it off, but it'd be a wonderful thing to pull off. Anchor babies aren't American.

It would take a pretty blatant and intentional misinterpretation to think there's any wiggle-room in the amendment, IMO. The language they are trying to take advantage of pretty clearly refers to any "soil" that is the jurisdiction of the US, but they're trying to argue that it's unclear, and that it could be referring to the "immigrant" being under the jurisdiction of the US.

Either way, though, I think 45 going about this with Executive Order sets a bad precedent. What's next, our next democratic president goes after the 2A with Executive Order based on an intentional misinterpretation?

 

[Legacy]

I did some reading on it this morning. Some legal types seem to think Congress has the right to take away citizenship by birth. The President, however, doesn't.

The key wording they seemed to focus on was "subject to the jurisdiction."

I have been on the train for years to get rid of citizenship by birth. I'll be surprised if they can pull it off, but it'd be a wonderful thing to pull off. Anchor babies aren't American.

Blood and soil?

 

[NorthDakota]

Blood and soil?

Im not a lawyer. Just repeating what i read.

I'd like to see it gone. If they can make it happen legally, it'd be a big win in my book.

 

[GowerND11]

It's tough to overturn precedence, no? In any case, trying to go about with with an Executive Order is just not good IMO.

 

[RDU Irish]

It would take a pretty blatant and intentional misinterpretation to think there's any wiggle-room in the amendment, IMO. The language they are trying to take advantage of pretty clearly refers to any "soil" that is the jurisdiction of the US, but they're trying to argue that it's unclear, and that it could be referring to the "immigrant" being under the jurisdiction of the US.

Either way, though, I think 45 going about this with Executive Order sets a bad precedent. What's next, our next democratic president goes after the 2A with Executive Order based on an intentional misinterpretation?

He can write an exec order on whatever he wants, doesn't mean it won't be overturned or otherwise invalidated. Phone and Pen was coined by someone other than Trump. Forces everyone else to deal with it doesn't it?

 

[Wild Bill]

It's tough to overturn precedence, no? In any case, trying to go about with with an Executive Order is just not good IMO.

That's the interesting part. The status quo is supported by a footnote, quoted below, of an opinion written by Justice Brennan, not a holding.

“no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

It would take a pretty blatant and intentional misinterpretation to think there's any wiggle-room in the amendment, IMO. The language they are trying to take advantage of pretty clearly refers to any "soil" that is the jurisdiction of the US, but they're trying to argue that it's unclear, and that it could be referring to the "immigrant" being under the jurisdiction of the US.

Either way, though, I think 45 going about this with Executive Order sets a bad precedent. What's next, our next democratic president goes after the 2A with Executive Order based on an intentional misinterpretation?

You should take a look at the history and intent underlying the 14th Amendment. It's clear birthright citizenship was not the intent, and instead it was to guarantee freed slaves would have the privilege of citizenship.

The scope of the 14th Amendment was tested in Elk v Wilkins and the SCOTUS held that the 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on Indians b/c they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction. The same logic can be applied with regard to "birthright citizenship" - parents who are not completely within US jurisdiction and who owe an allegiance to a foreign nation do not give birth to an American citizen.

The most basic way to understand the ridiculousness of the current "system" is to simply ask yourself who has the right to decide who becomes a citizen, the illegal or the citizen? The answer, with respect to birthright citizenship, is the illegal. They come here in violation of our laws, they stay here in violation of our laws and then they're rewarded citizenship for their child and most likely permanent legal status in America for themselves. We promise them the benefits of our Constitution, the benefits of the infrastructure we built, the safety of the military we fund, and what have they offered us in return? Have they pledged an allegiance to our nation and our citizens? Have they sworn an oath to be true and faithful to our nation and only our nation? No sane nation allows the illegal to dictate anything.

 

[NorthDakota]

SCOTUS doesnt appear to have ever really evaluated this.

 

[drayer54]

SCOTUS doesnt appear to have ever really evaluated this.

Should this proceed, I'd wager they will get the opportunity. 14th Amendment cases are a favorite of the high court.

I would be just fine with this coming from a majority in both chambers and being signed by the POTUS.

By EO, is nothing more than an extension of our biggest problem in government.

 

[NorthDakota]

Should this proceed, I'd wager they will get the opportunity. 14th Amendment cases are a favorite of the high court.

I would be just fine with this coming from a majority in both chambers and being signed by the POTUS.

By EO, is nothing more than an extension of our biggest problem in government.

Agreed!

 

[irishog77]

I think the EO is mostly bullshit. Assuming the intent is true on what Trump is saying regarding the 14th Amendment, I think he is essentially attempting an unconstitutional act to stop another unconstitutional act. Or simply, the ol' "2 wrongs make a right" logic. I won't go for that.

SCOTUS is the only avenue here. Dems in congress will 100% NOT pass any type of bill limiting immigration, and 100% will NOT pass any legislation curbing "rights" of immigrants. Their entire platform now, and for the future, rests on getting as many of these immigrants to vote, legally or illegally.

 

[Irish YJ]

That's the interesting part. The status quo is supported by a footnote, quoted below, of an opinion written by Justice Brennan, not a holding.





You should take a look at the history and intent underlying the 14th Amendment. It's clear birthright citizenship was not the intent, and instead it was to guarantee freed slaves would have the privilege of citizenship.

The scope of the 14th Amendment was tested in Elk v Wilkins and the SCOTUS held that the 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on Indians b/c they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction. The same logic can be applied with regard to "birthright citizenship" - parents who are not completely within US jurisdiction and who owe an allegiance to a foreign nation do not give birth to an American citizen.

The most basic way to understand the ridiculousness of the current "system" is to simply ask yourself who has the right to decide who becomes a citizen, the illegal or the citizen? The answer, with respect to birthright citizenship, is the illegal. They come here in violation of our laws, they stay here in violation of our laws and then they're rewarded citizenship for their child and most likely permanent legal status in America for themselves. We promise them the benefits of our Constitution, the benefits of the infrastructure we built, the safety of the military we fund, and what have they offered us in return? Have they pledged an allegiance to our nation and our citizens? Have they sworn an oath to be true and faithful to our nation and only our nation? No sane nation allows the illegal to dictate anything.

Excellent post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
Wiki, but pretty good short history of the Citizenship Clause.

I'd love to do away with it. No European (or Asian) countries practice unrestricted jus soli to my knowledge. At the end of the day, DT is doing this to force the issue on SCOTUS, which is where it belongs anyway. I'd like to believe that they would look closely at intent of the FFs, and consider what "birth tourism" has become.

 

[NorthDakota]

Excellent post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
Wiki, but pretty good short history of the Citizenship Clause.

I'd love to do away with it. No European (or Asian) countries practice unrestricted jus soli to my knowledge. At the end of the day, DT is doing this to force the issue on SCOTUS, which is where it belongs anyway. I'd like to believe that they would look closely at intent of the FFs, and consider what "birth tourism" has become.

<iframe width="1903" height="769" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GJY4yHeYSjw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

Here's a map i found.
Euros either have zero, or very restricted jus soli.

 

[NorthDakota]

Here's a map i found.
Euros either have zero, or very restricted jus soli.

I don't want to base American policies off of European ones simply because...well...Europe is trash, but I feel like they have this one right.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don't want to base American policies off of European ones simply because...well...Europe is trash, but I feel like they have this one right.

They definitely have this one right. I don't want to model off the euros either, but better off the euros than the other dark blue countries, no?

 

[RDU Irish]

I think the EO is mostly bullshit. Assuming the intent is true on what Trump is saying regarding the 14th Amendment, I think he is essentially attempting an unconstitutional act to stop another unconstitutional act. Or simply, the ol' "2 wrongs make a right" logic. I won't go for that.

SCOTUS is the only avenue here. Dems in congress will 100% NOT pass any type of bill limiting immigration, and 100% will NOT pass any legislation curbing "rights" of immigrants. Their entire platform now, and for the future, rests on getting as many of these immigrants to vote, legally or illegally.

Is there a faster path to the SCOTUS than Trump's executive order?

 

[Irish YJ]

Is there a faster path to the SCOTUS than Trump's executive order?

Not that I can think of. Congress would take years, and still end up with SCOTUS, which will take more years. This seems to be a fastest track. Perhaps DT had this in mind the whole time (waiting for the second SCOTUS to drop to push this). Pretty smart if it works.

 

[RDU Irish]

Jujitsu master Trump uses Dem energy against them. You know you are on the right track when they squeal like stuck hogs.

 

[NorthDakota]

Not that I can think of. Congress would take years, and still end up with SCOTUS, which will take more years. This seems to be a fastest track. Perhaps DT had this in mind the whole time (waiting for the second SCOTUS to drop to push this). Pretty smart if it works.

I have a weird feeling that Trump's people(whoever told him about Birthright citizenship) are going to end up right on this.

 

[RDU Irish]

I have a weird feeling that Trump's people(whoever told him about Birthright citizenship) are going to end up right on this.

If you look at the history and intent it is a complete no brainer, IMO.

 

[Irish YJ]

If you look at the history and intent it is a complete no brainer, IMO.

the FFs certainly did not envision birth tourism and anchor babies.

and most 1st and 2nd world nations either have zero, or very restricted jus soli. Canada is the only other 1st world nation to have no restrictions. And even Canada is much more picky about who they take legally.

without a doubt, we are the most lax 1st world country when it comes to this shit...

all comes to down to how SCOTUS will interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" IMO