Immigration

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I'll have to dig up the quote when I have some time (or anybody else feel free to do so), but Jacob Howard (author of 14th Amendment) pretty clearly states that it would not apply to an illegal immigrant (a subject to the laws of another country).

That being said, that language was NOT actually included in the 14th amendment. Which is a problem. As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I think it's problematic when we start legislating based off intent.

So, now I'm back on the train that this needs to occur in congress, which is something I stated yesterday will not happen. As much as I may agree with the idea of restricting the 14th, I loathe judicial activism.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
I'll have to dig up the quote when I have some time (or anybody else feel free to do so), but Jacob Howard (author of 14th Amendment) pretty clearly states that it would not apply to an illegal immigrant (a subject to the laws of another country).

That being said, that language was NOT actually included in the 14th amendment. Which is a problem. As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I think it's problematic when we start legislating based off intent.

So, now I'm back on the train that this needs to occur in congress, which is something I stated yesterday will not happen. As much as I may agree with the idea of restricting the 14th, I loathe judicial activism.

If the idea is to interpret what was intended by the Amendment, it sure cant hurt to have that quote from the guy who wrote it.

Judicial activism is very bad.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I'll have to dig up the quote when I have some time (or anybody else feel free to do so), but Jacob Howard (author of 14th Amendment) pretty clearly states that it would not apply to an illegal immigrant (a subject to the laws of another country).

That being said, that language was NOT actually included in the 14th amendment. Which is a problem. As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I think it's problematic when we start legislating based off intent.

So, now I'm back on the train that this needs to occur in congress, which is something I stated yesterday will not happen. As much as I may agree with the idea of restricting the 14th, I loathe judicial activism.

I applaud your consistency. Cheers.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,265
I'll have to dig up the quote when I have some time (or anybody else feel free to do so), but Jacob Howard (author of 14th Amendment) pretty clearly states that it would not apply to an illegal immigrant (a subject to the laws of another country).

That being said, that language was NOT actually included in the 14th amendment. Which is a problem. As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I think it's problematic when we start legislating based off intent.

So, now I'm back on the train that this needs to occur in congress, which is something I stated yesterday will not happen. As much as I may agree with the idea of restricting the 14th, I loathe judicial activism.


Quote from author of the citizenship clause: “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.”
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I'll have to dig up the quote when I have some time (or anybody else feel free to do so), but Jacob Howard (author of 14th Amendment) pretty clearly states that it would not apply to an illegal immigrant (a subject to the laws of another country).

That being said, that language was NOT actually included in the 14th amendment. Which is a problem. As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I think it's problematic when we start legislating based off intent.

So, now I'm back on the train that this needs to occur in congress, which is something I stated yesterday will not happen. As much as I may agree with the idea of restricting the 14th, I loathe judicial activism.

Serious question... how do you strictly interpret "subject to jurisdiction". Does that mean anyone who can get into the US is "subject to jurisdiction"?

was going to read this later (from 2007), but looked interesting.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Let's see. What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

Obviously, the "illegal" immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't subject to that jurisdiction they wouldn't be illegal in the first place. If you don't have jurisdiction over them, you can't charge them with a crime. So if you expect immigrants to follow our laws then they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and any of their children born in the United States are protected by the 14th amendment.

That makes them different than the American-born children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Let's see. What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

Obviously, the "illegal" immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't subject to that jurisdiction they wouldn't be illegal in the first place. If you don't have jurisdiction over them, you can't charge them with a crime. So if you expect immigrants to follow our laws then they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and any of their children born in the United States are protected by the 14th amendment.

That makes them different than the American-born children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity.

We shall see. The author explicitly wrote that the amendment wasn't intended to include foreigners.

I think you've oversimplified it but I am excited to follow developments here.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Let's see. What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

Obviously, the "illegal" immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't subject to that jurisdiction they wouldn't be illegal in the first place. If you don't have jurisdiction over them, you can't charge them with a crime. So if you expect immigrants to follow our laws then they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and any of their children born in the United States are protected by the 14th amendment.

That makes them different than the American-born children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity.

thank you scotus eddy....

if you are naturalized, you are in effect admitted and made a citizen, correct?
so why say "naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction". Naturalized means you are here and admitted as a citizen, so logically if they are using an "and", jurisdiction doesn't simply mean being in the US....

Longer quote from the14th
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.

definition of natrualize
admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,265
Let's see. What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

Obviously, the "illegal" immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't subject to that jurisdiction they wouldn't be illegal in the first place. If you don't have jurisdiction over them, you can't charge them with a crime. So if you expect immigrants to follow our laws then they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and any of their children born in the United States are protected by the 14th amendment.

With respect to the 14th Amendment, it means you owe allegiance exclusively to the United States, and not simply that you are temporarily within the jurisdiction.

The article linked by YJ explains this well.

was going to read this later (from 2007), but looked interesting.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “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.”

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but “completely within our jurisdiction”.

He of course is talking about the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation. Without this full and complete jurisdiction, any foreign government can intervene on behalf of their own citizens while they visit or reside within the United States – just as the United States is known to do on behalf of U.S. citizens within other countries.


That makes them different than the American-born children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity.

Yes, they're different. That may be why the author of the citizenship clause explicitly stated they would both be excluded:

“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.”
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
Seems pretty straightforward to me - amazing nobody has had balls to call it out before. Dems and Reps complicit in their don't ask, don't tell policies.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Seems pretty straightforward to me - amazing nobody has had balls to call it out before. Dems and Reps complicit in their don't ask, don't tell policies.

It makes sense. Just about everyone likes fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact anybody who has done any of the following; processed beef, pork or poultry, slept in a hotel, eaten at a restaurant, eaten a salad and or had landscaping work done on their property is probably complicit in supporting illegal immigrants as well, albeit indirectly. When it comes to this issue we are a nation of hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,075
Here's a map i found.
Euros either have zero, or very restricted jus soli.

main-qimg-09f7f6f730a35f8cc18204e93b25abcc

Looks like the western hemisphere and the eastern hemisphere are complete opposites. I suppose the founding fathers were thinking about expanding the citizenship through all of the immigrants that came here, but were still citizens of other countries?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
It makes sense. Just about everyone likes fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact anybody who has done any of the following; processed beef, pork or poultry, slept in a hotel, eaten at a restaurant, eaten a salad and or had landscaping work done on their property is probably complicit in supporting illegal immigrants as well, albeit indirectly. When it comes to this issue we are a nation of hypocrites.

How is work = citizenship? Is that brand new baby American doing all that work? Seems to me they would be slowing down the productivity of those workers more than helping.

Because nobody has addressed it before means nobody can touch it going forward, such a tired and lazy argument. Hand out work visas like candy - lots of room to work in between 100% Citizenship and 100% Illegal Alien. Exactly what you are pointing out is why both sides are complicit in perpetuating a broken system - Dems want votes and BOTH want cheap labor they can bully around.

But document the people and get them out of the damn shadows. If someone walks up to my business to work the burden of proving their legality should not be on me - I should be able to largely assume someone knocking on my door for a job is legally here to do so.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
Looks like the western hemisphere and the eastern hemisphere are complete opposites. I suppose the founding fathers were thinking about expanding the citizenship through all of the immigrants that came here, but were still citizens of other countries?

Doesn't the chart show what we effectively practice - not what Trump is saying the 14th amendment intended?
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
It makes sense. Just about everyone likes fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact anybody who has done any of the following; processed beef, pork or poultry, slept in a hotel, eaten at a restaurant, eaten a salad and or had landscaping work done on their property is probably complicit in supporting illegal immigrants as well, albeit indirectly. When it comes to this issue we are a nation of hypocrites.
"Because your leaders have set up a system where everything you do is in some way touched by an illegal immigrant you therefore have no moral standing to advocate for immigration reform without being a hypocrite. Heh, checkmate nazis. Orange man bad."
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,265
"Because your leaders have set up a system where everything you do is in some way touched by an illegal immigrant you therefore have no moral standing to advocate for immigration reform without being a hypocrite. Heh, checkmate nazis. Orange man bad."

Don't be a hypocrite! If you see illegal labor being exploited, call ICE.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
thank you scotus eddy....

if you are naturalized, you are in effect admitted and made a citizen, correct?
so why say "naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction". Naturalized means you are here and admitted as a citizen, so logically if they are using an "and", jurisdiction doesn't simply mean being in the US....

Longer quote from the14th


definition of natrualize

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment actually reads:

"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." Here it is.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So there are two options:

1. One can be born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction.
or
2. One can be naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction.

It is not necessary to be both born in the Untied States and naturalized in the United States. They way Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is worded makes it clear that it is born or naturalized in the United States", not born and naturalized in the United States.
 
Last edited:

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It is outrageous what the Democrats are doing to our Country. Vote Republican now! <a href="https://t.co/0pWiwCHGbh">https://t.co/0pWiwCHGbh</a> <a href="https://t.co/2crea9HF7G">pic.twitter.com/2crea9HF7G</a></p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1057728445386539008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
You clearly did not read or understand my post.

The AND that I am referring to is

"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.

From a sentence structure perspective, i would think the condition "and subject to the jurisdiction" applies to both 1) born, and 2) naturalized. If not, it would have read "born, or naturalized and under the jurisdiction".

So here's a question, which I'm sure you will avoid. If you are naturalized, under what situation would you not be "under the jurisdiction" ? If you can be naturalized, and not be under the jurisdiction, why is so far fetched to be born here, and not be under the jurisdiction?

The history around the 14th amendment talks about native Americans (who were born here obviously), and the debate about them being under jurisdiction. What's your hot take on that?


Section 1 of the 14th Amendment actually reads:

"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." Here it is.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So there are two options:

1. One can be born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction.
or
2. One can be naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction.

It is not necessary to be both born in the Untied States and naturalized in the United States. They way Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is worded makes it clear that it is born or naturalized in the United States", not born and naturalized in the United States.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
Now imagine if we could discuss altering the 2nd Amendment to have limitations, considering historical context and vague language that no longer applies.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Now imagine if we could discuss altering the 2nd Amendment to have limitations, considering historical context and vague language that no longer applies.

that particular discussion has been happening for how many years now? no?
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
that particular discussion has been happening for how many years now? no?

Has it though? What's changed?

Trump questions birthright citizenship, and conservatives are champions of altering the constitution... question 2A, and the constitution is sacred.

Just pointing out more of the hypocrisy that goes both ways, and makes real conversation difficult.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Has it though? What's changed?

Trump questions birthright citizenship, and conservatives are champions of altering the constitution... question 2A, and the constitution is sacred.

Just pointing out more of the hypocrisy that goes both ways, and makes real conversation difficult.

2A has been under attack for many, many years. And that's been just fine with the dems.
Birth citizenship comes up, and now the dems are crying constitution.....

Hypocrisy goes both ways, no?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's something funny... dems say that the 2A is outdated, and that we no longer need guns, or a well armed militia. For years they have argued that we are no longer under threat of tyranny.....

And now, all the libs are calling Trump a tyrant, and suggest all kinds of crazy shit... So now that we have a tyrant, are guns OK now?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

back to birth citizenship.... forget the constitution for a minute. why are you in favor of it? why do you think the Euros and Asians all have zero or very restrictive jus soli?

to me, back in the day, we were trying to populate the US.... that's no longer the case. in short, times have changed. birth citizenship obviously encourages birth tourism and anchor baby illegal activity, which was not an issue back then. again, times have changed.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Now imagine if we could discuss altering the 2nd Amendment to have limitations, considering historical context and vague language that no longer applies.

They already took away machine guns. I'm not allowed to own a howitzer or a tank either.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
Has it though? What's changed?

Trump questions birthright citizenship, and conservatives are champions of altering the constitution... question 2A, and the constitution is sacred.

Just pointing out more of the hypocrisy that goes both ways, and makes real conversation difficult.
Birthright citizenship is not "the constitution" it's literally held afloat by a footnote by a SCOTUS justice. Also, the 2A has a ton of limitations, where have you been? This is just as stupid as as screeching harpy feminists who hold up signs like "I wish my body had as many rights as a gun."
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Some people can't stop saying libs, lol or lmao, posting from twitchy or the rag Daily Wire or avoiding the point. Trump is an idiot and understands little about immigration except what titillates his base and gets applause. He can't even find a constitutional lawyer to defend him against the Russian investigation. There are moderates in the U.S. whether he wants to acknowledge them or not who are frustrated with obstruction of real immigration policy. The Senate has had in-depth hearings and passed immigration bills in 2006, 2007 and 2013. All were blocked by the House Speakers. Do you think he or his base is aware of these?

Here's the comparison (the 2013 is quite detailed).
Side-by-Side Comparison of 2013 Senate Immigration Bill with 2006 and 2007 Senate Legislation (See Download)

Should the House become Democratic we may finally have something that works if McConnell doesn't block it. The Rep House and Trump don't have any plans except to block such comprehensive immigration bills that are good for America and constitutional. Compromise and good government be damned. "Path to citizenship" are four letter words to some. It doesn't matter that our unemployment is the lowest in memory - "They are taking away your jobs." So a new President could sign another EO and change immigration policies back without Congress? King Donald.
 
Last edited:

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
Some people can't stop saying libs, lol or lmao, posting from twitchy or the rag Daily Wire or avoiding the point. Trump is an idiot and understands little about immigration except what titillates his base and gets applause. He can't even find a constitutional lawyer to defend him against the Russian investigation. There are moderates in the U.S. whether he wants to acknowledge them or not who are frustrated with obstruction of real immigration policy. The Senate has had in-depth hearings and passed immigration bills in 2006, 2007 and 2013. All were blocked by the House Speakers. Do you think he or his base is aware of these?

Here's the comparison (the 2013 is quite detailed).
Side-by-Side Comparison of 2013 Senate Immigration Bill with 2006 and 2007 Senate Legislation (See Download)

Should the House become Democratic we may finally have something that works if McConnell doesn't block it. The Rep House and Trump don't have any plans except to block such comprehensive immigration bills that are good for America and constitutional. Compromise and good government be damned. "Path to citizenship" are four letter words to some. It doesn't matter that our unemployment is the lowest in memory - "They are taking away your jobs." So a new President could sign another EO and change immigration policies back without Congress? King Donald.
"Orange man bad."
 
Top