Trump and Walker Both Admit they are incapable of being POTUS
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
I'm certainly not arguing that the debate is settled. Clearly it is not. I am simply making the the point that there are many who would argue that the 14th was not intended to provide instant citizenship status to the child of an illegal immigrant.
Holy hell. You think pointing out that it's legal to move from Iowa to Nebraska but not legal to sneak across the border from Mexico into the United States is a conclusory statement?
That's not a conclusory statement. That's a rock solid fact.
Please, please tell me you're not an attorney in real life.
I'm really not sure what you are missing in this, it isn't complicated.
The conclusory statement is that it is different, and somehow decides the issue.
The question is of jurisdiction, jurisdiction of the U.S. over children born within its borders, in connection with any other nations exercise of jurisdiction.
I've now asked you a few different times: Why does another country have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the US? Because the immigration is illegal? Is that your only answer? Nothing to support or further it?
Other nations have legislated away birthright citizenship, why won't the U.S., especially if it wasn't meant to be granted anyways?
Immigration as we describe it today was legal then, what gives you rise to believe they didn't intend it for children of those immigrants?
That is a very different viewpoint than what they would have done knowing today's immigration.
So the response is to claim that a politician (See: Walker) should just be able to do it by himself...because it isn't unConstitutional? (Well, at least arguably, right?)
Although this is ludicrous reasoning, pablow has at least a bit of a point. Much of the time a case reaches the SCOTUS and the "what the statute says" is overruled/thrown out/etc, but that is because of the nature of the process. SCOTUS picks and chooses its cases, meaning that it often chooses cases specifically to "overturn" or amend or whatever a person may want to call it.
IMO, this situation would be the same. IF it somehow got to the SCOTUS (it won't), it would likely be to overturn the status quo, because it would never need to get there otherwise.
And still there are no qualified candidates for the next Presidency. But you guys go ahead and keep arguing.
Pray tell, what, iyo, makes one qualified...if none of these guys are?
The woman may be subject to a foreign power - although you could argue that she has renounced any putative allegiance to a foreign power by fleeing here. But there are 2 other problems with your analysis:
1) We aren't talking about the woman. The woman wasn't born in the US so she isn't the one the law applies to.
2) It's the child who is born in the US and the child has no obligation to a foreign power.
My guess is that that "foreign power" provision was put in there to apply to ambassadors and soldiers and such who might be stationed in the US. Their kids would be citizens of the parents' country, not US citizens.
Almost certainly wrong.
Are there people all around the world looking for an excuse or cover to stage rallies? Sure. Do some of them have violent aims? Sure.
This seems pretty obviously a case where some folks who had been priming themselves to attack used the boisterous public outrage to the video to say "now is the time!"
What we are arguing about is something really trivial: whether the video triggered the Benghazi tragedy. Clearly it did. And clearly when the administration initially pointed to that, they were going on what they knew - and what the rest of us knew, if we were paying attention. After all, the video came out before the Benghazi attack and we were already seeing protests in various places.
I don't understand the reason why people who want to blow Benghazi out of proportion focus on this particularly dumb element of the tragedy. There's plenty to criticize in the preparedness and the response. But to hyperventilate about whether the video was a trigger or, even more absurdly, to claim that the administration lied when they pointed to the video as the trigger - well that's just silly. And, I might say, typically silly for the echo chamber crowd.
Maybe we can discuss it this way:
The 14th was ratified in 1868.
What were the immigration laws then? The Page Act didn't come until 1875 prohibiting entry of undesirable immigrants. If there weren't laws stopping a person from, say, walking across the Mexican/US border, then I think it reasonable to believe that everyone ratifying the 14th believed that people doing so, and having children, would be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I'm just not sure how they contemplated "illegal immigration" prior to there being illegal immigration. Speaking specifically to jurisdiction, they would have believed anyone coming in in that manner (not affiliated with a Consulate/Embassy) would be subject to our laws and everything else. So, looking at any "original intent" should side with birthright citizenship. IMO, of course.
The 14th was ratified in 1868.
What were the immigration laws then? The Page Act didn't come until 1875 prohibiting entry of undesirable immigrants. If there weren't laws stopping a person from, say, walking across the Mexican/US border, then I think it reasonable to believe that everyone ratifying the 14th believed that people doing so, and having children, would be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I'm just not sure how they contemplated "illegal immigration" prior to there being illegal immigration. Speaking specifically to jurisdiction, they would have believed anyone coming in in that manner (not affiliated with a Consulate/Embassy) would be subject to our laws and everything else. So, looking at any "original intent" should side with birthright citizenship. IMO, of course.
In case you somehow missed it the first three times I stated it in this thread, I don't support Walker and Trump saying they will unilaterally deport citizens (assuming that's actually what they said). I support having the SCOTUS review the 14th Amendment to determine whether it really was intended to grant automatic citizenship to anchor babies.
How could there have been any intent towards "anchor babies" if no such thing as anchor babies existed? See my post above. I think the original intent argument loses soundly.
Unless, of course you believe the Constitution is an ever-evolving document that needs to be re-interpreted with the times....but even then I think you lose.
Until the woman goes through the proper process, she is a citizen of Mexico whether she likes it or not. And while I'm no expert on Mexican citizenship laws, it seems logical that because she is a Mexican citizen, her child is a Mexican citizen at birth as well, regardless of whether it was born in Mexico or another country.
Automatic and semi-automatic firearms didn't exist in the 18th century and so there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that specifically addressed their legality. So we have had to revisit the 2nd Amendment (multiple times) to find a reasonable compromise that protects gun rights while keeping deadly weapons somewhat under control.
Illegal immigration wasn't a problem in 1866, but now it is. So why doesn't it seem reasonable to take another look at the 14th Amendment and try to figure out if it makes sense to reward foreign citizens for illegally entering this country?
So . . . you're saying Mexican law (as you imagine it) trumps our law?
Why even have a law in that case? And what could they have possibly meant by that provision of the law if we accept your interpretation. EVERY child born of a citizen of another nation would be "subject to a foreign power" and would therefore fail the test if your interpretation is right.
I guess I can't stop you if you're determined to believe in a fairy tale. The Banghazi attackers were not motivated by the YouTube video. They were motivated to avenge the deaths of top-level al-Qaeda operatives in drone attacks. This was a well-planned and coordinated multi-wave attack by militants with semi-automatic rifles and grenade launchers. The only connection to the YouTube video demonstrations was that the demonstrations also happened to occur on the anniversary of 9/11.
The White House knew that, but they didn't want us to know it because it didn't fit their campaign narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run.
I'm saying that the mother is a subject of Mexico. And, as such, it stands to reason that her child also is a subject of Mexico. And I'm saying that maybe we should reconsider whether it makes sense to reward her for illegally entering this country.
Let me take this one at a time:
Auto/Semi-Auto: I agree, they were not contemplated at the time...which is why they are covered. They are clearly "Arms" protected by the 2A. Especially if you follow original intent. If someone wants to limit what "arms" are they can do so with an Amendment. Or, we don't need to seek a compromise and simply allow people to bear arms, which I support.
Immigration. The question isn't whether it was a "problem", it was unfettered at the time, it was completely allowed. Therefore going by original intent, which you seemed to be doing, would say that all immigrants, legal or illegal, would have birthright citizenship for their kids....because there was no "illegal" to contemplate.
I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying. Go ahead and revisit it legislatively, amend the Constitution. Having the SCOTUS review it will result, imo, in the same thing we have now: birthright citizenship. The jurisdiction clause, as I've discussed numerous times now, applies to those who are in the US specifically under and within someone else's jurisdiction, such as a dignitary, a consul, a diplomat, an ambassador. People who come to the country LEAVING their old country, imo, are subject to the US' jurisdiction, and most certainly their children are. Now the parents get deported because the 14th does not protect them, while statutes remove them.
You seem to believe the Constitution is an ever-evolving document. I have no problem with that viewpoint, but I don't think that birthright citizenship has evolved, nor should it be an issue for the SCOTUS. Think about how that would play out, your (and others') argument is that illegal immigration is so out of control that birthright citizenship should not apply....which is asking the SCOTUS to determine that, even though there was good reason for it in 1868, there isn't a good reason for it now, which has little to do with interpreting the Constitution, and everything to do with legislation.
Now, let me delve deeper in to original intent/evolving Constitution. The original intent, imo, is quite clear: because there was no illegal immigration, there could be no clause for exclusion on that basis. But even following the evolving line, the Jurisdiction clause can't really be said to evolve, but jurisdiction has never been lacking, even now with immigration laws. Comparing to the 2A, the term "Arms" can be discussed ad naseum, what it meant then vs. what it means today, as could the "Necessary to the security" clause, which can be argued in multiple ways because they are terms not defined. Jurisdiction is a pretty basic term and hasn't changed over time. The US has jurisdiction over even the most illegal of aliens, seen by our arresting and imprisoning them, as well as many other things including enforcing child support and childcare laws. We still have jurisdiction over them. We do not have jurisdiction over diplomats...because they are here "within" another nation, on their behalf.
So even if you try to apply the 14th to today, it fails, because its language is clear...no matter how some want to skew "jurisdiction" to fit their purpose.
You keep repeating this, but don't actually say why.
Why does it stand to reason that a child who has never been in another country is a "subject" of another country? This is what I've been asking of you, stop with your conclusion, start with your explanation. Show your work.
It's disconcerting that I constantly have to explain shit like this to you.
The mother is a Mexican citizen. Her child, even if born abroad, is a Mexican citizen by the principle of jus sanguinis. It doesn't matter if the child hasn't been to Mexico yet. He/she is a Mexican citizen by blood.
Yes. They are Mexican citizens by blood and U.S. citizens by soil. My point is that perhaps they shouldn't automatically be U.S. citizens if the mother is a citizen of another country and is here illegally.
The list is too long to lay down, but take my word for it. None of the candidates from either party meet the criteria. They should scrap the election until America can find someone better to be our next President.
Deal with it.
Well our laws don't work that way so why does it seem logical that Mexican laws would?
And, more importantly, why do we give a flying F about Mexican laws? In our laws we are saying what WE will do. We are in no way bound by anything Mexico does or says when it comes to deciding the citizenship rules for OUR country - nor should we be.
There's a list?
IIRC, the constitution only mentions age, citizenship, and having lived in the US long enough.
What else is on the list and where can we find it?
OK, OK, you didn't really mean there's an official list. But what criteria do you have in mind?
Um, actually our laws do work that way. Most countries, including the United States, recognize the principle of jus sanguinis. If an American woman gives birth outside the United States, that baby is an American citizen by blood.
Same thing with Mexico. It's not just how I imagine it. I looked it up and everything.
Actually some want to be living off others - Seattle is a good example. They passed the 15.00 min wage, those on welfare stated "don't give me hours that will take away my welfare monies". Yeah, it may not be as prevalent in DSM, then again Iowa is a bit different in terms of our workers and the workers mentality.
Come on, TJ, the law we are talking about doesn't work that way. That's why we're talking about it.
BTW, plenty of nations allow dual citizenship - sometimes because they allow for babies born there to be citizens and also allow babies of their citizens to be citizens. So the baby of a citizen born somewhere else can be a citizen of both nations.
Were Rubio's parent's citizens when he was born? If not, I guess he's not either, unless naturalized. But if naturalized, is he eligible to be prez?
.
.
.
Apparently they were not.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...ship-now-he-s-open-to-restricting-it-20150818
.
.
.
Apparently they were not.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...ship-now-he-s-open-to-restricting-it-20150818
So that's 2 GOP candidates (Rubio and Cruz) who should not be running if the GOP applied the same rules to themselves that they want to apply to others.
What law are you talking about? Because I was talking about the fact that a baby born in the United States to a Mexican woman is entitled to Mexican citizenship by blood. Someone argued that a baby can't be a Mexican citizen if it has never even been to Mexico, so I explained that it most definitely can.
Yes, I'm well aware that some babies are born with dual citizenship. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. My point is that we should re-examine whether we should be granting dual citizenship to babies born to mothers who are here illegally. If a foreign woman gives birth while in the United States legally then absolutely the baby should be entitled to U.S. citizenship. But I don't think that policy should apply if the woman came here illegally.
How many of the nations that allow dual citizenship grant citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants? It's probably a fairly short list.
Okay alright, I'll name a few....
- That person can't be any of the current candidates....
- That person can't be you.
And that's just two of them.
Similar threads
