As we have discussed over the last couple days, President Donald Trump’s pledge to end birthright citizenship by an executive order has caused a firestorm. Where President Donald Trump is wrong is to claim the ability to end birthright citizenship for undocumented individuals through an executive order. The column below in USA Today explains that Trump would lose under two out of three interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Even if he prevailed on the one possible interpretation, I remain opposed (as I was under President Barack Obama) to unilaterally ordered such major changes through executive orders. Putting aside the means, I have been surprised by the many statements that the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal or undocumented is absolutely unclear and unassailable. In fact, while birthright citizenship is unassailable, the scope of the amendment has long been questioned including both Democratic and Republican members long proposing legislative limits (including former Sen. Harry Reid). An argument can be made for a more limited meaning, even though the plain meaning of the Amendment (and the interpretation that I would tend to favor) would militate toward the broader meaning. Regardless, a clear and final ruling on the 14th Amendment should be welcomed — confirming whether this is a matter for legislative reform or constitutional amendment. Trump should drop the executive order approach so the focus of any judicial review is on the meaning of the 14th amendment and not the means used by the President.
Here is the column:
President Donald Trump’s announced intention to end “birthright citizenship” by executive order has pushed an already heated debate over immigration into a virtual inferno of election year politicking. At base, however, it is one of the longest standing debates in our Constitution: whether the 14th Amendment affords citizenship to anyone born on our soil regardless of their status. While neither side seems willing to admit it, there are good-faith arguments on both sides, and frankly this order could force the federal court to come to a final and clear resolution of the question.
The debate comes down to six poorly chosen words: “and subject to the jurisdictionthereof.” Those words come in the middle of an otherwise clear statement that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.” The words have long been argued by some to mean that the amendment applies only to citizens and legal residents who are subject fully to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Three ways to interpret those six words
The primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that freed slaves after the Civil War would have full rights of citizenship in every state. When the amendment was drafted, various senators indicated that they intended the amendment to have the more narrow meaning.
One of the key drafters, Sen. Lyman Trumbull stated during the debates that the language confined citizenship to those “born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and excluded foreign citizens. Later, in a federal statute, Rep. John Bingham said the law embodied “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”
Others have argued that the clause refers to people simply being subject to federal laws, not a matter of allegiance to that authority. “Jurisdiction” refers to falling under the authority of a legal system.
There is a middle position that is also possible: The reference to “jurisdiction” left the decision of the meaning of citizenship up to Congress to decide as a policy question.
The Supreme Court offered only limited light on the subject with its decision inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 when it ruled 6–2 that “the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory … including all children here born of resident aliens.”
That decision is often cited as establishing birthright citizens for everyone, but those parents were legal residents. Most advocates of the narrower meaning of the 14th Amendment agree that both citizens and legal residents are deemed “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
The United States is actually in the minority of nations that recognize birthright citizenship. The rule of jus soli (or right of the soil) is only recognized in an unrestricted sense in roughly 30 countries.
Our European allies and most countries in the world follow the rule of jus sanguinis (or right of blood) and refuse to recognize citizenship solely because someone was on their territory at birth.
The politics on this issue have ebbed and flowed in America. An estimated 7.5 percent of all births here (about 300,000 births a year) are to illegal or undocumented immigrants. Democrats joined Republicans in the past in seeking to bar unrestricted birthright citizenship. Indeed, in 1993, former Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced legislation to limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Two of three interpretations leave Trump out
President Trump clearly believes that this is good politics, but the question is whether there is good law to go with it. Based on the text and history of the 14th Amendment, the narrower interpretation has a solid but not definitive case.
The use of an executive order rather than legislation or a constitutional amendment adds another controversial element to the combustive mix. Regardless of the interpretation, the best approach would be to address this through congressional action. This is a matter of tremendous importance for our country that should be addressed by all of the representatives of the people, not a single unilateral act of a president.
Nonetheless, the benefit of the executive order is that it could force the courts to resolve this question with clarity and finality. Under two of the three interpretations, Trump cannot do what he described. If the Constitution adopts the unrestricted approach or leaves the matter to Congress, a unilateral action would not suffice to bar birthright citizenship. It is only if the Supreme Court adopts the narrow interpretation that such an order might succeed.
In other words, the question of means will ultimately depend on the meaning of the amendment. All roads lead to the same six words.
The meaning of those words might be answered by the newly reconstructed court with two Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The textual and historical arguments supporting the narrower interpretation are likely to appeal to those justices and could leave Chief Justice John Roberts as the swing vote.
In the end, a final decision on the meaning of these six words should be welcomed. The 14th Amendment was a defining moment for our country when we made the critical turn away from the scourge of slavery. It defines meaning of a citizen — the entry point for full rights and responsibilities under our Constitution.
This year is the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That is 150 years too long to resolve the question of what constitutes a citizen of the United States.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
” but the question is whether there is good law to go with it.”
Is it good law to promote lawlessness by providing hope of eventual citizenship for the parents? Is it good law to have an army of 7,000 +/- heading towards our borders where they intend to break our laws an enter illegally? Is it good law to have sanctuary cities? Is it good law to catch and release where American citizens have been killed by illegal aliens that have been arrested before.
We don’t live under perfect law and the President’s first obligation is to the present citizens of the United States not to illegal aliens. His executive order will immediately be challenged in court even though he has the power and the right to protect the borders. Is that “good”?
There is no good solution here since gamesmanship seems to be setting policy rather than sound laws. It seems an executive order might be the way to start the ball rolling where instead of protecting illegal aliens we start protecting American citizens.
.
it’s very simple. the left has been assigned the task of browbeating patriotic americans until they accept the globalist premise that people can live anywhere
normal people don’t like this, since they know it mostly just benefits third world people, government employees, and the legions of thought police employed by global capitalists like Geo Soros that want this kind of “free movement of labor” regime
which is mostly now just prevented by “outdated” laws defining borders and citizenship
so they harp on “human rights” incessantly, the UN, NGOs say this and that, etc
it is a huge racket and it’s all at the net-expense of average normal citizens in flyover… which now pretty much everybody living or not employed inside a major metro area of 1 Mill plus… the major support for globalism and human rights and open borders comes from within the major metro areas and pretty much mostly just from there
How’s the weather there on Pluto?
this is to “I never met a wackjob lie that I didn’t buy outright” allen / allan
Hmmm. So here is a hypothetical. Mexico passes a law criminalizing criticism of its government by any of its citizens, anywhere, anytime. Mexico has an extradition treaty with the United States.
Oswald, an American who lives in Kansas, says while there, that Mexico’s government is crooked, and in the control of the drug cartels. Mexico tries him, in absentia, and demands that he be extradited to Mexico. The United States refuses, saying that Oswald is an American citizen, and therefore, not subject to Mexican law, when not in Mexico.
Pedro, a Mexican, who is on vacation in San Antonio, says that Mexico’s government is crooked, and in the control of the drug cartels. Mexico tries him, in absentia, and demands that he be extradited to Mexico.
Now, under whose jurisdiction is Pedro? Is Pedro subject to Mexican laws while in thew United States? Surely Pedro must obey our traffic laws, but if he is also subject to Mexico’s laws, then I submit that he is not fully under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
if they sneak in that is to say they are illegals, a/k/a EWI s , entered without inspection, then they are not under US jurisdiction. that seems pretty simple and obvious.
asylees travellers with valid visas and registered refugees maybe are are under the jurisdiction however. I don’t think I like that and i want to end birthright citizenship, but i think the text supports this interpretation
It’s both entertaining and a bit depressing to read people tripping over themselves in their attempts to show that people other than citizens are somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Have any of these people considered, even for a moment, what that would actually mean?
For one thing, a non-citizen could not face trial in any federal or state court if accused, for example, of a D.U.I., or assaulting an F.B.I. agent, or even a parking ticket It would be a de facto grant of diplomatic immunity to everyone other than U.S. citizens. But it would also mean that an additional element of proof would be necessary in every criminal trial as the prosecution would need to establish that the defendant is a citizen in order for the court to even have jurisdiction to hear the case. It might also mean that law enforcement officers would need probable cause to believe that someone is a citizen in order to effect a legal arrest.
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. Do we really want every non-citizen to be as above our laws as a Saudi Arabian diplomat?
What they’ve said repeatedly is not that difficult to understand, which is that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ does not refer to people who owe allegiance to foreign princes.
The 14th Amendment refers to those “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States].” I’ve checked a number of times and there is no reference whatsoever to “allegiance” let alone “foreign princes.” Perhaps you might specify which section of the amendment you are referring to.
But, regardless, do we really want people to be able avoid United States’ jurisdiction simply by claiming an allegiance to Prince Charming? I guess that’s one way to empty the prisons, but is it really the best way?
Have you checked the congressional debates or the case law?
You mistake me. Forget any disagreements regarding whether anyone but citizens are subject to US jurisdiction. I’m saying to just assume you win. No one but citizens are subject to US jurisdiction. Congratulations.
But do you really want to win?
Because the day after you do, when a non-citizen guns down a dozen police officers, two dozen nuns, and a hundred pregnant women, the state and federal courts would be helpless to charge, try, convict, or punish the mass murderer because he is not subject to their jurisdiction.
Careful what you wish for.
More outstanding work, fiver.
There are many other consequences currently being ignored in this debate. If the native-born children of undocumented immigrants are not US citizens because their parents entered the country illegally, or overstayed their visas, then what, exactly, will the Trump administration do with those native-born children of undocumented immigrants? Deport them along with the parents? Place them and their parents in family detention on military bases? Place the children with family services or foster care without their parents? Place the children with other family members who are either citizens or permanent resident aliens?
It seems to me that each and every last one of those options facing the Trump administration necessarily entails the submission of the native-born children of undocumented immigrants to the jurisdiction of The United States and that that, in turn, presupposes that the native-born children of undocumented immigrants would have already been subject to the jurisdiction of The United States before they would have been made to submit to that jurisdiction.
P. S. There’s something about the “allegiance to a foreign prince” smear that smacks of the anti-Papist nincompoopery unleashed against The Irish, The Italians, The Poles, The Czechs and a whole bunch of other Catholic nationalities. Coincidence?
Thank you. While noting some of the unintended consequences of the “non-citizens are not subject to jurisdiction” argument is useful, for me at least, it was meant more to point out the absurdity of the stance rather than from any genuine worry.
This argument is going nowhere beyond the ignorant and those who seek to manipulate the ignorant.
Cheers
I think you’re probably right, fiver. It’s just another one of Trump’s campaign stunts. And, even if Trump signs the threatened EO after the election, it will almost certainly be struck down by SCOTUS. And yet . . . worry, worry, worry, worry, worry.
Cheers
@Fiver: “For one thing, a non-citizen could not face trial in any federal or state court if accused, for example, of a D.U.I., or assaulting an F.B.I. agent, or even a parking ticket It would be a de facto grant of diplomatic immunity to everyone other than U.S. citizens” Now just what makes you think that? There are plenty of cases where non-citizens have been tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
Indeed, there are. Many. That’s because non-citizens generally are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Saudi Arabian diplomats? Not so much.
Anyone in the US is subject to US law but that does not mean they are citizens. US citizens in France are subject to French law but they are not citizens of France.
From the Congressional Globe during discussion of the Amendment: “This amendment … . 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…
Generally, that is correct. Simply being in the United States is sufficient to subject someone to US jurisdiction. There are some limited exceptions (e.g. foreign diplomats, invading armies, certain native tribes).
Also correct. The Constitution requires not only that someone be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but also that the person be born or naturalized in the United States.
From the 14th Amendment that was actually passed by Congress and ratified by the States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
Fiver, You repeat yourself without taking into account the meaning of the words at the time the Amendment was passed. We all know that there are arguments and counter arguments but you haven’t added anything to the discussion with this latest posting. I copied from the Congressional Globe to add some of that insight but you disregard it relying soley on an abiguity without context.
The difficulty is that there simply is no ambiguity in the language of the amendment itself. Some parts of the Constitution are ambiguous; some are debatable; this is neither. Statutory interpretation requires a textual ambiguity before resorting to legislative history to resolve that ambiguity. One Senator’s opinion cannot create an ambiguity when that ambiguity is not found in the actual language of the amendment.
I explained myself in answer to your comment because you didn’t appear to understand the basics of the 14th Amendment and, unfortunately, because I believed your misunderstanding to be in good faith.
It was also a reply to a point which was not raised at all in my original comment (which assumed that non-citizens are not subject to US jurisdiction). So, congratulations, let’s assume you win. Non-citizens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Please explain why you are so anxious to strip the United States of its jurisdiction over non-citizens? Why should the United States not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on their soil in violation of their laws? Have you thought even for a moment of the ramifications?
“The difficulty is that there simply is no ambiguity in the language of the amendment itself.”
Then, Fiver, you miss the entire point of the discussion. You also miss the difference between citizenship and the law, U.S. law in particular which effects what happens on U.S. territory. Citizen or not everyone must obey the law or be subject to its penalties. The word jurisdiction among other things means authority and jurisdiction need not be comprehensive. That is why federal crimes appear in federal court and state crimes appear in state court. That sort of informs you that the word jurisdiction doesn’t carry the meaning you think it does. Illegal aliens do not have the rights of a U.S. citizen and why would we want them to.
The issue is whether the native-born children of undocumented immigrants are citizens of The United States and of the State in which they reside by dint of having been born on U. S. soil.
The issue is NOT whether the parents of those native-born children have “submitted” to the jurisdiction of The United States or of the State in which those parents reside.
The father of Elian Gonzalez never “submitted” to the jurisdiction of The United States nor the State of Florida; instead, he petitioned the State of Florida for custody of his son. AFAIK, the father of Elian Gonzalez had not broken any of the laws of Florida nor of The United States. But, IIRC (?), Elian Gonzalez, himself, was born in Cuba and brought to America by his mother who had been granted permanent resident alien status as an asylum seeker.
What’s the point? The point is that the jurisdiction of The State of Florida and of The United States was extended to the petition for child custody filed by the father of Elian Gonzalez. Also: fiver’s right. Be careful what you wish for, Allan.
The issue is whether America is at liberty to defend its own borders and sovereignty determining who shall or who shall not be a citizen. The issue is also how America uses its resources on behalf of its citizens and whether or not it is willing to share those resources with foreign nationals. This is not an anti immigrant statement rather a statement stating that is the choice of America not the choice of those that wish to illegally cross our borders.
Anytime you wish Diane you can take a portion of your livelihood and give it to those that need it. You can open your home and let other families live there with you. That is your choice.
From the Wikipedia entry on Elian Gonzalez:
González’s mother, Elizabeth Brotons Rodríguez, drowned in November 1999 while attempting to leave Cuba with González and her boyfriend to get to the United States. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initially placed González with paternal relatives in Miami, who sought to keep him in the United States against his father’s demands that González be returned to Cuba.
A United States district court ruling from the Southern District of Florida that only González’s father, and not his extended relatives, could petition for asylum on the boy’s behalf was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, by order of U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, federal agents took González from the paternal relatives and returned him to his father in Cuba in June 2000.
Your point?
My points are A) I had to correct the factual error I committed in my previous comment (Thanks for reading); B) Elizabeth Brotons Rodriguez had to flee Cuba in order to apply for asylum so that she and Elian could “submit” to the jurisdiction of The United States in order in become “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
If you’re going to argue with fiver over the meaning of the term “jurisdiction,” then you really ought not to dismiss as though it were pointless an argument about the meaning of the term “jurisdiction”–andnd especially not so when Trump is asserting that immigrants have to apply for visas or for asylum status in order to become “subject to the jurisdiction of The United States”.
“My points are A) I had to correct the factual error I committed in my previous comment”
Take note how you didn’t outright say you made a factual error.
“then you really ought not to dismiss as though it were pointless an argument about the meaning of the term “jurisdiction””
Diane, you ought to learn how to read. I’m the one who said jurisdiction had a wider meaning than what fiver believed.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Rodriquez applies for asylum and is only completely under the jurisdiction of the US when she is a citizen. Until then she can vote in Cuba, but not in the US.
Elizabeth Brotons Rodriguez was the mother of Elian Gonzalez. Ms. Rodriguez drowned along with eleven other people in 1999 when the badly overloaded boat they were all riding in to cross The Florida Strait from Cuba to The U.S. capsized.
More detail on the Appellate Court ruling in the Elian Gonzalez case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/02/us/elian-gonzalez-case-overview-court-upholds-ins-s-rejection-asylum-effort-for.html
So, because there was no U. S. Consulate in Cuba in 1999, the mother of Elian Gonzalez could not apply for asylum until she reached the United States. Tragically she was one of dozen people who drowned when their boat capsized. The survivors, including Elian, were rescued and brought to The U. S.. The INS placed Elian in the custody of his father’s relatives in Miami who had previously been granted asylum. One U. S. Court decided that Elian was too young to apply for asylum. And another U. S. Court decided that the INS was within the law to rule that Elian’s father was the only relative who could apply for asylum on Elian’s behalf. Elian’s father petitioned the courts for Elian to be returned to Cuba. instead.
So what does the Elian Gonzalez case have to do with birthright citizenship? Nothing. Unless someone, say, Trump, for instance, thinks that Elian Gonzalez was somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of The United States because there was no U. S. Consulate in Cuba at the time that his mother fled the land of their birth seeking asylum in The United States.
P. S. My apologies for garbling the facts about Elian’s mother.
“So what does the Elian Gonzalez case have to do with birthright citizenship? Nothing.”
That is right nothing, like all too many things you say.
The Elian Gonzalez case goes to the point of what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of The United States. What it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of The United States goes to the point of birthright citizenship provided for in The Fourteenth Amendment. The very concept of jurisdiction must necessarily reach well beyond the particularities of any given case presenting questions of fact or equity under The U. S. Constitution. Thus, the particular facts that Elian Gonzalez was born in Cuba and that his father was the only surviving relative who could apply for asylum on Elian’s behalf cannot entail that Elian’s case had nothing to do with being “subject to the jurisdiction of The United States”.
The conclusions you draw from Gonzoloz’s case are arguments not conclusions and certainly not facts. You have no idea of how to assess these types of problems. Your brain isn’t wired to do so.
That is simply not true in every instance. The remaining significant exception is that of foreign diplomats and heads of state. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction by treaty. They don’t have to pay parking tickets, for example, and cannot be prosecuted for crimes. The concept is known as diplomatic immunity. Their children born on U.S. soil are not citizens of the U.S. because they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
While you are correct in your understanding that, in the vast majority of cases, those on U.S. soil must obey the law or suffer its consequences, the significance of your own observation has somehow escaped you. People on U.S. soil must obey the law or suffer its consequences precisely because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that they are on U.S. soil.
But, again, let’s just say you win. Let’s imagine that non-citizens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Do you understand that that would result in a blanket immunity for all non-citizens? If someone is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction that means that a court is powerless to issue a warrant for that person’s arrest, powerless to accept formal charges against that person, powerless to try that person, powerless to convict that person, and powerless to punish that person. Jurisdiction is a threshold matter, and, without it, the court is helpless.
You are unintentionally arguing that all non-citizens should be give the same diplomatic immunity as a Saudi Prince.
“That is simply not true in every instance.”
We are not dealing with each and every individual. We are dealing with a large group estimated at ~ 7,000 +/- that on video has demonstrated violent actions, actions against legal authorities and the police, carrying foreign flags, making anti-American statements where based on experience there are terrorists, M-13 and drug cartels. For the most part they wish assylum yet act in a fashion which is exactly the opposite of how they should be acting. Most are economic refugees and any of them that claim authentic refugee status can stay in Mexico according to international law. We are not their border state so we have no obligation.
The few that are true assylum seekers can file as individuals for assylum in the US. Others can apply for permits to enter the US like all other people that wish entrance and citizenship.
Everything else you talk about is an excuse to violate the lifestyles of American citizens and naturalized citizens that obtained citizenship legally and non violently. We need a wall and we need to get bonds from people that have visa’s in case they overstay their welcome. I suggest we start a new industry of bondsmen who can take part of the risk and see to it that all illegal aliens end up in court or out of the country.
I am one of those who is pro immigration that is legal. I so happen to like those from our southern border, and all over the world as long as they can add rather than subtract from our society. If you wish to be one of those that don’t care about American citizens that is your problem. You can play games with words all you want but if you care about America you will support the wall and immigration policy that benefits America and the American people rather than cartel’s, M-13, people looking for entitlement benefits, etc. Almost all Americans are of that mindset though you might be one of the exceptions.
By “everything else [I] talk about” did you mean, perhaps, the Constitution of the United States? I should note that you’ve deviated far afield from the discussion of the 14th Amendment and your notion that non-citizens should be viewed as not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. That’s quite understandable given the ramifications of that argument.
You’ve noted your personal dislike for the birthright citizenship conveyed by the 14th Amendment, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional interpretation. It’s just your personal “feelings.” Fine. Anyone is allowed their feelings. But if you want to impose your feelings on others in this instance, then you need to change the Constitution. Good luck with that.
I thought I didn’t have to get any more basic, but naturalized citizens are American citizens. Or maybe you were just talking about those born in the US who obtained citizenship by the birthright conferred by the 14th Amendment. In any case, just how violent do you believe infants newly born on U.S. soil can be? I admit that level of fear is simply incomprehensible to me, but it does help explain the cowering need for a wall to hide behind. In the minds of some, even the most sensitive snowflakes’ feelings must always be sheltered.
Go ahead. Build your wall. Cower away. But maybe you should pay for that yourself instead of forcing the free and the brave to subsidize your irrational fear.
“By “everything else [I] talk about” did you mean, perhaps, the Constitution of the United States?”
You mean your errant understanding. Put the Constitution aside. That will be decided by the Supreme Court.
I believe the 14th Amendment was written specifically to solve specific ills
America was facing and wasn’t meant to include birthright citizenship. I rely on the broader meaning of jurisdiction, the discussions in Congress and the rest of its history. I see no reason to let external forces dictate who becomes an American. I see no reason to permit criminality to dictate the right of American citizenship.
I understand your position full well. You will not stand up for working class Americans whose wages are adversely affected by illegal aliens enterring the nation.You will not stand up for the children of these Americans whose schooling is negatively impacted by illegal aliens enterring the nation. You will not stand up for the elderly whose social security and healthcare funding will be negatively affected by illegal aliens enterring the country.
When it comes to the protection of hard working American citizens you are out to lunch supporting people from all over the world including those that wish to do harm to American interests and the People of America. To you M-13 is fine and so are revolutionaries and people that just wish to utilize our resources. You are no friend to America or American citizens. I wonder who you hold your allegience to.
As far as walls are concerned, take note of our elite that house themselves behind walls with armed guards at their sides. Take note of all the walls built thoughout the world to provide safety for their citizens. Take note of the Great Wall of China, the wall Israel put in place, Hadrians wall, the present walls of eastern Europe that have protected them from an immigration crisis Germany is now learning was a great mistake.
“I thought I didn’t have to get any more basic”
You might think you need to get a bit more basic but you don’t have to. When things go over your head just let me know. From what you say it is easy to understand why frequently you end up in dead ends. Comments such as this ” In any case, just how violent do you believe infants newly born on U.S. soil can be?” demonstrate intellectual immaturity something that is quite prominent among the young or the poorly educated adult talking above his own level.
“Go ahead. Build your wall. Cower away. But maybe you should pay for that yourself instead of forcing the free and the brave to subsidize your irrational fear.”
No need we can have you pay for the infant and bring him up to maturity. After all, you don’t want to force the free and the brave to subisidize your blunders.
DHS: Caravan Migrants from 20 Countries, Include 270 Convicted Criminals
-Washington Examiner
The Department of Homeland Security reported this week that people from at least 20 countries—not just citizens of Guatemala and Honduras—make up the two caravan groups approaching the U.S. border, Anna Giaritelli writes. “Over 270 individuals along the caravan route have criminal histories, including known gang membership. Those include a number of violent criminals,” a DHS statement read.
Oh, noes! Whatever will we do?! Will someone please build a wall?! Just the thought of desperate immigrants bringing their children and everything they own that they can carry is just too terrifying! Some of them have strollers!
And I thought it was finally safe to come out from under the bed now that those ghouls and demons and witches are gone. But, noes! Halloween was on a Wednesday this year! They might be back tonight! Can someone please build a wall soon?! Pleeaase?!!!
They aren’t ‘desperate immigrants’. They are props in political theatre. Find out who is paying for the buses, for starters.
DSS, I think what you said went over Fiver’s head and you didn’t throw the ball very high..
They’re definitely being used as props in political theater. But I really doubt that Trump is paying for the buses.
The vast majority in the caravan are men who have left their women and children home alone leaving them without protection. Oh my, you see yourself in those men who run away from danger leaving their wives and children to fend for themselves. How brave you must be. Imagine running away without your women to protect you.
I commend you for attempting to coach up one of the wackjob residents of bedlam. Unfortunately, these are people who claim to be unable to recognize any shortcomings in the buffoonish day glo bozo president. Since any person making such a claim is clearly not a person who considers “facts” the way that rational, reasonable persons do, any conversation soon turns comical. In dealing with this ilk, they will use breitbart, infowars, and Pravda Faux News bleatings as if such were facts. You are better off just poking at these types through their little self-imposed cages of ignorance.
to fiver
Professor, there is only one meaning to the first sentence of the 14th amendment: it specifically overruled the Dred Scott case:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/anchor-babies-dred-scott-and-the-14th-amendment/
There may be some interpretive difficulties with the language, but we’ll never solve that problem if we don’t understand what that sentence is for. Most likely, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, in context, means that national citizenship determination trumps (sorry) state citizenship determination, so that a state cannot take citizenship away from any of its residents. This was probably a concern in the wake of the civil war, that a state could return its freed slaves to bondage by stripping them of “citizenship”
Again, you have to read Dred Scott, which did the reverse: it held that regardless of whether Illinois deemed Dred Scott to be a citizen of that state – which was entirely up to that “sovereign” state, of course – he was not a citizen of the United States for purposes of being able to sue in a federal court under diversity jurisdiction. I remember reading somewhere when I was studying this issue that this was one of the weird parts of the Dred Scott holding, this “bifurcated” citizenship idea.
So in order to dispose of that problem the 14th amendment made “citizenship” a national determination that states were bound to respect, instead of being determined separately and independently by the state(s), on the one hand, and the nation as a whole on the other.
There’s really no question about what the first sentence of the 14th amendment means if you read the Dred Scott case. People should do that.
Clearly to objective analysis, the 14th says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
What you suggest is chaos. That dudn’t make any sense. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous for “united” states. United states could not function if crossing the border meant absolutely anything could happen to those citizens and their property during a “visit” and that citizens would have to apprise themselves of and respect entirely different sets of laws on every outing. United states must mean that citizens can live without constant fear of another state’s unusual and non-traditional laws. A citizen of one state visiting another must have “diplomatic immunity” and confidence of safe passage home including his property. States must not entrap citizens of other states. The honorable thing to do would be to post signs regarding potential jeopardy and confiscation. “United” states to be sure. Perhaps “warring” states is what you have in mind.
I hear there’s an issue of what the 14th covers & that this Indian Citizenship Act plays a large roll in defining the 14th.
Like why at the time the 14th was put into place why would the Native Americans not wish to be included in it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act
And illegal alien Mexicans were not part of that calculus.
Illegal alien Mexicans and the fetuses inside them are under the jurisdiction of Mexico.
The only jurisdiction the U.S. has over illegal alien Mexicans is deportation.
Did you cite precedent? Obamacare was irrefutably illegal and unconstitutional and it was supported by a corrupt, subjective and biased Chief Justice. Did Roberts set a precedent or commit an egregious crime of high office? I’ll see your “precedent” and raise you a Constitution and Bill of Rights.
_____________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Why are we allowing non-citizens, to come here (LEGALLY AND ILLEGALLY) with the intent purpose of de-frauding our system either through illegal crossings or birth tourism. I lived abroad for 4 years. I NEVER thought that because I was a guest in the country (LEGALLY OF COURSE) that my chlldren or any children I had were citizens of the my guest country!
We don’t need any verbal jujitsu or courtroom antics to realize this is just a vehicle to de-fraud the American citizenry. This amendment was written for the clear situation of protecting slaves who had been forcibly brought here to fully participate as citizens. It was not meant to open our doors to a massive fraud now easily perpetrated against us. Where is the common sense??? It’s getting scary and Orwellian.
The authors and ratifiers of The Fourteenth Amendment had it within their power to specify their supposedly original intent to limit the scope of The Fourteenth Amendment to recently freed slaves and the children of recently freed slave thereafter. Surely there is a reason other than “oopsie daisy” that the authors and ratifiers of The Fourteenth Amendment chose not to exercise their power to limit the scope of The Fourteenth Amendment to recently freed slaves and their descendants everafter.
I swear: It’s almost as though conservative Republicans have no procedural discipline–just a series of improvisations aimed at obtaining their desires by means of judicial ukases for the sake of gratifying their anodyne feelz. Pshaw!
Surely there is a reason other than “oopsie daisy” that the authors and ratifiers of The Fourteenth Amendment chose not to exercise their power to limit the scope of The Fourteenth Amendment to recently freed slaves and their descendants everafter.
The reason would be the authors didn’t need further clarity. No one in their right mind would believe supposedly educated and patriotic citizens of this country would desire to manipulate the text in such a way that would award our precious right of citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens. Then again, the authors didn’t expect an entire generation of Americans would be so ignorant of politics that they would support a party that needed to pander to foreigners for votes.
The Page Act of 1875, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, The Immigration Act of 1917, The Immigration Act of 1924, The McCarren-Walter Act of 1952 and a few others besides each failed to specify that the native-born children of undocumented immigrants were not citizens of The United States simply by cause of having been born on U. S. soil. I suppose that you may be right, Chief, that all of those legislators were in their right mind at the time that they failed to exclude the native-born children of undocumented immigrants from citizenship in The United States. After all, it was not until The Immigration Act of 1924 that the “land” borders of The United States became subject to so trifling a thing as national bureaucratic administration in the first place. Prior to that the U. S. “land” borders actually were open. Mind you, persons who entered the U. S. on ships calling at U. S. ports had been subject to national bureaucratic administration dating back to 1882, IIRC (?). Maybe those legislators were not in their right mind. That sounds a bit like “oopsie-daisy” to me.
So your suggestion is that the authors had perspective that Russian, Mid Eastern and Asian pregnant women would fly over and stay in area hospitals to give birth? I think they were clear, not only in the wording but in the arguments and papers from the time …. If you are not under the jurisdiction (BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN AND ARE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY) then you are not included in the amendment. It just takes reading it and using common sense. Just logic and common sense.
OFCOLA. You keep changing the issue to the parents, alone, rather than the native-born children of those parents. You procedure is neither logic nor common sense. Instead, your procedure is just another a game of Three-Card Monte in which The Painted Lady of native-born citizenship is perpetually palmed up your sleeve.
Nice try, but I call cheater’s proof on you.
I’ll repeat. From the Congressional Globe on the discussion of the Amendment:
“This amendment … . 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…”
Are we seriously supposed to believe that none of the people who wrote or who ratified The Fourteenth Amendment entered The United States through the birth canal of an immigrant mother who had entered The United States without first applying for a visa or without first applying for asylum status?
In what year did The U.S. start requiring visas for immigrants entering The U.S.? In what year did The U.S. establish resettlement for refugees and asylum seekers? In what year did The U.S. establish official points of entry at U.S. ports to receive immigrants? In what year did The U.S. establish official points of entry along the “land borders” of The U.S. to receive immigrants?
How many of the people who wrote and ratified The Fourteenth Amendment were the native-born children of “undocumented immigrants”????? Shall we presume that none of them were the native-born children of “illegal immigrants”????? Well, shall we presume thus and so?????
“Are we seriously supposed to believe that none of the people who wrote or who ratified The Fourteenth Amendment entered The United States through the birth canal of an immigrant mother who had entered The United States without first applying for a visa or without first applying for asylum status?”
The remark is too dumb to respond to.
You are pulling in random parts of arguments much like a demented individual would do.
I can’t force you to follow the thread Allan. Until you follow the thread on your own recognizance, everything will appear to be random and demented to you. Meanwhile, everyone else who actually follows the thread will learn just how demented Allan is.
Diane, like Anonymous, you seem dependent on copying what another said earlier. You are not original except for your fictional accounts that have no logical premise.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – well after the passage of the 14th Amendment. We were not a tourist destination, either.
your English is so clever that it’s unintelligible. keep up the good work!
Diane perceives herself as Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
The character is said to be slang for a short and clumsy person. Clumsy with words?
The above from the commenter who seeks to brand the Jewish-American members of The Democratic Party as Nazis, or was it Stalinists (?), or maybe both Nazis and Stalinists, because said commenter also says that both Nazis and Stalinists were socialists, and so are the Democrats, as well as whatever other mere labels said commenter seeks to pin to the tails of donkeys, Jewish or otherwise. Friend of Israel much, Allan? Pshaw!
The usage of the word Nazi generally comes from your side of the block.
I brand you a Stalinist, but a discombobulated one. If you are Jewish don’t extend the branding to others. Jews are wonderful people. Stalinists, not that much. Israel? A wonderful nation that is allied to the United States. It is also one of the most productive nations in the world. It’s mostly desert yet it sends water to Jordon and produces loads of water for its own country. I suggest you read Start Up Nation. In fact anyone should read that book since it is Israeli technology that is likely responsible for many of their high tech items Intel depends on Israel for research. Your map programs on your iphone are Israeli technology.
Leftists? Too many lean towards anti-Semitism. That is one of the leftist games that is played.
GingerAllan does the moon-walk backwards and in high heels. I’m glad to see that you’re no longer accusing Democrats of being Nazis, GingerAllan.
Out of curiosity, though, how many Jewish-American members of the Democratic party do you suppose might be “Leftists”? One, two, three or more? And not to put too fine a point on it, but how many Jewish-American Leftists do you suppose lean toward anti-Semitism? I ask because I’ve heard it said that anti-Semitism is one of the games that Leftists play. So, if there are any Jewish-American Leftists who are also members of the Democratic party, I have to wonder how many of those Jewish Americans might also lean toward anti-Semitism.
Did you know, FUBARAllan, that anti-Semitism was also one of the “games” that The Nazis “played”–albeit in a deadly serious manner??? Some folks claim that the Neo-Nazis are still playing that anti-Semitism game. Have you heard anything about that, FUBARAllan?
Diane, you have an overactive imagination and that leads you to say all sorts of things that aren’t true and repeat them as well.
I don’t think any on my side of the aisle accuse Democrats as a group of being Nazi’s though the left does that type of characterization of the right which is a total falsehood. You make that kind of argument because you lack any arguments of substance. We have pointed out that Nazi stands for National Socialism and that is further from the right and much closer to the left. I don’t think you are a Nazi as you appear more like a Stalinist.
I can’t tell you how many Jews are anti-Semites though a good number engage in self-hate. Despite the anti-Semitism that has been seen in many acts other than the Synagogue shooting along with the history of the Holocaust I think the left considers Jewish males to be part of the white supremacist group. It’s funny how the left can consider a man who survived pogroms and the death camps as a white supremecist but that is how the left’s active imagination works.
I see you wish to play on the edges of the anti-Semitism card. Maybe you are one of those self hating Jews people talk about.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – historically there were Jews that fought in Nazi uniforms and Jews did support Stalin. Is your history that weak?
And the man-boy, Paul, continues with this nonsense:
“L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark ”
Grow the f up, Paul.
Anonymous – come out from hiding and Diane can stop enabling people. I just call them as I see them. BTW, I was an instant adult at 11.
How many Jewish-American members of the Democratic party of The United States of America fought in Nazi uniforms, Senor Eschoolbus?
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – how many socialists in the Democratic Party? Does the name Rosenberg ring a bell?
The last I heard Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were Communists. When did they become Democrats fighting in Nazi uniforms?
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the Rosenbergs swore they were just good little members of the Democratic Party, they could not possibly be Communists.
IIRC, Emmanuel Bloch conceded that his clients had been members of the Communist Party. Not sure whether this concession was made at trial, or in preliminary proceedings, or in public statements. This really wasn’t an arguable point.
Irving Kristol wrote in 1968 a brief account of his membership in a political discussion circle which met in the City College cafeteria ca. 1939.. He said he’d had occasion to encounter in print most of the people who were members of that circle, but he’d only heard hide or hare of two people from the discussion club which met in the alcove next door. One was a prominent university scientist he declined to name; the other was Julius Rosenberg. The club which met in the next alcove over was the campus Communist cell. That he’d been a Communist wasn’t some secret, though it’s a reasonable wager he’d managed to keep it from his employers. If I’m not mistaken, Ethel Rosenberg had had occasion to offer remarks at public meetings, so her party membership wasn’t a secret either. In 1943, both Rosenbergs abruptly ceased activity in their local organization. Surviving members told Radosh and Milton ca. 1981 that they had a pretty good idea why.
DSS, you know of course that Ron Radosh is now on the other side.
No, our elected officials should decide the question.
Turley wrote, “Others have argued that the clause refers to people simply being subject to federal laws, not a matter of allegiance to that authority. “Jurisdiction” refers to falling under the authority of a legal system. There is a middle position that is also possible: The reference to “jurisdiction” left the decision of the meaning of citizenship up to Congress to decide as a policy question.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of The U. S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have Power * * * To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
Congress has already exercised its enumerated power to provide an uniform Rule of Naturalization. Both the Executive branch and the Courts have already exercised their powers to enforce the uniform rules of naturalization that Congress has enacted and to adjudicate and to review the enforcement of U. S. immigration laws. All of that necessarily entails that persons entering The US illegally are already under the jurisdiction of The United States. Whenever those undocumented immigrants violate the laws of the State in which they reside, those undocumented workers had already been under the jurisdiction of those States with respect to those State laws.
The equivocation at work here hinges upon the difference between being “subject to” the jurisdiction versus “submitting to” that jurisdiction. It is not strictly necessary “to submit” to the jurisdiction of The United States in order to be “subject to” the jurisdiction of The United States. Just ask Putin’s Chef, Mr. Prigozhin. He’ll tell you. And while you’re at it, stop and consider what might happen if someone such as Mariia Butina gave birth to a child while incarcerated in the custody of The United States awaiting trial. Does anyone here think that said hypothetical child would NOT already have been “subject to” the jurisdiction of The United States even while the child’s mother had already “submitted to” the jurisdiction of The United States while awaiting trial?
No matter the number and depth of the crow’s feet around your eyes whilst fervently praying to the contrary, The Constitution of the United States of America will never be, nor become, a mere passel of antinomies to be abrogated at The POTUS, Trump’s, will.
With the second amendment we have an statement made at an entirely different time interpreted by oligarchs and special interests. With the issue of citizen rights through ‘jus solis’ we have a politician attempting to enhance his position. In both cases the Constitution must be seen as a living entity and revisited as prescribed, not through this momentary strongman’s attempt to appear ‘tough’.
Second amendment is inalienable.
Yet it is still perversely interpreted depending on who owns whom and the make up of the SCOTUS. You, miss the point. The Constitution was written by people, amended by people, and therefore should be revisited by people depending on the situation. Now, if you are one of those who believes that the Constitution was handed down by some extra terrestrial super being, then there’s that.
So, you believe the meaning of the 14th Amendment as ratified (excluding birth citizenship for the wider global population) can be expanded to that global population without the need for a Constitutional Amendment? Whatever happened to the rigorous test of Ratification to muster the consent of the governed behind the change? If the majority of voters supported extending birth citizenship to a global population of foreign national parents, I probably wouldn’t be writing this comment. But because 2/3 of voters want reform, and have stuck by this want for decades, the question arises as to whether we should sit by while our consent is defied by elites who favor the expansive interpretation. A very large Constitutional issue is in play — shall such a weighty change deciding future US demography reflect the will of the majority (the core principle of governance per the Founders), or the will of the minority using legalistic contrivances? The foremost of these is the notion that Ratification holds no particular grip on the meaning of an Amendment….it doesn’t matter what consensus existed at the time….the approval of the majority at that time can just be discounted, and never revisited while making a wholesale change to that which they thought they were voting ‘aye’ for.
The Constitution was written by people, amended by people, and therefore should be revisited by people depending on the situation. Now, if you are one of those who believes that the Constitution was handed down by some extra terrestrial super being, then there’s that.
JUS SANGUINIS is the best
the west is the best
go there and we’ll do the rest
the blue bus is calling us
ride the king’s highway, baby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
The United States of America was once seriously under-populated. The Founding Fathers were, not merely eager, but actually dependent upon an untrammeled flow immigrants into The United States. In fact, so heavily dependent upon immigration were our predecessors that they allowed kidnapped Africans to be brought here in chains then bought and sold in slave markets at major U.S. port cities up until 1820. No visas were required. No applications for asylum status were required. All you had to do was step off the boat and you were in like flint–unless you were a kidnapped African brought here in chains, that is.
If you were not an African-American slave, and if you bore a child in America, your child was a citizen just so soon as it popped out your womb. If you were an African-American slave, and if you bore a child, you were not a citizen of The United States.
All of those facts were well known to the people who wrote or who ratified The Fourteenth Amendment. All of the persons who wrote or who ratified The Fourteenth Amendment were either the native-born children of immigrants or the native-born children of naturalized citizens who had been the native-born children of immigrants or so on and so forth back through their genealogies until one or more or even all of their remote ancestors literally stepped off a boat one day and was/were in like flint–except for the ones with African ancestors who had been kidnapped, brought here in chains and sold in the markets of major U.S. port cities.
In light of these facts, it seems far more than merely specious to suppose that no one in his or her right mind ever thought that the six words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would never be applied to the native-born children of undocumented immigrants who had not applied for visas, or who had overstayed their visas, or who had not applied for asylum status to be resettled as refugees. It might, however, mean that those same people knew nothing of visas, nor asylum status nor refugee resettlement, at the time that they wrote or ratified the six words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Did you know that a famous Chicagoan once wrote that the first rule of Chicago politics states “Where’s mine”?????
Oopsie daisy: If you were an African-American slave, and if you bore a child, [neither] you [nor your child] were citizens of The United States nor the State in which you resided–[yeah though you were most definitively “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”].
Below in which The Heart of Darkness insinuates that “the smartest countries” never practiced the peculiar institution of chattel slavery, whilst studiously neglecting to mention the practice of The Manorial System (a.k.a. Feudalism) in a fair number of those same “smartest countries”.
(What in the world is this history thing I keep hearing about???)
Diane likes to draw her conclusions from fiction.
Allan couldn’t follow a thread with a map and a compass.
One doesn’t deal with Diane’s fiction with a map or a compass. A doggie bag would be more suitable.
Seriously though, are we supposed to suppose that Jus Sanguinis had nothing whatsoever to do with the feudal system? Are we further supposed to suppose that the feudal system had nothing whatsoever to with “owing allegiance to a foreign prince”??? Exactly when do we all have to swear fealty to our liege Lord Trump?
Is everything these days just another over-extended mixed-metaphor for the entertainment pleasure of mopey Spenglerites?????
On excessive, compulsive use of rhetorical questions:
“Overuse of rhetorical questions makes your writing look boring and irritating”- from SMU 100.com
“Their overuse has become cliched due to overuse and ineffective use” — from onlinewritingjobs.com
Given the thousands of rhetorical questions posed by a certain individual here, is it possible that the individual’s writing is ineffective?
Are we to believe that the individual’s writing is boring??
Could it be that extreme, overloaded use of rhetorical questions is somewhat irritating???
Could that person get through a thread, or even a single post, without plenty of these????
Please state the nature and extent of your complaint.
Remember: No receipt; no refund.
“Please state the nature of your complaint”.
The aren’t really complaints, just observations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omp-RSJsIok
“Spenglerites?????”
If you are talking about Spengler you have to state which one, Oswald Spengler or David P. Goldman who used Spengler as a pseudonym.
Diane, one of or the primary reason for the Constitution was for the protection of the newly formed country. It is recognized that every sovereign nation has a right to protect its borders and determine who may come in. Your type stretch and mangle laws as they please not caring about the safety of the nation or its people.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the correct phrase is “In like Flynn” which is a reference to the sexual prowess of Errol Flynn. “In like flint” makes no sense at all.
This had better not turn out to be another case of The Berenstain Bears:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Like_Flint
I’m not the one from the parallel universe. I never thought that Nelson Mandela died in prison.
Excerpted from the article linked above:
The title is a play on the phrase “in like Flynn.”
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – In Like Flint is a great parody film on James Bond. If you have not seen it, it is well worth the viewing. The title is a take-off on In Like Flynn and when you see the film it will all make sense. The great James Coburn stars.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – prove that she didn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
that’s the way the smartest countries determine citizenship
The US, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and another two dozen countries use the same system. If the US wants to change their system, it has to go through the prescribed channels, the same methods used to amend the Constitution in the past. This is not an issue to be left up to the President, certainly not this mutt.
The President is not changing the Constitution with an executive order. It has to survive court challenges. AS stated earlier the next President can reverse the executive order so eventually Congress will and should act.
Allan – we all know that some activist trained monkey District judge in Hawaii has been on speed dial to put a national ban on this EO the moment it is signed. Although, I do not know who in Hawaii has standing. According to the President’s speech he is not going to sign anything until after the election. That will make the Democrats nervous as a cat on a hot griddle.
Which basically leaves us with the same old lynch mob leader, Trump, revving up the dupes to a fever pitch. If there’s a crisis then you need a strongman, like Duterte or Putin. If you step back and look at the conditions that are supposed to be on the verge of disaster as Donald keeps iterating; if you look at the whole picture back a dozen or so years, the economy started moving upwards after two years of stabilization under Obama. The unemployment rate went from an inherited 9% to 4% in Obama’s last year/Trump’s first year. The rate has dropped a third of a percent under Trump but to hear him tell it it is all due to him. Trump represents an extremely small reduction in unemployment of a third of a percentage point compared to Obama’s 5+% reduction over six years. The increase in wages started in Obama’s sixth year and continued until today. However, to hear Trump tell it, it is all due to him. The influx of illegal immigration has been steadily declining under Bush and Obama to record lows. To hear Trump belch, it is all due to him.
The exaggerations and lies represent 95% of what Trump supporters believe Trump has accomplished. Trump is responsible for very very little. Almost all of our present economic condition is a result of the momentum of the upswing during the Obama years. Look at the graphs. Of course the rabid Trump supporters would rather believe that these are fakes and listen to the blond mutt belch.
One thing Trump is responsible for is, the hatred, increasing division, anger, and extreme polar opposites that have been reaching record highs under his administration. The core of Trump’s supporters simply want a strongman who can make them feel strong, regardless of the foundation of lies and exaggerations on which this position of strength is built. Trump is 99% sizzle and almost no steak. Read up on this mutt. He ruined his father’s empire to pay off his debts. He went bankrupt six times, stiffing banks and the working class. His successes have been built on foreign capital and multi million dollar condos for the mega wealthy: Saudis, Russians, and other distasteful sorts. Trump has never done anything for America, only for himself and the global oligarchy. Oh yeah, he did have an amusing TV program for a while where he showed how the average American could be just like him. And the dupes lap it up.
Countries run like Trump has run his business life end up like Greece, Venezuela, etc. America is strong enough to support an idiot like Trump. The question is do we have to suffer the indignity and eventual dip in the economy. While Trump is warring with China, Europe, and the rest of the world, they are creating economic alliances that will stabilize their economies with less and less reliance on the US economy. The US is still the world’s largest economy but in proportion to a combined rest of the world, smaller than ever. Europe together is larger. China will soon be larger. India will soon follow. China is investing heavily in the rest of the world: Africa, South America-(China will be the stabilizing ingredient to Venezuela), and soon the rest of Asia. Trump took the US out of a pan Pacific economic alliance that did not include China and was designed to counter China’s influence. Now that alliance is courting China. Right after Trump berated Europe and the rest of the world and imposed tariffs, Europe and Japan joined in one of the largest trading agreements ever. Canadian natural gas and crude oil will be going to China in greater quantities as Trump takes on the world.
All this addressing of tariffs and economic and trade discrepancies was under way, as it has been, for decades. All Trump did was to create a moment of impending disaster. This ploy is as old as Hitler.
Issac you don’t know what you are talking about. Unemployment always drops in a recovery but the question is the rate of fall. As the unemployment rate gets closer to full employment the rate should slow. It didnt. Comparing Obama 10 months (U6) to Trump’s first ten months as stated so many times on this blog the drop in unemployment was about 2 1/2 times as fast under Trump. Go look at the numbers yourself.
Those numbers are not exagerations, they come from .gov. You need to start looking at raw data instead of the predigested material the leftist websites are feeding you.
Allan
Like I said, step back and look at the whole picture. You select a small piece and use it to paint the whole. Obama was responsible for stabilizing the economy, stopping the recession, and reducing unemployment from near 10% to 4%; that’s 6%. Unemployment continued to go down, wages continued to go up, and the economic growth continued to rise because of the momentum of Obama’s term, until well into 2017, or a year ago. Trump has accomplished a little-less than one percent, but at what cost. Trump added a trillion dollars to the deficit. 80% of the tax cuts went to those Americans who had no need of the money, Trump has destabilized the world’s economic conditions. Trump may make some small advances but for long term stability and growth he has reduced America’s stance in global economics and politics. Almost all of what you hear about America and the world from Trump is based on exaggeration and lies. The mutt has lied thousands of times since taking office.
Even Wall Street has lost the gains it made initially under Trump’s hype. One thing that needs to be remembered about commodities and Wall Street is that the goal of all investors is that the market moves, regardless if it be up or down. That’s how money is made. The main reason stocks go up and down is not so much due to how well what they represent is doing but because of speculation and manipulation. At this point a lot of hot air got blown into Wall Street and now it is leaking out as the reality of the situation is unfolding.
The world economic structure depends less on America than ever before and Trump is creating an environment where greater economic forces will design scenarios that do not include the US with its present day xenophobic positions. The nature of commerce will find a way, with or without the US. If it’s a case of a standoff then the US is destined to fail. The US has never won a trade war. The rest of the world’s economies will out last the US. Eventually the US will have to go to the table in a far, far weaker position. Thanks to Trump.
Trade issues have always been there and have always been worked out based on long term perspectives. Trump is a flash in the pan, a punter, someone of whom America will be more and more ashamed as time goes by. There will always be a few dregs left to praise this buffoon.
Listen to Trump carefully. He really has nothing to say beyond drumming up the base emotions of those that don’t think beyond the end of their noses.
“Like I said, step back and look at the whole picture. You select a small piece and use it to paint the whole.”
You generalize to the extreme and never deal with the actual numbers whether they be employment numbers, wage numbers, stock market reports etc. I have brought numbers into the picture over and over again representing Obama’s entire term in office, poor, and Trumps almost 2 years, excellent. I provided data that you never argued against and I even provided a video from the CEA that took about 6-8 metrics demonstrating the failures of Obama and the sucesses of Trump. You won’t deal with any of the data. Instead you make things up and report them here on the blog.
What more can I say to one as misinformed as you are? Any time you want to deal with metric by metric I will do so, but you will run away.
While I am at it let me provide the news headlines from one news aggregator. It doesn’t make a difference who posted it. You can choose which one you don’t believe and then we can each prove our case.
Blowout Jobs Report: U.S. Adds More Than 1,000 Manufacturing Jobs — per Day…
…250k vs. 190k Expected… Wages Rise 3%+ First Time Since Recession…
…Trump: ‘Wages UP!’… CEOs Competing for Workers…
…Energy Department Says U.S. Is Now World’s Top Oil Producer
I figured Issac that you would disregard the above group of headlines but since the economic report is out CNBC has their own headlines and they certainly aren’t lovers of Trump.
Jobs smash estimates with gain of 250,000, wage gains pass 3% for first time since recession
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 250,000 for October, well ahead of Refinitiv estimates of 190,000.
Average hourly earnings increased by 5 cents an hour for the month and 83 cents year-over-year, representing a 3.1 percent gain, the best pace since 2009.
The unemployment rate stayed at 3.7 percent, the lowest since December 1969.
I’ve written about this since the late 80s urging Congress to take action against this loophole. My articles in AZ newspapers demonstrate how ethnic groups have abused anchor baby rights in this nation for years in order to obtain quick citizenship & a path to welfare benefits which states all to readily hand over without any thought. At the very least, welfare benefits should be on hold for a minimum of six months to a year which I’m willing to bet would help curtail a significant percentage of applicants. Cutting welfare off after the first out-of-wedlock child would further cut back on state and federal expenditures.
Meet the new US citizens….With birth rights
This land is your land This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for you and me.
I’ve roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.
HE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
I have never understood the argument that “subject to the jurisdiction of” somehow means “owing allegiance to”. First of all, the word “jurisdiction” has a perfectly coherent meaning by itself that is distinct from that of the word “allegiance”, and vice-versa. Why we ought to substitute the one phrase in place of the other is never made clear. Secondly, such a definition would seem to create a tautology, since a person deemed a citizen at birth would owe allegiance to the United States, by definition. All citizens owe allegiance to the country of their citizenship.
DaveL – read the oath that you have to take to become a citizen of the United States and maybe some of this will become clearer. The men who created the Amendment clearly explained the intent of the Amendment and it did not include birthright citizenship. Several other 1st world world countries have gotten rid of it. We have it because of dicta (which is not to be followed) in a SCOTUS case. Blame it on Justice Brennan.
The art of the deal includes an outlandish first offer.
As in “Mexico will pay for it,” “I can do it with an Executive Order,” and “You’ll be in jail.”
Why now? To counter the D-organized assault on our border. The civilian invasion force gets to hear that Trump is serious about supporting only legal immigration. And he does support that. Come to our port of entry or consulate back home. Don’t bully your way to the front of the line.
We should process claims of asylum at the US port of entry. If they’re not from from Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, or the Bahamas there had better be an exceptional reason for being here and not at a closer country to their home.
The other George – POTUS has said that asylum claims will not be considered unless they are made at a port of entry. I can only hope they are not heading for Ajo, AZ.
Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States. Therefore he was not eligible to be President of the United States. The Uhuru doctrine applies.
False. Hawaii is not in Kenya.
(music)
He was born! ….
In Oklahoma.
Hiswife’sname was Betty Lou Thellma Liz.
He’s not responsible for what he’s doing…
His mother made him what he is.
Andits up against the wall Redneck mohters…
etc
I approve of any Jerry Jeff Walker reference.
Markie……..You wouldn’t if you knew him.
London Homesick Blues, Jaded Lover and Redneck Mother are part of my workout soundtrack. I listen to them every day. I like his music. I assume that personally he’s a dope-smoking, groupie-groping, snot-slinging drunk. in other words, he’s a Libertine who enjoys his station in life. I saw his underwhelming live performance in 1981. I’m little concerned with his personal life.
here’s a country song i heard just the other day!
“Confederate Anthem” Lyrics
David Allan Coe
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am,
And for this Yankee nation, I do not give a damn,
I’m glad I fought again’ her, I only wish we’d won,
I ain’t asked any pardon for anything I’ve done…
I hates the Yankee nation, and everything they do,
I hates the Declaration Of Independence too,
I hates the glorious Union, ’tis dripping with our blood,
I hates the striped banner, I fit it all I could…
I rode with Robert E. Lee for three years thereabout,
Got wounded in four places, and I starved at Point Lookout,
I cauched the rheumatism, a-camping in the snow,
But I killed a chance of Yankees, and I’d like to kill some more….
Three hundred thousand Yankees are stiff in Southern dust,
We got three hundred thousand before they conquered us,
They died of Southern fever and Southern steel and shot,
I wish there were three million, instead of what we got….
I can’t take up my musket, and fight ’em down no more,
But I ain’t gonna love ’em, now that is certain sure,
And I don’t want no pardon for what I was and am,
I won’t be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn…
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am,
And for this Yankee nation, I do not give a damn,
I’m glad I fought again’ her, I only wish we’d won,
I ain’t asked any pardon, for anything I’ve done….
I ain’t asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.
Since the current definition of birthright citizenship rests with dicta from Justice Brennan, the POTUS has as much right to make law as dicta.
The men on the Supreme Court can make dicta. The women can only indulge in it.
Liberty2nd – I would say they can all be dicta, regardless of gender.
Demonstrably false; but as usual, don’t let that stop you. Read the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
this is to “but that lets the black folks vote!” paulie – georgie
Marky Mark Mark –
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.
Mark’s one of those half-arsed lawyers who always talks down to citizens who think they actually have a right to an opinion about the plain meaning of the words with which laws are written. You know the type. It’s why a lot of folks dislike lawyers, such an attitude.
In life I suspect he gets very little respect and so he dishes out insults on the internet to compensate for his smallness.
Undocumented residents are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Misdeeds result in jail time followed by deportation.
Are they fully subject to the jurisdiction? Can the be drafted to defend this country? Seems to me, citizens and lawful permanent residents can be.
EWIs that is entered without inspection aka illegals– are purposefully NOT subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the US so I Think there’s plenty of reason to exclude their onshore offspring from citizenship.
however, the same reasoning would not apply to those with lawful visas or who have properly presented themselves at a port of entry. That is a lot tougher sell.
Illegal aliens, inclusive of the fetuses in their wombs, are under the jurisdiction of their countries of origin.
The only jurisdiction the U.S. has over illegal aliens, inclusive of the fetuses in their wombs, is the jurisdiction of law enforcement which will effect their deportation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”
Translation:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens…
___________________________________________________________________________________________
All persons born in the United States and NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are NOT citizens…
All illegal aliens from Mexico, inclusive of the inseparable fetuses in their wombs, are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
George, were all of your remote ancestors native-born citizens of The United States? Did any of your remote ancestors step off the boat onto U.S. soil before immigrants were required to apply for visas or for asylum status? Did any of your remote ancestors enter The U.S. by crossing one of the “land borders” before there were any official points of entry along the land borders of The U.S.? Were any of your remote ancestors recruited, or otherwise sponsored, by the agents of private property owners or by a non-governmental organization such as a church to immigrate to America? Were any of your remote ancestors brought to America as indentured servants?
There were no controversial elements. The intention was to force it onto the list for congressional action but mostly to get it into the court system as rapidly as possible and skipping as many of the steps to SCOTUS as possible.
That of course leaves the question of the rogue judges making one judge dictator style requirements for the whole nation not only before SCOTUS but afterwards In itself it is a useful demonstration tool of the imbalance and the ease with which some of them are, shall we say, influenced.
Getting the problem solved and ” \bringing it under the unbearable light of truth, justice and the American way* is the true objective. Nothing controversial there.
*The Black Avenger now retired.
Are the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment? The Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark lends considerable support to the proposition that they are not.
Per the stipulated facts, the parents were both legal, permanently domiciled residents of the U.S. The holding itself is quite narrow: A child born in the United States, of parents who, at the time of his birth are subjects of a foreign country, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, is a citizen of the United States.
Section VI of the opinion addresses the legal status of the parents:
“Whatever considerations, in the absence of a controlling provision of the Constitution, might influence the legislative or the executive branch of the Government to decline to admit persons of [a particular nationality] to the status of citizens of the United States, there are none that can constrain or permit the judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the peremptory and explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares and ordains that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’
[Foreign] persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of [a foreign nation], and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States SO LONG AS THEY ARE PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESIDE HERE, AND ARE ‘SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF’ in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.” (Emphasis added).
In other words, Congress has the authority, within the bounds of the Constitution, to set immigration laws defining those persons legally entitled to reside in the country. Their children receive birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
That said, “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a LEGAL presence in the country CONSISTENT with the immigration laws. Wong Kim Ark therefore lends considerable support to proposition that the US-born children of undocumented immigrants are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Notwithstanding JT’s red meat posting implying that there’s some sort of controversy on this matter, your post is little more than fantasy likely cut-and-pasted from stormfront, brietbart, or alex jones. Thanks for playing. Pro tip: regurgitating ignorant, uninformed nonsense merely triggers you to appear the same. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “I wish I had a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” burnie-boy
Marky Mark Mark – the NPC runs the pro tip script, plus random word salad.
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.:”
but what does this mean in the current context? I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that EWI persons aka illegal aliens, are not under the protection of the government because they have willfully evaded its jurisdiciton
they also do not owe any allegiance, again, because of their intentional refusal of proper lawful entry and evasion of immigration and customs authorities.
the case is actually a good one on the subject, excellent explanation, and was one that in point of fact affirmed the US citizenship of a Chinese man born in California, in a time of extreme anti Chinese animus.
but I’d bet Mark M self appointed authority and daily slanderer of the other users on this website, did not bother to read the case
The case clearly suggests that something more than physical presence is needed to satisfy the “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement. Those who assert that the requirement is met by nothing more than jurisdiction of the courts or the government (i.e., personal jurisdiction) are, in my view, on the wrong side of the argument.
What I think is most persuasive is that the Court was careful to limit its holding to the children of legal, permanent residents. In the language I emphasized above, the court tied the concepts of “protection,” “allegiance,” and “jurisdiction” to the parents’ lawful residence in this country, as reflected in the holding. This seems to be where you land, although maybe from a slightly different direction. Unless you just cut and pasted from Alex Jones. 😉
The case is one very good data point. What else is there to think about?
1. The Dred Scott decision. There is strong consensus that the 14th Amendment was intended to overrule that case.
2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866. The CRA66 pre-dated the 14th Amendment. The is particularly interesting in that the language of the two don’t quite match.
3. The current immigration law. Does current law provide for birthright citizenship beyond the minimums required by the 14th Amendment? Is current law ambiguous? How has it been interpreted? These could all affect the Executive’s ability to act unilaterally.
Putting aside (or perhaps because of) the current political and judicial climate, a compromise hammered out between Congress and the Executive may have the best chance of earning public legitamacy and surviving judicial review.