Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: Trump: Deny citizenship to babies of people illegally in US
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/trump-deny-ci ... ly-us-074126250--election.html
Published: Aug 17, 2015
Author: Steven Braun
Post Date: 2015-08-17 08:27:54 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 18644
Comments: 101
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as part of an immigration plan that emphasizes border security and deportation for millions. He would also rescind Obama administration executive orders on immigration. Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the U.S. "They have to go," Trump said, adding: "What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here." Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868. The odds of repealing the amendment's citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly failed since 2011 to pass bills aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution. "They're illegal," Trump said, describing native-born children of people living illegally in the US. "You either have a country or not." Trump's remarks came as his campaign website posted his program for "immigration reform." Among its details: Making Mexico pay for a permanent border wall. Mandatory deportation of all "criminal aliens." Tripling the force of immigration officers by eliminating tax credit payments to immigrant families residing illegally in the U.S. Trump said a tough deportation policy was needed because "there's definitely evidence" of crimes linked to immigrants living in the country illegally. He repeated comments he's made previously, noting that: "The good people can come back." The New York businessman also said he would waste little time rescinding President Barack Obama's executive actions aimed at allowing as many as 3.7 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country because of their U.S.-born relatives. Obama's November 2014 actions were halted by temporary injunctions ordered by several federal courts in rulings challenging his executive powers to alter immigration policies without congressional approval. The cases could lead to the Supreme Court. "We have to make a whole new set of standards," Trump said. "And when people come in, they have to come in legally." Trump's plan was endorsed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who chairs a Senate subcommittee on immigration. "This is exactly the plan America needs," Sessions said in a statement. "Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages." Most other GOP candidates also back completing the border wall but differ over how to treat immigrant families already living in the U.S. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush recently released his own immigration plan, which calls for the use of forward bases and drones to guard the border, but also backing an eventual plan to legalize the status of immigrant families. On Sunday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he would "finish the wall" but would then work to legalize 11 million immigrants now estimated to live in the U.S. illegally. He spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio worked with senators from both parties to develop a comprehensive plan in 2013 that would have legalized the status of many immigrant families. But Congress balked at the idea as tea party Republicans opposed the deal and Rubio has since backed away from his support. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Game it out. Trump is elected. He proposes the legislation while simultaneously issuing the Executive Orders that are based on his reading of the 14th Amendment. That becomes the policy of the agencies. Somebody objects (many will) and takes the lawsuit to court, and the Republican Supreme Court hears it. Does the Republican Supreme Court agree with Trump, or does it back the plaintiffs? How will the Republican Party decide the case, when they are the final deciders. Will they back an outsider President who ran as a Republican? Or will they say that the 14th Amendment blocks this interpretation by Trump? Given that it'll be Republicans like Roberts and Kennedy making the final decision, I wouldn't get my hopes up that Trump would be upheld on this.
I don't believe politics have anything to do with SCOTUS decisions anymore, in most cases. Between Craig Livingstone and the NSA, the current Justices have no secrets. SCOTUS is not an independent entity, imho. SCOTUS decisions are predetermined long before SCOTUS chooses to hear the case. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
SCOTUS is an extension of the Democrat and Republican Party. It is populated by political loyalists who are put up there to advance their party's ideology through constitutional decisions.
Oh come on. Have we learned nothing in the last 7 years? The President only needs to instruct the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) not to issue social security numbers, passports, or citizenship papers to the children of illgals. Anyone who applies gets a knock on the door from ICE. Done.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces." All this legislation is doing is defining the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It is not changing or amending anything. Some may mention United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was a U.S. citizen. True, BUT the parents were here legally. The court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born here to illegals.
Maybe once. But now, they're just puppets at the beck and call of whoever it is that makes their decisions for them. My guess is they're being blackmailed but simple bribery may explain some of the decisions. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
The status of the parents is irrelevant. The court has ruled on citizenship based on the status of the child at birth. The child may gain diplomatic immunity at birth if the parents are diplomats, and therefore not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The child neither leaves the territory nor jurisdiction of the United States based on the status of the parents. http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=671#671 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) - - - - - http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=697#697 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 675-76 (1898) As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. - - - - - http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=724#724 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
This would be struck down as unconstitutional. It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed, as specified in the amendment. "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," cannot be amended by legislation to add other conditions.
I sure you're correct but if that has been true since 1898, why was the Indian Citizenship Act necessary in 1924? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
I agree. And I just got off of the phone with my mother -
It all depends on the opinions of five.
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yup,and if they realize they would have to make a non-PC decision they always refuse to view the case. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Is that the 'son of sam' law? Does every state have one? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Note that it bestowed citizenship on all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, even if born outside the jurisdiction on a reservation under tribal law. The Indians have always had an unusual status. Some years back, an Indian made me aware that Indian nations issued passports accepted by other nations. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.07/20-tribal.html HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES Finalists for American Indian awards announced The first-ever American Indian tribally operated eagle sanctuary that helps meet a pueblo's religious and ceremonial needs, an internationally recognized Native American lacrosse team whose members travel abroad using passports issued by their Indian nation, and a tribal wellness program that prevents and combats diabetes are among the 16 finalists in the University's American Indian tribal governance awards program for the year 2002.
That would never fly, but the law allowing the parents to stay could be revoked. The baby committed no crime being born in the USA.
They can always say whatever they want, that's true. The language of the 14th Amdt is very clear. I would not rule out the possibility that an anchor baby amendment could be passed and ratified.
Yes. Does every state have one? I doubt it,but that doesn't matter because if it has been determined to be Constitutional in one state,it would be Constitutional in every other state. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Supreme court would just have to rule that "subject to the jurisdiction" or however it is worded means that they are here legally or a citizen. Women serve in the military now. If we are fighting an enemy on American soil. Would the soldiers that ended up having babies while fighting us in war, be American citizens?
No argument there. The question is the definition of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the parents were not citizens, true, but were here legally and had established permanent residence. The court said that was sufficient for citizenship. Now let's look at Rosita, a Mexican citizen, who illegally crosses the border and gives birth to Carlos. The conclusion is that Carlos is an American citizen. Rosita stays in the U.S., lives with some friends, and raises Carlos. The U.S. goes to war somewhere and drafts Carlos into the military. Carlos says "Bull Shit! I ain't going. My mother's Mexican, my father's Mexican, and I'm Mexican. I don't care where I was born. The U.S. does not have jurisdiction over me and never has!" True? No?
Congress can read it that way and pass a law denying citizenship to the children born here to illegals. No amendment required. IF the law is challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law, then we'd have to go the amendment route. Meaning that, once again, the court thwarted the will of the people.
Nope. All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is no different that the court interpreting "to regulate commerce" to include "to prohibit commerce".
A baby born in the USA is not an accessory to a crime. There is no crime of being born in the USA.
You do not want to go there. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws of the United States. It only sounds like a good idea until you realize that such a new interpretation that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means they would have a status like a diplomat and could not be prosecuted for crimes against United States law. The either are, or are not, subject to the jurisdiction.
That's a pretty darn good point. If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"?
And made retroactive? (I can dream about an "Anti-Dream Act", can't I?)
As we've repeatedly witnessed, the language of the 14A seems only as "clear" as 5 SC justices and a bunch of psychotic politicians are inclined to make it.
It means not owing allegiance to anybody else. What about my Carlos example in post #21?
That's a pretty darn good point. If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"? ---- Liberator Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved?
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I know *technically* that is the case. But the original constitutional intent would have NEVER allowed this loophole and gaming of the system to this degree. I would submit that there are laws that supersede the raw acceptance of "once born here." And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents..Problem solved? If THAT is THE only card in the deck to play, it must be played. FOR NOW. (Then again, as Pete suggested, because the act was facilitated by an illegal act to begin with, why should the loophole and subsequent birth be honored by a law that is scoffed at to begin with? ) If illegals breaks into our home while we're away on a month vacation and use the existing nursery as their own, is the home then deemed *theirs* as well?? what of the old, "possession is 9/10 of the law"? As a matter of ethics, morals, and intent of law, their are thieves and parasites stealing nests. OUR AMERICAN NEST.
Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved?
No.
If we are fighting an enemy on American soil. Would the soldiers that ended up having babies while fighting us in war, be American citizens? I have difficulty unscrambling the question. If an American servicewoman, fighting on American soil, has a baby -- the baby apparently is born on american soil, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and is a natural born U.S. citizen. Literally, the question appears to be, "Would the soldiers ... be American citizens? If they started out as American citizens they would be American citizens. Aliens would not be transformed.
No? If Mr. & Mrs Lopez, citizens of Mexico, were visiting the U.S. and gave birth to a baby here, that baby can be drafted in the U.S. military? Come on. That baby is a Mexican citizen just like his parents.
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
Women all over the world are serving in the military. If say one from Palestine was fighting us in a war. Would her little Jihadist be an American citizen?
No. There is no DREAM Act. No such bill ever passed Congress. Talk of DREAMers is bullshit based on failed legislation. There is DACA, but that is only an Obama administration Executive action of Jeh Johnson. It could disappear with a stroke of a pen. I don't think you could get an amendment to make lawful residents unlawful. If they have not become naturalized citizens, perhaps. It could make unlawful residents mandatorily deportable, and limit prosecutorial discretion. DACA can disappear with the stroke of a pen. The DREAM Act does not exist. The right of legal residence for the illegal alien parents of a U.S. citizen baby does not exist in the constitution or statute. It is done as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. It is only the child who is a citizen and cannot be deported. The child cannot petition to change the status of the parents until the child is 21 years old. And in case you have never considered it, we do not have a census of citizens. It is a head count of people -- citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens. Constitutional representation is based on the census. Some states could lose several representatives if illegal aliens were no longer present.
Still no.
Take it to court. I wish you the best of luck persuading the court that an unborn child committed a crime when the mother crossed the border.
Pretty much. There is no DREAM Act. DACA goes with the stroke of a pen. The illegal alien parents have no constitutional or statutory right to stay. DACA is but an executive action. The baby cannot be deported, but the family can be kept together unless the parents choose to leave it.
Which is the prime reason the government doesn't want to deport them. It has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with political power. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The baby is clearly an accomplice. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation. --- nolu chan Agreed, SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. --- And foreigners are abusing that interpretation to gain citizenship for their babies. Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
Yep.
No. It has been resolved. You just don't like the resolution. To changed the resolution, the Executive and Legislative branches are not empowered. SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
I equally wish you good luck in arguing the theory of fetal accomplice to a crime.
misterwhite (#23) --- All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Agreed, SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. --- And foreigners are abusing that interpretation to gain citizenship for their babies. Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree? Not many citizens do, as evidenced by these current national debates. Why do you side with the Obama faction? Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, they could change their opinion, making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on teebee,but that doesn't mean it is not a valid argument and that some lawyer can't and won't present it. ESPECIALLY given that the baby is a "Anchor Baby" from which all the "free money" and the "instant citizenship" flows to the parents. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No lawyer will attempt to present that to a court unless he wants to invite Rule 11 sanctions. A fetus as an accomplice to a crime? Really? For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime? I know you want to end birthright citizenship, but this just isn't the way.
Still no. Congress can enact no law which nullifies any part of the Constitution. Immigration statutes must comply with the Constitution.
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime. And yes,really. And there is plenty of case law basis to support that. For example,if you buy a stolen tv and the cops discover you have it,they will take it from you without compensation and return it to the lawful owner even though you had no part in stealing it and didn't know it was stolen when you bought it. The fetus is "Stealing" SS and other benefits they are not entitled to because they are not entitled to have US citizenship because the citizenship comes from the commission of a crime. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Being an ACCESSORY to a crime,and receiving things of value as a result of the crime. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why? --- Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree? Congress would not need to. You just agreed that: --- Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, SCOTUS could change their opinion, making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
Being an ACCESSORY to a crime,and receiving things of value as a result of the crime. An infant or a fetus? Charged/convicted criminally? Do we have a special prison for one-year olds? Do they Mirandize the fetus or the one-year old?
I am not ignoring it. It is as applicable as the 18th Amendment. Congress can establish a Rule of Naturalization. It cannot conflict with the Constitution. 14A cannot be changed or defeated by legislation.
Be sure to properly Mirandize the fetal suspect. Apply the handcuffs carefully.
No,but we can damn sure deport them. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Be sure to properly Mirandize the fetal suspect. Apply the handcuffs carefully. Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The fact remains: -- You just agreed that: --- Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, SCOTUS could change their opinion about 'subject to jurisdiction', -- making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
The United States cannot deport a U.S. citizen baby.
A baby cannot commit a crime. It lacks the mental capacity.
You have a vivid imagination. Don't depend on it going far. Here is more on "subject to the jurisdiction" and illegal aliens. - - - - - - - - - U.S. Supreme Court PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) 457 U.S. 202 PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 80-1538. Argued December 1, 1981 Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230. (b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a “suspect class,” and although education is not a “fundamental right,” so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents’ conduct nor their own undocumented status. The depri- __________ * Together with No. 80-1934, Texas et al. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al., also on appeal from the same court. [457 U.S. 202, 203] (c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State’s differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226. (d) Texas’ statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the “preservation of the state’s limited resources for the education of its lawful residents.” While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State’s ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State’s boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. 227-230. No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 242. [...] From the Opinion of the Court [457 U.S. 202, 210] The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976).9 __________ 9 It would be incongruous to hold that the United States, to which the Constitution assigns a broad authority over both naturalization and foreign affairs, is barred from invidious discrimination with respect to unlawful [457 U.S. 202, 211] Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."10 We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized __________ aliens, while exempting the States from a similar limitation. See 426 U. S., at 84-86. 10 "Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .... ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' Id., at 687. Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912). [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238.11 Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme.12 _________ 11 In his separate opinion, Justice Field addressed the relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: "The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws .... The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar-in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S., at 242-243 (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 12 Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U. S. 185 (1958), relied on by appellants, is not to the contrary. In that case the Court held, as a matter of statu- [457 U.S. 202, 213] There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection" and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection. __________ tory construction, that an alien paroled into the United States pursuant to § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(d)(5) (1952 ed.), was not "within the United States" for the purpose of availing herself of § 243(h), which authorized the withholding of deportation in certain circumstances. The conclusion reflected the longstanding distinction between exclusion proceedings, involving the determination of admissibility, and deportation proceedings. The undocumented children who are appellees here, unlike the parolee in Leng May Ma, supra, could apparently be removed from the country only pursuant to deportation proceedings. 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2). See 1A C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 3.16b, p. 3-161 (1981). [457 U.S. 202, 214] Although the congressional debate concerning 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to all within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment.13 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866). Two days later, Bingham posed the following question in support of the resolution: Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State: __________ 13 Representative Bingham's views are also reflected in his comments on the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. He repeatedly referred to the need to provide protection, not only to the freedmen, but to "the alien and stranger," and to "refugees ... and all men." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1292 (1866). [457 U.S. 202, 215] Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction - either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States - he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
The United States cannot deport a U.S. citizen baby. The baby is not a citizen. It is a illegal alien. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
A baby cannot commit a crime. It lacks the mental capacity. Ok,you are in love with your opinion and love to argue in circles. Don't confuse that with being right,though. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States. You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that.
You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that. Ok,bubba. PLEASE point out to me where the Constitution says that illegal alien invaders suddenly become instant citizens. What's your next claim,that home invaders suddenly become owners of the home because they are in possession? Can a theif steal your car and have it suddenly become his? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Don't confuse that with being right,though. - - - - - [sneakypete #19] Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime. A baby cannot commit a crime or be an accessory to a crime. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are born citizens of the United States. All babies born are persons. Try reading Plyler v. Doe and Wong Kim Ark.
You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that. Ok,bubba. PLEASE point out to me where the Constitution says that illegal alien invaders suddenly become instant citizens. Please point out how a baby born in the United States is an illegal alien invader.
That's a lot like pointing out that water is wet. If the mother is an illegal alien,so is the baby she gave birth to. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Saying that does not make it so. This is directly contrary to the plain black letter language of the Constitution. Not liking what 14A says does not change its clear meaning. The child was born in the United States. A born child is a person. The phrase "within its jurisdiction" extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the law of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Te child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless it had diplomatic immunity. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
The child was born in the United States. Yes,but the child doesn't reside in the US. It resides in some 3rd world shithole,and is an illegal invader here. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
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. The child was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The child is a natural born United States citizen and eligible to run fpr President. If you do not like the Constitution, get it amended. Or you can play make believe if that makes you feel better.
You ignore what the writers of the law said it means.
That is NOT true no matter how many thousand times you type it. ONLY people who are here LEGALLY can become citizens of the United States. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You ignore that the people who ratified the amendment text presented to them did not know what you imagine to be the alternative meaning that the Congress meant. The people voted on the text, not anyone's unknown ruminations. The baby was subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Even illegal aliens within the territory of the United States are subject to its jurisdiction. If not, they could burn down your house, shoot your dog, and do whatever else comes to mind and not be liable to any potential prosecution for any crime. That's what it would mean to not be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its courts.
That is NOT true no matter how many thousand times you type it. ONLY people who are here LEGALLY can become citizens of the United States. The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally. You do get an award for telling me a direct quote of the Constitution is NOT true.
It can NOT be in the US legally because the mother is in the US illegally. Or maybe you think the mothers find these children in the cabbage patch? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It can NOT be in the US legally because the mother is in the US illegally. Or maybe you think the mothers find these children in the cabbage patch? The baby is a person, born in the United States, and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof. The cases on the 14th Amendment go back to 1871. McKay v. Campbell, 16 Fed. Cas. 161, 164 (1871) McKay v. Campbell, 16 Fed. Cas. 161, 165 (1871) The only other construction of this clause that I can imagine possible, is the following: Taken literally, it does not appear to require that the person should be born "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;" but if he was born within its territorial limits, whether under its jurisdiction or not, and afterwards becomes subject to such jurisdiction; he then and so long as this status continues, becomes and remains a citizen of the United States. Assuming, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiff was born in the United States, although in the allegiance of the king of Great Britain, this construction of the fourteenth amendment would include him as a citizen, because he is now, and since 1846 has been, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But I think such construction fanciful and artificial. It is not to be presumed that the amendment was made to the constitution to change the rule of the common law, but rather to declare and enforce it uniformly throughout the United States and the several states, and especially in the case of the negro. In re Look Tin Sing, Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (1884), Justice Field Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354, 355 (1888) In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)
"And that's the way it is, Tuesday, August 25th, 2015. Good night." (Channeling a little Walter Cronkite.)
Yep. That's the way it is. Don't like it? Either: (a) amend the Constitution (good luck with that); or (b) get the Supreme Court to overrule its definition of jurisdiction in a way that gives 11 million illegal aliens diplomatic immunity; or (c) get so much political power that you can jam the court with new justices who will say whatever-the-hell (and then stand by when the other side comes in and does the same thing and takes all of your guns and opposition speech and property because it can); OR (d) accept reality, accept that the answer is an answer you don't like, and choose a different battlefield on which to engage the immigration issue. And the answer is...d. DING DING DING!
I look at it more like EVIDENCE from two illegal crimes in progress. Two wrongs never make a right. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You are like the forums anchor baby super hero. We are gonna have to buy you a cape and mask shaped like a jalapeño pepper. It's mighty Mexican of you.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I look at it more like EVIDENCE from two illegal crimes in progress. Two wrongs never make a right. Either way the baby is here by virtue of a criminal act. What we SHOULD do is deport all their asses,and send Mexico/where ever a bill for the hospital charges. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The baby is a citizen and changing that should take another amendment. The baby being a citizen obtains nothing for the parents via 14A. They can be denied all benefits and be deported, taking their baby with them. We cannot deport the baby, but it is unlikely many would be abandoned. The problem is largely due to executive action, or executive failure to act.
For my part, I do not want to deport the parents. Look, the baby is a citizen, and will grow up a citizen. It is in our own best interests that each citizen have the benefit of a good education and a stable family. Deporting parents over this nonsense will result in torn families and badly educated children, which will cause us problems in the future, when the undereducated citizen who hates the country because of what it did to his family returns. I see a great deal of willingness to be savagely harsh with poor immigrants. I reject it. If we don't want illegal immigration, we do not have to spend money on a wall, and we do not have to spend fortunes on troops to patrol. We do not have have tear apart families and have a whole cohort of Mexican-educated Americans. It is quite simple: If we want to stop illegal immigration cold, turn all of the savagery, hatred and desire to oppress DIRECTLY UPON THE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO HIRE THEM. Illegals will not stay if they cannot work. They can work because Americans hire them. Work generates cash flows, and engenders employment law and tax law. It is far easier to control the situation THERE, in the forms that Americans submit to their government, and in their patterns of cash flow. Focus on THAT. When American businesses hire illegals, crucify them - the American businesses, not the illegal. Every illegal job given to an illegal alien by an American criminal is a job that a legal American has been deprived of. Americans who pay illegals to do work are the criminals. Attack them with all of the savagery that is currently being unloaded on illegals, and Americans will be terrified to hire illegals, and they will stop doing it. And once they stop doing it, the illegals will self-deport. And that will be that. Want to end illegal immigration? Prosecute Americans. Take their money. Take their businesses. If we are unwilling to do that, then don't come begging about building walls or ripping the Constitution to shreds and redefining words in order to hammer the poor. No. Hammer the rich Americans who pay the illegals - they are the greater criminals. Hammer them and take their money away. Then illegal immigration will stop. If we are not willing to do that, which will WORK, then I am unwilling to do ANY of the other things, which will not work as well. Target Americans with the full force of the law, and that will stop illegal immigration. Leave the Americans alone, and I'm going to likewise demand that the legals be left alone, because that really will mean that what we're seeking to do is to allow Americans to exploit the hell out of illegals, even while beating the illegals down. And that is not acceptable.
Th parents obtain a lot. After they're deported, their little 3rd world spawn of garbage gets FREE medical, education, taxis, O'bunghole phones, lawyers, housing and EBT cards. All for being the byproduct of two illegal criminal pieces of shit. Deport all of them, including the drooling anchor baby bastards. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You are the weakness that feeds the libtard machine. You pay for your own sympathy and empathy. Don't ask me to pay it for you. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I don't mean to be disrespectul, but while we are throwing out illegal aliens, can we throw out useless retired, bureaucrats that did nothing for twenty years on the payroll but eat doughnuts, too? Thanks in advance.
Not if they are natural born citizens from American citizen parents. Try and stay with the grown ups and stay on topic. Otherwise, go sit in the corner with your cap on. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No. I will ask you to pay for it. We all pay and pay alike. That's government. All of us are under the laws. If we don't like the laws, we can try to change them. But when one side wins and sets the law, the choices are to pony up the taxes for the things you don't like (while trying to organize a political response), or to go nuts, refuse and get hauled off by force. Or, I suppose, to go nuts and get shot down by law enforcement. We're not going to revoke birth right citizenship, the courts are not going to change the meaning of jurisdiction, and if you're unwilling to hammer the rich Americans that make illegal profits hiring illegals and stiffing Americans out of jobs, well, then you're going to pony up to pay the illegals' benefits just like the rest of us. That's how it works. It's nothing personal.
"One out of about every twelve newborns in the United States is an anchor baby, or the U.S.-born child of illegal migrants, according to a Pew Research Center study." "This means that one anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds, based on the 2008 census data analyzed by the Pew." "The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil– roughly 340,000 per year— is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants." You pay for it, liberal. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
We all pay for it. You want to stop it, conservative? Then punish the Americans who pay them wages. Stop paying them, and they will leave. But shred my Constitution because you conservatives cannot discipline yourself to not take illegal profits, to not exploit the illegally cheap labor? No. My Constitution stays as written and interpreted. You either police your own capitalists who hire these illegals, and extract the cost from THEM in the form of penalties and fines for the illegal profits they make paying illegal workers so that they don't have to pay proper living wages to legal Americans, or you will pay the taxes to support the social programs for the illegals your capitalists bugger AND for the Americans your capitalists beggar. And if you won't pay the taxes, conservative, then the guns of the authorities will compel you to obey the law, and extract the taxes due from you at gunpoint, and if you resist them by force, you will be shot down like all who resist lawful authority. If you don't want the country full of illegals, then punish the Americans who create the illegal immigration by hiring them, just exactly as you punish drug peddlers. That's your choice, conservative: break the bad habits of your capitalists and hire Americans at living wages, or pay your taxes to support the social programs for the Americans your capitalists unemploy and to make up the difference in living expenses for the illegals those capitalists lure here with employment, and then don't pay a living wage. Those are your choices. You're not touching my Constitution, and you're not redefining my language to get your easy victory. You win the right way, conservative, or you continue to play by my rules.
I reject it. I don't reject it. I don't see enough of it to suit me. The entirety of the Earth's successful civilizations is doomed to be overrun by hords of of invading morons calling themselves immigrants, who have done naught with their own places of origin but demanding economic equality by right of confiscational parasitism.
Th parents obtain a lot. Truncating my statement does not work for me. I did not say the parents are not getting anything, but absolute none of it is conferred by 14A. As I continued, "They can be denied all benefits and be deported, taking their baby with them. We cannot deport the baby, but it is unlikely many would be abandoned. The problem is largely due to executive action, or executive failure to act. " Anything not conferred by the Constitution can be squashed by legislation. If conferred by executive action, it can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. If conferred by executive inaction, it can be taken away by executing the damn law. They are not getting crap because of the Constitution. They are getting crap because of the bought and paid criminals known as politicians in the Executive and Legislative branches.
And if we have a law on the books, the President is sworn to faithfully execute it. We have immigration laws that are being blatantly ignored. The President is ignoring his duty, and Congress is ignoring theirs, enabling the President. Congress never approved the DREAM Act. DACA was never a bill, much less approved legislation.
If they are "invading parasites", it is because their "host" cultures have become weak and sick. The Americans and the Europeans do not open their arms to them at all. In both cases, business interests have driven immigration. Immigrants come because they can find work. They can find work because natives with money - American and European businessmen - pay them for work. The American and European capitalists do that because they love money and profit far more than they love their fellow Americans or Europeans. Americans and Europeans have a good standard of living. That costs money, and it requires wages to pay for them. American and European businessmen do not want to pay their fellow citizens the wages they need to have an American or European standard of living. They chose, instead, to break the law and pay immigrants, illegal immigrants, illegally low wages so that they can reap and extra, illegal margin of profit, a profit they have no right to have, because it is obtained by hiring people it is illegal to hire. As long as American and European businessmen earn these illegal profits by refusing to hire their own people - forcing Americans and Europeans on the welfare rolls because they cannot get work in their own countries - immigrants will come to take the jobs offered to them. The conveyor belt of illegal immigration is driven by capitalist criminals in Europe and America, who hire and pay the illegals because they can do so at illegally low wages, without rights or benefits, and work them harder than it is legal to do. By doing so, they reap an extra margin of profit, which they pocket for themselves. That extra profit margin is illegal profit, and it comes at the price of hugely inflated welfare rolls that support unemployed Europeans and Americans - Europeans and Americans who cannot GET jobs because the jobs are given by criminal employers to illegal aliens. To stop the illegal immigration, you have to punish the criminal capitalists who employ them, strip them of their money and put some out of business and in jail, as an example to the rest. When they fear prosecution more than they desire illegal profits, they will stop hiring illegals. This, then, will cause the illegals to stop coming, and create a mass of illegals within America and Europe who need welfare. And when they come forward to get it, out of desperation, they can be identified and deported. THAT is how you handle illegal immigration: by attacking the source, which is white American and European criminals - rich Americans and Europeans who hire them. Attack THEM, and the illegal hiring stops, and the conveyor belt of illegal immigration stops, and the illegals self deport; the unemployment rolls of Americans and Europeans decline sharply, as Americans and Europeans take the jobs that were filled by illegals, and the welfare rolls decline also. No money was spent on a wall, or on deploying troops. The money was spent on law enforcement, tax officials and prisons to go after criminal American and European capitalists who earn illegal profits by hiring illegal aliens. A new problem will quickly present itself. As the illegals self-deport, the price of everything will soar. Legal American and European labor is more expensive, and it is in short supply because white people use sex as recreation and stopped having babies long ago. The result is a population of workers that has shrunk and keeps shrinking. The law of supply and demand makes labor more and more expensive in those circumstances. THAT is why American and European capitalists import labor and export jobs - the price of native labor is high, because contraception means that there are not enough native laborers to fill the gaps without paying them a lot of money. American businesses will be forced to hire blacks, and we will have to let a lot of people out of prison, just to fill the shortages. Nothing happens in a vacuum. YOU may want to just torment the illegal aliens, because you perceive them as weak and unable to fight back, and because you're full of racial rage at "invaders", and because you refuse to accept that the immigration conveyor belt is powered by American capitalists who pay the wages of the illegals, but your rage doesn't change the laws of economics. It's spiteful, and it focuses on the wrong people. To stop illegal immigration, you must go after the source: the Americans who hire them. Otherwise it's all in vain.
Such a quaint notion. Sworn oaths are meaningless.
The presidents and congresses of today and the recent past have proved that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Even Jesus said not to swear oaths, but have yes mean yes and no mean no. So, before God, an oath really is meaningless: he holds people accountable for lies, and a lie is not compounded (before God) by an oath. Men try to make magical spells that "bind men more", but they're fictional. Political men are not honest. That is what is so refreshing about Trump.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Does the Republican Supreme Court agree with Trump, or does it back the plaintiffs?
#3. To: cranky (#2)
SCOTUS is not an independent entity
#4. To: cranky (#0)
"The odds of repealing the amendment's citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures."
#5. To: cranky (#0)
"Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution."
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
It is populated by political loyalists who are put up there to advance their party's ideology through constitutional decisions.
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
The court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born here to illegals.
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution begins with the words,
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.”
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“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,”
#8. To: misterwhite (#5)
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces."
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
#10. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies
of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally...
and she agrees also. And there is NO ONE more
more 'pro-baby' than my 81 year old mother.
No one. Believe it.
#11. To: nolu chan (#8)
This would be struck down as unconstitutional.
#12. To: cranky (#0)
Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution.
#13. To: cranky (#2)
SCOTUS decisions are predetermined long before SCOTUS chooses to hear the case.
#14. To: sneakypete (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime
#15. To: cranky (#9)
I sure you're correct but if that has been true since 1898, why was the Indian Citizenship Act necessary in 1924?
Be it enacted by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)
#16. To: sneakypete, cranky (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
It all depends on the opinions of five.
#18. To: cranky (#14)
Is that the 'son of sam' law?
#19. To: nolu chan (#16)
The baby committed no crime being born in the USA
#20. To: nolu chan (#15)
#21. To: nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States"
#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)
"The Supreme court would just have to rule that "subject to the jurisdiction" or however it is worded means that they are here legally or a citizen."
#23. To: nolu chan (#8)
"It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed"
#24. To: sneakypete (#19)
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime.
#25. To: misterwhite (#23)
All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
#26. To: sneakypete, cranky, nolu chan (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#27. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#17)
(Edited)
I would not rule out the possibility that an anchor baby amendment could be passed and ratified.
#28. To: nolu chan (#17)
The language of the 14th Amdt is very clear.
#29. To: nolu chan (#25)
(Edited)
"Subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws of the United States.
#30. To: Liberator, Y'ALL (#26)
sneakypete, --- It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#31. To: nolu chan (#24)
A baby born in the USA is not an accessory to a crime. There is no crime of being born in the USA.
#32. To: tpaine, sneakypete (#30)
Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. --
#33. To: liberator, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#30)
If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"? ---- Liberator
I absolutely concur. A child born to two illegal aliens awaiting deportation in a detention center is a natural born citizen. The child is born in the United States and does not enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction. --- What could be done, and what I understand Trump to be alluding to with a nuanced statement, is that the parents could be deported. The U.S. citizen child could not be deported, but they could take the child with them, keeping the family together. Or not. Their choice. ---- The 14th Amdt. establishes citizenship for the child. It does not grant anchor status for the parents. ----- nolu chan posted on 2015-08-19
#34. To: misterwhite (#21)
True? No?
#35. To: A K A Stone (#20)
Women serve in the military now.
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
"No."
#37. To: misterwhite (#23)
All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
#38. To: nolu chan (#35)
If an American servicewoman
#39. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#27)
(I can dream about an "Anti-Dream Act", can't I?)
And made retroactive?
#40. To: misterwhite (#29)
What about my Carlos example in post #21?
#41. To: sneakypete (#31)
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her.
#42. To: tpaine (#33)
Problem solved?
#43. To: nolu chan (#39)
Some states could lose several representatives if illegal aliens were no longer present.
#44. To: nolu chan (#41)
Take it to court. I wish you the best of luck persuading the court that an unborn child committed a crime when the mother crossed the border.
#45. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#37)
misterwhite (#23) --- All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38)
"If say one from Palestine was fighting us in a war. Would her little Jihadist be an American citizen?"
#47. To: tpaine (#45)
This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
#48. To: sneakypete (#44)
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
#49. To: nolu chan (#47)
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation. --- nolu chan
Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
No. It has been resolved. You just don't like the resolution.
To changed the resolution, the Executive and Legislative branches are not empowered.
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why? SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#50. To: nolu chan (#48)
I equally wish you good luck in arguing the theory of fetal accomplice to a crime.
#51. To: sneakypete (#50)
I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on teebee,but that doesn't mean it is not a valid argument and that some lawyer can't and won't present it.
#52. To: tpaine (#49)
Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
#53. To: nolu chan (#51)
(Edited)
A fetus as an accomplice to a crime? Really?
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#55. To: nolu chan (#52)
Still no. Congress can enact no law which nullifies any part of the Constitution.
SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#56. To: sneakypete (#54)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#57. To: tpaine (#55)
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why?
#58. To: sneakypete (#53)
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime.
#59. To: nolu chan (#56)
An infant or a fetus? Charged/convicted criminally? Do we have a special prison for one-year olds?
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime.
#61. To: nolu chan (#57)
Congress can establish a Rule of Naturalization. It cannot conflict with the Constitution. 14A cannot be changed or defeated by legislation.
SCORES could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#62. To: sneakypete (#59)
No,but we can damn sure deport them.
#63. To: sneakypete (#60)
Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime.
#64. To: tpaine (#61)
Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, SCOTUS could change their opinion about 'subject to jurisdiction', -- making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
Decided June 15, 1982 * (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase “within its jurisdiction,” cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. Pp. 210-216.
vation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: '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.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo, supra, at 369 (emphasis added).
"Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. It is there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, - each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders." Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 350 (1938).
"Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?" Id., at 1090.
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." Id., at 2766 (emphasis added).
#65. To: nolu chan (#62)
No,but we can damn sure deport them.
#66. To: nolu chan (#63)
Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
The baby is not a citizen. It is a illegal alien.
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
(Edited)
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States.
#69. To: sneakypete (#66)
Ok,you are in love with your opinion and love to argue in circles.
[nolu chan #16] The baby committed no crime being born in the USA
#70. To: sneakypete (#68)
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States.
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
Please point out how a baby born in the United States is an illegal alien invader.
#72. To: sneakypete (#71)
If the mother is an illegal alien,so is the baby she gave birth to.
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.
the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
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.
#74. To: sneakypete (#73)
Yes,but the child doesn't reside in the US. It resides in some 3rd world shithole,and is an illegal invader here.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
#76. To: nolu chan (#74)
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.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
You ignore what the writers of the law said it means.
#78. To: sneakypete (#76)
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.
#79. To: nolu chan (#78)
The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally.
#80. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Liberator, tpaine (#79)
The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally.
When it is said that "by the common law a person born of alien parents, and in the allegiance of the United States, is born a citizen thereof, it is necessarily understood that he is not only born on soil over which the United States has or claims jurisdiction, but that such jurisdiction for the time being is both actual and exclusive, so that such person is in fact born within the power, protection and obedience of the United States. Generally speaking, the various places in the world are claimed, or admitted for the time being, to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of some particular sovereign or government, so that a person born at any one of them is without doubt born in the allegiance of such particular sovereign or government.
Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution, commonly called the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, have been cited by counsel for plaintiff as bearing upon this question of the plaintiff's citizenship and consequent right to vote. The latter simply provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged * * * on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But as to who are "citizens of the United States" this article is silent—it being understood that that matter had been regulated or defined by article 14, § 1, which enacts: "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." Eliminate the words having reference to naturalized citizens, and the clause reads: "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens," etc. This is nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law as above stated. To be a citizen of the United States by reason of his birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but he must also be born subject to its jurisdiction—that is, in its power and obedience.
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that "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." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, while within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status of condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.
#81. To: nolu chan (#47)
No. It has been resolved. You just don't like the resolution. To changed the resolution, the Executive and Legislative branches are not empowered. SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#82. To: nolu chan (#80)
The baby is a person, born in the United States, and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof. The cases on the 14th Amendment go back to 1871.
#83. To: sneakypete (#44)
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#82)
#85. To: GrandIsland (#83)
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
#86. To: GrandIsland, Vicomte13 (#84)
[GI to Vicomte13] You are like the forums anchor baby super hero.
#87. To: nolu chan (#86)
#88. To: nolu chan (#86)
The baby being a citizen obtains nothing for the parents
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
For my part, I do not want to deport the parents
#90. To: GrandIsland (#88)
Deport all of them, including the drooling anchor baby bastards.
#91. To: buckeroo (#90)
can we throw out useless retired, bureaucrats
#92. To: GrandIsland (#89)
ou are the weakness that feeds the libtard machine. You pay for your own sympathy and empathy. Don't ask me to pay it for you.
#93. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
#94. To: GrandIsland (#93)
(Edited)
#95. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
I see a great deal of willingness to be savagely harsh with poor immigrants.
#96. To: GrandIsland (#88)
The baby being a citizen obtains nothing for the parents
The baby being a citizen obtains nothing for the parents via 14A.
After they're deported, their little 3rd world spawn of garbage gets FREE medical, education, taxis, O'bunghole phones, lawyers, housing and EBT cards. All for being the byproduct of two illegal criminal pieces of shit.
#97. To: Vicomte13, GrandIsland (#92)
All of us are under the laws. If we don't like the laws, we can try to change them.
#98. To: rlk (#95)
#99. To: nolu chan (#97)
"the President is sworn"
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
Such a quaint notion. Sworn oaths are meaningless.
#101. To: nolu chan (#100)
The presidents and congresses of today and the recent past have proved that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]