Appeals Court Refuses To Lift Block On Trumps Restricting Birthright Citizenship

[80zephyr]

The Conservatives have held a solid Absolutist view of the Constitution where the actual words are all that matter.

Are you saying they will change?

Who does that? I believe what Jefferson said:




On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And using his reasoning, the Amendment does not include anchor babies.

 

[SweetTea]

The Conservatives have held a solid Absolutist view of the Constitution where the actual words are all that matter.

Are you saying they will change?

Intent must be taken into account. ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the key phrase that must be re-evaluated. Why was that included? Why not just simply say, anyone born in the US is a citizen? It is because they obviously recognized that there were some exceptions, but those exceptions were not explicitly defined.

Do you believe the framers of the 14th in 1866 foresaw people sneaking over our border illegally and having babies that are citizens? I can assure you, that had they seen that coming, they would have changed the wording.

Regardless, the framers of the 14th Amendment recognized that there were some exceptions. What those exceptions are is most certainly up for debate since they weren’t explicitly included.

 

[pknopp]

Who does that? I believe what Jefferson said:




On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And using his reasoning, the Amendment does not include anchor babies.

So any of the amendments since Jeffersons time are null and void?

 

[80zephyr]

So any of the amendments since Jeffersons time are null and void?

Him just stating how they should be interpreted does that?

 

[pknopp]

Intent must be taken into account. ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the key phrase that must be re-evaluated. Why was that included? Why not just simply say, anyone born in the US is a citizen? It is because they obviously recognized that there were some exceptions, but those exceptions were not explicitly defined.

Do you believe the framers of the 14th in 1866 foresaw people sneaking over our border illegally and having babies that are citizens? I can assure you, that had they seen that coming, they would have changed the wording.

Regardless, the framers of the 14th Amendment recognized that there were some exceptions. What those exceptions are is most certainly up for debate since they weren’t explicitly included.

In 1866 people freely crossed back and forth and many babies were born here who were then US citizens.

During Jeffersons time all you had to be was white (not sure how they defined that but included those from Mexico) and living in the U.S. for 2 years to become a citizen. Should we revert back to that?

 

[80zephyr]

In 1866 people freely crossed back and forth and many babies were born here who were then US citizens.

During Jeffersons time all you had to be was white (not sure how they defined that but included those from Mexico) and living in the U.S. for 2 years to become a citizen. Should we revert back to that?

During Jeffersons time, we had slaves. Should we revert back to that?

 

[pknopp]

Him just stating how they should be interpreted does that?

First, you don't answer a question with a question but since you did we will take your claim for what it's worth.

Nothing.

 

[pknopp]

During Jeffersons time, we had slaves. Should we revert back to that?

No, because we have enacted new amendments since Jeffersons time.

I'm not sure why you expect me to defend your highly flawed position at that.

 

[80zephyr]

First, you don't answer a question with a question but since you did we will take your claim for what it's worth.

Nothing.

Because your question contained no logic. I can't imagine how you even formulated that question based on my post.

 

[pknopp]

Because your question contained no logic. I can't imagine how you even formulated that question based on my post.

Yes you do. Jeffersons time is irrelevant after new amendments were passed.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes you do. Jeffersons time is irrelevant after new amendments were passed.

Why would assessing why an Amendment was passed be irrelevant...in any era?

 

[rightwinger]

In 1866 people freely crossed back and forth and many babies were born here who were then US citizens.

During Jeffersons time all you had to be was white (not sure how they defined that but included those from Mexico) and living in the U.S. for 2 years to become a citizen. Should we revert back to that?

Texas was a state back then
people routinely crossed the border

 

[SweetTea]

In 1866 people freely crossed back and forth and many babies were born here who were then US citizens.

During Jeffersons time all you had to be was white (not sure how they defined that but included those from Mexico) and living in the U.S. for 2 years to become a citizen. Should we revert back to that?

Great point. Times change.

For the sake of argument, what if the 14th Amendment didn’t exist? Given the state of the world and the US, would a proposal to draft an amendment to provide birthright citizenship to children born to illegals or those traveling on vacation make any sense? Times and circumstances change, but again, the framers of the14th Amendment purposely added an opened ended exclusion to birthright citizenship, leaving it open to interpretation so that it could account for unforeseen changes in the country. Maybe that was on purpose. If so, it was brilliant. Regardless, the exceptions must be determined and explicitly defined.

 

[pknopp]

Great point. Times change.

For the sake of argument, what if the 14th Amendment didn’t exist? Given the state of the world and the US, would a proposal to draft an amendment to provide birthright citizenship to children born to illegals or those traveling on vacation make any sense? Times and circumstances change, but again, the framers of the14th Amendment purposely added an opened ended exclusion to birthright citizenship, leaving it open to interpretation so that it could account for unforeseen changes in the country. Maybe that was on purpose. If so, it was brilliant. Regardless, the exceptions must be determined and explicitly defined.

Those here illegally are "under the jurisdiction" or otherwise they couldn't be arrested and held accountable for their actions unlike say a diplomat.

 

[80zephyr]

Those here illegally are "under the jurisdiction" or otherwise they couldn't be arrested and held accountable for their actions unlike say a diplomat.

So a vacationer from Germany kills someone while drunk makes him a citizen if he is jailed?

 

[martybegan]

Those here illegally are "under the jurisdiction" or otherwise they couldn't be arrested and held accountable for their actions unlike say a diplomat.

That's going to be the crux of the argument.

I still think fixing this will require an amendment, and they should fix the other issue in the 14th, the one caused by Morris v Board of Estimates that doesn't allow States to have a Senate type upper house based on things like counties.

 

[pknopp]

So a vacationer from Germany kills someone while drunk makes him a citizen if he is jailed?

I'm not interested in addressing your lame spin. You do this as you know your argument holds no water.

 

[pknopp]

That's going to be the crux of the argument.

I still think fixing this will require an amendment, and they should fix the other issue in the 14th, the one caused by Morris v Board of Estimates that doesn't allow States to have a Senate type upper house based on things like counties.

I can't really argue with anything here.

 

[80zephyr]

I'm not interested in addressing your lame spin. You do this as you know your argument holds no water.

Not my argument. Its yours.

 

[SweetTea]

So a vacationer from Germany kills someone while drunk makes him a citizen if he is jailed?

He is saying if said German has a baby while in jail, that her baby would be a citizen.

The issue is that we all know the intent was most certainly not to allow people that break laws that explicitly restrict entry into the country to have kids that are legal citizens. Such laws didn’t exist at the time. I can assure you that if this question was posed to the framers of the 14th, they would side with the Republican side of this argument, in fact, they would likely have been puzzled as to why this question even had to be asked.