S.C. needs to keep nose out of immigration policy making decisions, Trump v. Barbara

[Care4all]

Birthright citizenship is BAD PUBLIC POLICY. No one can point to a single benefit, which is why Democrats unanimously support it.

The language of the 14th is ambiguous, and the USSC should use that ambiguity to correct this awful policy mistake, even if it has prevailed virtually since the beginning. They can declare that the children of illegals are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the same State as their parents.

FYI- It isn't ambiguous.

The SC in the Ark case was able to use and examine the debate records on the 14th Amendment from the Senate floor surrounding what ALL PERSONS meant to all of those voting.

Everyone who voted on it, knew that ALL PERSONS meant, all persons.....with the exception of those with diplomatic immunity, and native tribesmen on reservations, both of whom were not under our jurisdiction.

Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship | Constitutional Accountability Center

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us...

www.theusconstitution.org

The Opposition's Arguments​

During the 1866 debates, opponents argued fiercely against the inclusive "all persons" language. They feared it would grant automatic citizenship to groups they deemed undesirable.

Key Quotes from the Debates​

Senator Edgar Cowan (Pennsylvania)


Cowan was one of the most vocal opponents. He specifically feared the amendment would apply to Chinese immigrants in California and the Roma (whom he called "Gypsies") in his home state.

"I am really desirous to know whether... it is the child of the Chinese and the child of the Gypsy... who are to be citizens? ... Is it proposed that the people of California are to now have a flood of Thugs or Thuggees [invading] their State?"

Senator Jacob Howard (Michigan) — The Amendment's Sponsor


To understand the opposition, it helps to see how the amendment's supporters responded. Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, confirmed that it was intended to be sweeping, excluding only a very specific set of people.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers... but will include every other class of persons."

Senator Lyman Trumbull (Illinois)


Trumbull, a key architect of the era's civil rights legislation, directly answered Cowan's fears about Chinese and Roma children:

"[The child of a Gypsy or Chinese person is] undoubtedly [a citizen]... To be a citizen of the United States is a right which cannot be wrested from any class of persons.

 

[pknopp]

Not the transport rule which is ridiculous. Also, there are many restrictions on where a legal gun holder and permit holder cannot carry, for example, on federal property. How is that legal based on the 2nd Ammendment?

I don't believe it is. I commented on this yesterday.

The answer is that it isn't, but the Supreme Cort allowed it. They interpreted it in a way that it was not written.

The court isn't going to flip immigration so in the end this is all a complete waste of time.

Now if you were trying to convince people to support a Constitutional Amendment, it would at least be worth your time.

 

[SweetTea]

I don't believe it is. I commented on this yesterday.

And yet it is Federal law.

The court isn't going to flip immigration so in the end this is all a complete waste of time.

Then just pass laws that restrict it and let the Supreme Court overturn them, or not, just as they have done with the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[pknopp]

And yet it is Federal law.



Then just pass laws that restrict it and let the Supreme Court overturn them, or not, just as they have done with the 2nd Ammendment.

That's what they are doing. Trump tried. The court was obviously not open to it.

 

[SweetTea]

That's what they are doing. Trump tried. The court was obviously not open to it.

Each state/city could pass laws restricting brithright citizenship on their city/state. The precedent would be that the other ammendments are also restricted.

 

[pknopp]

Each state/city could pass laws restricting brithright citizenship on their city/state. The precedent would be that the other ammendments are also restricted.

The Supreme Court has long ruled this a federal issue. States aren't going to waste the time.

 

[SweetTea]

The Supreme Court has long ruled this a federal issue. States aren't going to waste the time.

Is the 2nd Ammendment a federal issue?

 

[SweetTea]

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA, unless you are the ambassador for a foreign nation. Ambassadors, their family and their staff are NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA.

The ONLY people not "under the jurisdiction of the USA" members of the foreign service of a different country.

Trump needs too stop trying to amend the Constitution by Executive Order.

Idiot.

Or enemy invaders...ah yes, there are indeed exceptions.

 

[pknopp]

Is the 2nd Ammendment a federal issue?

Already covered.

 

[SweetTea]

Already covered.

Right, they are both federal and yet one is constrained by state and local laws.

 

[pknopp]

Right, they are both federal and yet one is constrained by state and local laws.

The court is going to over rule Teump. Once that is done, any law comes nowhere close to getting past lower courts.

 

[SweetTea]

The court is going to over rule Teump. Once that is done, any law comes nowhere close to getting past lower courts.

I am simply suggesting that local jurisdictions pass laws that restrict it in some way at the local level. No reason they should not be able to based on the precedent set by laws restricting the 2nd Ammendment.