Trump supports immigration visas backed by Musk: ‘I have many H-1B visas on my properties’

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 14th has the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It does not define the clause. The clause had a meaning in 1865 that was different than how it is understood today.

An originalist court will interpret the text of a law based on the meaning when the law was written, not how it's understood today.

The reason I mentioned illegal immigrants was to explain that interpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in an originalist way would not require overturning Wong Kim Ark.

IOW, anyone whose parents are present in compliance with US law would still be entitled to birthright citizenship. People who are present illegally could be excluded as aliens, without violating legal precedent.

I think it would have to only apply going forward, because you do not want to create a class of stateless people as a result. But I think the interpretation as a matter of law is not as cut-and-dried as many people assume.

I think it would have to only apply going forward, because you do not want to create a class of stateless people as a result.

They would be subjects of the state their parents came from.

 

[para bellum]

They would be subjects of the state their parents came from.

I agree with that in principle, but those states may not want to accept them as citizens, and the people who are losing their citizenship would most likely object too. I think it would cause a lot of problems because it would necessarily reach back for generations.

That alone would be a good reason for the SCOTUS to just choose not to hear the case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree with that in principle, but those states may not want to accept them as citizens, and the people who are losing their citizenship would most likely object too. I think it would cause a lot of problems because it would necessarily reach back for generations.

That alone would be a good reason for the SCOTUS to just choose not to hear the case.

Accept them, don't accept them, but they're not stateless.

 

[Mac-7]

There is no such thing as anchor baby and all federal judges are unelected. You will never be able to change either of those facts. Whine all you want to the wall, because that is about as much good as you are doing here.

When I say “anchor baby” you know exactly what I mean

 

[para bellum]

Accept them, don't accept them, but they're not stateless.

If you revoke citizenship from someone and they do not have citizenship somewhere else, you are making them stateless. That is certainly the effect- the US doesn't have the power to grant citizenship for other countries. You can't just ship them off and say "good luck", that's not practical.

The Court is very likely to say "this is something that can be resolved by the Legislature, it's not our problem". If the Congress wants to pass legislation that excludes people not lawfully present, they have the authority under Section 5 of the 14th. to do that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you revoke citizenship from someone and they do not have citizenship somewhere else, you are making them stateless. That is certainly the effect- the US doesn't have the power to grant citizenship for other countries. You can't just ship them off and say "good luck", that's not practical.

The Court is very likely to say "this is something that can be resolved by the Legislature, it's not our problem". If the Congress wants to pass legislation that excludes people not lawfully present, they have the authority under Section 5 of the 14th. to do that.

If you revoke citizenship from someone and they do not have citizenship somewhere else, you are making them stateless.

If the person in question, for example, has 2 parents from Mexico, that person has Mexican citizenship.

 

[OldFlame]

I'm sorry, but this is pointless. You are not listening, at all.

Also, it's a logical fallacy to dismiss a claim based on who brings it up. I'm pretty sure that's called the Genetic, tisk fallacy. But continue to stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" to things you don't want to hear, I'm sure that will get you far.

You're a ******* piece of work... and you're also stupid enough to somehow think all of your little posts happen in a vacuum on here. lol

More TDS bashing BC, tisk, tisk...

I'd also like you or the demented op to point to one thread that was created by any Trump supporter on here complaining about H1B visas. Thanks.

 

[jc456]

There is no such thing as anchor baby and all federal judges are unelected. You will never be able to change either of those facts. Whine all you want to the wall, because that is about as much good as you are doing here.

Naw, subject to jurisdiction is your enemy . Allegiances is not your friend

 

[buttercup]

You're a ******* piece of work... and you're also stupid enough to somehow think all of your little posts happen in a vacuum on here. lol

More TDS bashing BC, tisk, tisk...

I'd also like you or the demented op to point to one thread that was created by any Trump supporter on here complaining about H1B visas. Thanks.

Nice vulgarity. And wow, once again, just like on the other thread, it's as if you live in a cave. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have voiced disapproval of H-1B (or at least of the abuse of it.) Your unawareness and obliviousness is your problem, not mine. Try actually reading threads from the last few days (or better yet, venture outside of USMB once in a while) because you continually show a blatant unawareness and a woefully hyperpartisan mindset that causes you to be nasty and completely closed off to anything you don't already believe.

And as I've already said a few times, the issue is not just H-1B, but how both Trump and Elon have handled the whole thing. Just for one example, how Trump stated he was always for it and said "we need a lot more people coming in" when he's on video from 2016 flat out saying it should end because it's a bad thing, and we should put American workers first.

And btw, thanks for all the spiteful reactions (you blew up my notifications and nearly all of them are from you, almost like you're following me around) you just upped my reaction score.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 14th has the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It does not define the clause. The clause had a meaning in 1865 that was different than how it is understood today.

An originalist court will interpret the text of a law based on the meaning when the law was written, not how it's understood today.

The reason I mentioned illegal immigrants was to explain that interpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in an originalist way would not require overturning Wong Kim Ark.

IOW, anyone whose parents are present in compliance with US law would still be entitled to birthright citizenship. People who are present illegally could be excluded as aliens, without violating legal precedent.

I think it would have to only apply going forward, because you do not want to create a class of stateless people as a result. But I think the interpretation as a matter of law is not as cut-and-dried as many people assume.

Go ahead and file a lawsuit challenging it to see how well it works out. That's what I tell all the complainers to do, but they won't.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Naw, subject to jurisdiction is your enemy . Allegiances is not your friend

That makes no sense whatsoever. That is quite normal for you! Keep up the good work.

 

[para bellum]

Go ahead and file a lawsuit challenging it to see how well it works out. That's what I tell all the complainers to do, but they won't.

Well there's nothing to challenge. Trump would have to issue the EO, it would be challenged, etc...

 

[OldFlame]

I wake up this morning to see a thread about immigration is still in the politics board.

What the hell?

I am going to the Alabama/Michigan bowl game here in Tampa in a few hours. How the **** can I concentrate on the game knowing an immigration thread is in the politics forum.

The threads on the muslim driving into the Christmas market in GERMANY were immediately and properly moved to the Europe forum…so we are no longer discussing that topic.

I know this is IMPOSSIBLE…but it almost seems like threads are moved out of the most trafficked forum as a way to downrank them and lower their participation. It is not, I know no moderators would be that pathetic. It just seems like it possibly could be that way to someone who does not know how amazing and fair the mods are on this site,

There are also many non merged threads on this topic….weird.

Didn't you see who the op is??? You think he plays fair?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well there's nothing to challenge. Trump would have to issue the EO, it would be challenged, etc...

Trump hopefully is not that stupid and will listen to better informed advisors. It's a lose-lose proposition.

 

[jc456]

That makes no sense whatsoever. That is quite normal for you! Keep up the good work.

I knew you had no idea the amendment

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I knew you had no idea the amendment

Is that supposed to be a sentence or did your keyboard just throw up a bunch of words?

 

[jc456]

Is that supposed to be a sentence or did your keyboard just throw up a bunch of words?

It’s a fact

 

[OldFlame]

Nice vulgarity. And wow, once again, just like on the other thread, it's as if you live in a cave. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have voiced disapproval of H-1B (or at least of the abuse of it.) Your unawareness and obliviousness is your problem, not mine. Try actually reading threads from the last few days (or better yet, venture outside of USMB once in a while) because you continually show a blatant unawareness and a woefully hyperpartisan mindset that causes you to be nasty and completely closed off to anything you don't already believe.

And as I've already said a few times, the issue is not just H-1B, but how both Trump and Elon have handled the whole thing. Just for one example, how Trump stated he was always for it and said "we need a lot more people coming in" when he's on video from 2016 flat out saying it should end because it's a bad thing, and we should put American workers first.

And btw, thanks for all the spiteful reactions (you blew up my notifications and nearly all of them are from you, almost like you're following me around) you just upped my reaction score.

'Plenty' of them, where? On the mainstream media that you don't watch or listen too? Let's get a link to all of the threads where Trump supporters were complaining about H1B visas, you conveniently provided nothing once again. You're just another mindless drone puppet of the leftist media who uses your TDS to make you look the fool.

Why would I give a **** about your reaction score, are you 12?

 

[buttercup]

'Plenty' of them, where? On the mainstream media that you don't watch or listen too? Let's get a link to all of the threads where Trump supporters were complaining about H1B visas, you conveniently provided nothing once again. You're just another mindless drone puppet of the leftist media who uses your TDS to make you look the fool.

Why would I give a **** about your reaction score, are you 12?

You are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest. I don't know which.

I'm leaning towards the latter, since I actually PAGED you to a thread about an hour ago, which you completely ignored. Did you not see the notification?

Listen, your hyperpartisan nastiness and you following me around giving me spiteful reactions is getting tiresome. Sorry, I'm just not interested in those types of games. Find someone else to release your nasty anger on.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It’s a fact

You wrote: "I knew you had no idea the amendment"


If you read that and made sense out of it, you need to call an ambulance because you are having a stroke.