Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I think there is needs to be a discussion of the term "jurisdiction"

In the debates about the 14th amendment, this was said:

*
Simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that
every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to
their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of
the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of person.*

Now BRC proponents would say that the list of qualifiers was intended to mean it only applied to diplomats, which, they could have more easily clarified it by simply saying "everyone born in the United States it a citizen except the children of foreign diplomats" . That would have been much easier to understand.
BRC opponents say the list was disqualifying;

In other words, proponents read it as; "
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 accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of person, meaning foreigners or aliens...who belong to the families of...

The other side reads it as;

It shall not include:

1) foreigners
2)aliens
3)or people who belong to families of ambassadors....
4) but will include everyone else.

What's the point of creating a sovereign nation, citizenship,and borders if everyone could so easily bypass all of it? By allowing anyone and everyone into the country this way, what is the point of citizenship? If our rights,laws, and benefits apply to everyone who can illegally cross our borders, then why even have citizenship at all?

Then get an amendment ratified.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hardly, they'll say the president is correct and only Congress can change Trump's interpretation. You folks have a crap track record with the 14th.

Not a chance. This is constitutional fiat, and neither Congress nor the President can change it.

 

[JohnDB]

The problem is that's not what they put in the Amendment.

They specifically stated that all persons born in the US are citizens



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But it doesn't apply to those of the diplomatic Corp. Or those committing immigration fraud.

"Fruit of the poison vine" doctrine cuts both ways...
Meaning you, or others (including your family) cannot benefit from criminal activity.
It's what governs illegal search and seizure laws.

 

[Mac-7]

Except they have to be able to justify it in the text of the constitution, that's the problem.

They can't pretend it doesn't say things it clearly says.

While Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Rapey Kavanaugh are political whores, they aren't idiots.

Alito and Thomas are Political Whores AND idiots.

They dont

But if you insist, the black robes can think of something

If the reasoning makes no sense to you, tough shit

Their word is law, yours isnt

 

[JohnDB]

The problem is that's not what they put in the Amendment.

They specifically stated that all persons born in the US are citizens



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And what I showed is a transcript of a discussion of settled law and discussion of the ammendment in question.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Most of America would be thrilled.

No, the residents of many cities would be thrilled. That’s where the anti-gun liberals live. Ninety percent of the counties of the USA would hate it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except they have to be able to justify it in the text of the constitution, that's the problem.

They can't pretend it doesn't say things it clearly says.

While Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Rapey Kavanaugh are political whores, they aren't idiots.

Alito and Thomas are Political Whores AND idiots.

You sure like to throw around insults.

 

[cnm]

None of the plaintiffs in these cases has standing to sue.

Make your argument.

edit...Oh, it's you.

Never mind.

 

[johnwk]

Any point of law

The Constitution means whatever at least 5 lawyers on the SC say it means

Lying about the true meaning of the Constitution, doesn't make is so.

JWK

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court notes an attempt to misconstrue the text of legislation to defeat its intentions.


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[AsherN]

Right, but laws are open to interpretation. The Supreme Court should take up the case and interpret the 14th, specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction”. The intent was to exclude certain groups, including foreign diplomats. Visitors, illegal or not, should fall into those exclusions.

Outstanding. Means I can come to the US and commit crimes with impunity, because I would not be subject to the jurisdiction.

 

[AsherN]

Sanctuary cities have proven that clearly they aren’t fully subject to the jurisdiction.

Nope. They are fully subject to the jurisdiction. Sanctuary cities just chose to not to Federal law enforcement's job for them.

 

[AsherN]

I did not say the 14th's original intent.
The real question is "can the USSC re-interpret the 14th to agree with Trump's EO?"

Can they? Sure. But it hinges on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Diplomats are not . And we all know what happens when the violate a law. Now, if the SC decides that other classes of people within the US are not subject to the jurisdiction, that interpretation will be used in other laws. Short of rewriting the amendment to clarify that the exclusions only refer to that amendment, then any people in the exclusion list would be free to commit crimes.

 

[Mac-7]

Lying about the true meaning of the Constitution, doesn't make is so.

JWK

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court notes an attempt to misconstrue the text of legislation to defeat its intentions.


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Is it your claim that the high court is never wrong?

 

[cnm]

Again, why would you be in favor of such an interpretation? How does it benefit the US?

I'm in favour of plain language. If language is only to be interpreted to the benefit of US, of what benefit is it in actual reality?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The amendment is ambiguous. And there are records showing the original drafters of the amendment did not mean it to include the foreign born.

That is because most of America in the 1860s was foreign born or first generation American.

 

[cnm]

My point is that Democrats are always on the wrong side of the argument, unless their intent is to destroy the US. Years of indoctrination has created a few generations of US haters. All part of our enemies long term strategy to destroy us from within.

The Nazis thought the same.

 

[cnm]

“subject to the jurisdiction”…did you forget that part?

If US law applies to them when they're in the US, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Stop being so ******* ignorant.

 

[cnm]

The amendment is ambiguous. And there are records showing the original drafters of the amendment did not mean it to include the foreign born.

One is not surprised you haven't shown them.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Nazis thought the same.

Well the DNC does act like NAZIs GOOD POINT

 

[cnm]

Any executive order that attempts to remove rights already granted by the constitution is a dereliction of duty by the President. He has just sworn to defend the constitution and a few hours later he attacks the constitution, THAT is what I am arguing about, not the merits or otherwise of restrictions I really couldn't care less about them.

He's delivering for his base. That's what they wanted. As shown in this thread, they don't like the Constitution.

That's fair enough, neither does the USSC.