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

[JoeB131]

Huge. You've never filled out an application/questionnaire where they ask "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED"

That's not the point, is it? Yes, ICE won't put this on his permanent record, but the very fact that he was held at all is a problem.

Nope

Sounds like you are to me. What good reason would ICE have to detain this guy? He served in the military, so a five second conversation with him would have indicated he wasn't some foreigner.

Back to the Nazi thing. Seek help.

We're done. Bored with your hysterical inanities. It's like attempting a debate with a teenage valley girl.

Gee, guy, a veteran gets detained by federal agents for just being brown, and you think this is fine.

That sounds a lot like what the Nazis did if you didn't look the right way.

 

[protectionist]

Nope, it takes an amendment. Your opinion does define or "establish" constitutional law. You are not "an accepted voice of authority."

No Amendment needed. We already have it. The 14th.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, that definition was used by SCOTUS in 1898. You still haven't read that court decision, have you?

I understand the court decision, precedent can get messed up. I'm looking at what people who WROTE the amendment meant, not what some justice decided they wanted it to mean

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I understand the court decision, precedent can get messed up. I'm looking at what people who WROTE the amendment meant, not what some justice decided they wanted it to mean

How do you know that SCOTUS didn't consider the intent in 1898?

 

[Rawley]

That's not the point, is it? Yes, ICE won't put this on his permanent record, but the very fact that he was held at all is a problem.

Really? You're telling us that if a hispanic with a scar across his face rapes and kills your family, and cops stop a hispanic with a scar across his face two blocks from your house fifteen minutes later, but he doesn't have an ID. So you tell the cops is to let him go. Really?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I understand the court decision, precedent can get messed up. I'm looking at what people who WROTE the amendment meant, not what some justice decided they wanted it to mean

The 1898 is the legal decision of what the writers meant. You have no ground logically to change that meaning

 

[ThisIsMe]

How do you know that SCOTUS didn't consider the intent in 1898?

Well, if they came to any other conclusion then they got it wrong. The senators were fairly clear in their intent

 

[ThisIsMe]

The 1898 is the legal decision of what the writers meant. You have no ground logically to change that meaning

The 14th amendment was written in. 1866, the 1898 decision is their interpretation of it 30 years removed. How do you go from what the senators themselves said, to the new definition of the 1898 courts..in that short a time?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, if they came to any other conclusion then they got it wrong. The senators were fairly clear in their intent

There was no such thing as an illegal alien back then. How could they consider it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 14th amendment was written in. 1866, the 1898 decision is their interpretation of it 30 years removed. How do you go from what the senators themselves said, to the new definition of the 1898 courts..in that short a time?

They created illegal aliens with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 14th amendment was written in. 1866, the 1898 decision is their interpretation of it 30 years removed. How do you go from what the senators themselves said, to the new definition of the 1898 courts..in that short a time?

I don't have to. The 1898 decision is clear and binding.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have to. The 1898 decision is clear and binding.

The 1898 decision involves people who came here when there was not a hard and fast legal basis for determining if someone was here legally or not.

Now we have laws that detail that, so a new case is both warranted and welcomed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 1898 decision involves people who came here when there was not a hard and fast legal basis for determining if someone was here legally or not.

Now we have laws that detail that, so a new case is both warranted and welcomed.

we have in the 1898 a clear and fast legal arrangement that you don't like

that does not mean anything your dislike

 

[martybegan]

we have in the 1898 a clear and fast legal arrangement that you don't like

that does not mean anything your dislike

It doesn't apply to the current situation.

And we overturned Roe and Chevron recently. This would even be overturning anything, it would be simple clarification.

Are people here illegally and still citizens of another country covered under the concept of "subject to the jurisdiction of the US"?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It doesn't apply to the current situation.

And we overturned Roe and Chevron recently. This would even be overturning anything, it would be simple clarification.

Are people here illegally and still citizens of another country covered under the concept of "subject to the jurisdiction of the US"?

Yes, it could be overturned, but the court will say, "just remove them and don't bother us again."

 

[martybegan]

Yes, it could be overturned, but the court will say, "just remove them and don't bother us again."

This won't be overturned but clarified.

it's what the court is supposed to do.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There was no such thing as an illegal alien back then. How could they consider it?

There didn't need to be. They were defining what "subject to the jurisdiction of" meant. They didn't intend for just anyone to come here and have a baby and that baby be a citizen.

Also, "alien" was a term used in the debates. It seems they didn't intend on the 14th being used as it is today

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't have to. The 1898 decision is clear and binding.

It's only as clear and binding until another scotus interprets it differently.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's only as clear and binding until another scotus interprets it differently.

... which means I doubt they are going to consult us.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? You're telling us that if a hispanic with a scar across his face rapes and kills your family, and cops stop a hispanic with a scar across his face two blocks from your house fifteen minutes later, but he doesn't have an ID. So you tell the cops is to let him go. Really?

Okay, was that was actually alledged by the Veteran (who had his VA card on him, apparently), or are you just making shit up to try to rationalize what ICE did?

This won't be overturned but clarified.

it's what the court is supposed to do.

No clarification needed, it's very clearly written.