Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bill Carson, May 30, 2023.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't. I suspect you already know that, but don't have a credible evidenciary citation to rebut it, so we got this instead. The author of the amendment intentionally left out lots of folks, including aliens. You know what that word means, don't you? Since aliens are still also under the jurisdiction of their country of origin. You know this, and yet you tried this line? It's sad. I blame public schools for this utter lack of intellectual honesty....
     
    Bill Carson likes this.
  2. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you get from “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to both of your parents must be American citizens? Please elaborate. I’m genuinely curious.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2023
  3. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is referring to anyone who isn't under the jurisdiction of the United states, a phrase that at the time understood that those who held foreign citizenship were not under the jurisdiction of the united states which was then affirmed twice by the SCOTUS. This isn't hard until you purposefully ignore the language being used and conflate your own emotional equivalence to those words.
     
    Bill Carson likes this.
  4. omni

    omni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2021
    Messages:
    6,050
    Likes Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The constitution says all people born in the US are citizens, nothing about a parent having to be a citizen.

    A constitutional amendment will be required.
     
    Reality likes this.
  5. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fake comparison. You seriously have never heard of visas and green cards and want to pretend that they aren't recent things? Really?
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't, actually. It says subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of which citizens of foreign nations are not. Do you deny this?
     
    Bill Carson likes this.
  7. WhoDatPhan78

    WhoDatPhan78 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2021
    Messages:
    8,497
    Likes Received:
    5,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credible evidence for what?

    The meaning of "Subject to the jurisdiction of the US" isn't up for discussion. It's decided.

    It's certainly not up for discussion with people who have no idea what they are talking about on the internet.

    This entire thread is just full of idiocy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2023
  8. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL.. so you admit they aren't legally here, and aren't citizens, and aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and yet you still insist they can be citizens.... It's like a child who demands a lolly...
     
    Bill Carson likes this.
  9. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One, you can't do this by executive order. It violates the separation of powers doctrine within the US Constitution. Second, the 14th Amendment says, "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." This is jus soli doctrine. The Wo Kim Ark case affirmed that belief. Under 8 USC 1401, it also states, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Either the Supreme Court will have to side with Trump on that Executive order when it goes into litigation, or it is a violation of the US Constitution and therefore illegal executive order.

    Furthermore, anyone who thinks getting rid of birthright citizenship will reduce illegal immigration has no idea why people are coming into this country to begin with illegally. Even if an illegal alien has a child here, that USC child is entitled to all rights and benefits bestowed as a citizen. However, that person still cannot adjudicate their parent or parents who are illegal to become legal under current law. That still has not changed.
     
    Reality likes this.
  10. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    U
    they are here legally and temporarily until their status is adjudicated per the law if they filed for asylum or refugee status under 8 USC 1156. they can have the right to work with the work authorization card until they are adjudicated. If approved, then they can apply for a green card. If not approved, then under the law they have 30 days to vacate the country, aka self deportation, or appeal the process to BIA, District Court, and so forth.
     
  11. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would you feel about a law that allows the children to be citizens but doesn't allow the parents to remain in the country. Then those parents have to decide to leave the kid behind or go home, and most would choose to go home. Would that be preferable to the current system? Worse?
     
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It isn't actually decided. It was a footnote that was inserted into a case so no one would notice the glaring radical policy change it represented. I dare you to show me the actual legislation that Brennan was referring to in the footnote. You cannot, because there isn't one. So, it certainly isn't decided. Sorry the words made it difficult for you to follow. And it seems, as previously noted, that you only have an emotional, not intellectual response to the thread.
     
  13. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would guess by misunderstanding what "Jurisdiction" means. It means subject to the laws of, which includes everyone there, except those with diplomatic immunity. But maybe they think it means something else.
     
  14. omni

    omni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2021
    Messages:
    6,050
    Likes Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Foreign nationals are subject to the laws of the US. Do you disagree?
     
  15. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hillariously, if they weren't then the "illegal" immigrants would not be illegal :)
     
    omni likes this.
  16. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is only one standard to go by, SCOTUS and the US Constitution. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. I think you will need to look at the Wo Kim Ark case in which the Supreme Court pretty much gave prudence to jus soli doctrine even though the person was Chinese and the law at the time was to exclude any person of Chinese descent from obtaining US Citizenship. the 1873 Chinese Exclusion Act pretty much made Wo Kim Ark an illegal alien by his national origin, but by the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment, section 1, he was. And that same principle applies to any and all illegal aliens who have children. By US Constitution, the children are USC no matter what. But by law, if they are out of status per the immigration code, then the code dictates their disposition and remedy based on facts and circumstances. In other words, @yardmeat is basically right under the Constitution's 14th amendment, 8 USC 1401, and the Supreme Court case Wo Kim Ark.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, there is still no legislation that supports your assertion here. no, they are not "legally here", they are being tolerated, and released into the wild by a lawless, feckless president. That doesn't make his actions here legal. It makes them criminal. There is zero evidence that the flood of humanity that is invading our nation have credible asylum requests. None. It's a fiction made up so folks like you can ignore the violation of the law that you actively thwart. The fiction you'd like us all to believe in isn't real. It's made up so that democrats can once again cultivate a wholly dependent class of folks to abuse.
     
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn't support such a law. it strips the children from their parents. So the children should still be citizens of the country of the parents who produced them.
     
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. They are legally here until a court determines they are not. No, that doesn't make them criminal. You don't understand the slim basics of immigration law.
     
  20. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are on its territory? So foreign tourists can just fly in, rape and murder a few people and then fly back home?
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they are born here, they are citizens of our country. I'm sorry you hate the law, but it is still the law.
     
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Liability to the law, and under the jurisdiction of are two legally different standards. I suspect you don't understand this....
     
  23. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That straw man aint flying. but thanks for being obtuse..
     
  24. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quote the courts agreeing with you. I suspect you don't understand anything about immigration law.
     
    omni likes this.
  25. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the current status quo is preferable?
     

Share This Page