All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

gatomontes99 · January 26

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The roots of these two minor exceptions are ancient, apparently from English Common law. For example diplomats not wanting their diplomatic service to negatively impact their child via citizenship. No one on the Court is going to extrapolate from this a broader new meaning to the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.

Diplomats wouldn't be the way it gets justified. If it gets justified it will be because the illegal aliens are declared foreign invaders. Foreign invaders would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is a stretch to call them foreign invaders.

The best way to do what Trump is doing is to amend the 14th to specifically include illegal aliens. The next best way would be to pass a bill. The EO is a short cut. It may work, it may not. We will see. I'm skeptical it will work.

Mark Levin (constitutional scholar) had this to say:

Quote

Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. So the Supreme Court has never ruled, and even if they did, it would be wrong.

The clause speaks for itself. The author of the clause made it abundantly, unequivocally clear. And let me add one other thing. Let's read the clause together, shall we? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" -- let's stop there. If it means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens! There's no need for anything else!

But that's not what it says. Then it says, "had subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Now, you have slip and fall lawyers, some phony constitutional lawyers, they have "esquire" after their name, they come on TV, they go all over the place.

Jurisdiction means geography. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography! Zero! It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America.

How do we know it? Because they said it! And they also excluded everybody that the left and some of the Republicans want to include.

Now, here's the good news. There's another part of the Constitution. It's article 1, section 8, clause 4. Here's what that says in plain English. "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

Now, you know what that means? That means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE -- it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.

And guess what, Sean? In the 1920s, that's exactly what it did. The 14th Amendment excludes Indians, that is native Americans, as U.S. citizens because they felt that they had an allegiance to their own tribes.

OK. Great. And I believe it was in 1923, Congress reversed course and said, You know what? Under the 14th Amendment and under this article 1, we've decided to grant citizenship, national citizenship, to all native Americans.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/20/mark_levin_supreme_court_has_never_ruled_that_children_of_illegals_are_citizens.html

Mark has forgetten far more than you and I know about the Constitution, combined. But read what he said very carefully. He says under article 1, section 8, it is congress that has to make immigration rules.

Again, I don't think the EO will hold up. A bill could hold up. But the most effective action would be an amendment to the amendment.

Hodad · January 26

35 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Diplomats wouldn't be the way it gets justified. If it gets justified it will be because the illegal aliens are declared foreign invaders. Foreign invaders would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is a stretch to call them foreign invaders.

The best way to do what Trump is doing is to amend the 14th to specifically include illegal aliens. The next best way would be to pass a bill. The EO is a short cut. It may work, it may not. We will see. I'm skeptical it will work.

Mark Levin (constitutional scholar) had this to say:

Mark has forgetten far more than you and I know about the Constitution, combined. But read what he said very carefully. He says under article 1, section 8, it is congress that has to make immigration rules.

Again, I don't think the EO will hold up. A bill could hold up. But the most effective action would be an amendment to the amendment.

Oh, jeebus. Mark Levin is a certified arsehole, but he's not a constitutional scholar. And he's marketing insanity at you--apparently successfully.

And my goodness, imagine how farking stupid someone would have to be to declare that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of federal and state governments--the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Good luck arresting them.

They can try to amend the constitution, but the way it's currently written is clear and has been supported by binding precedent. Trying to invent a convenient, novel reading for it now is dishonest and desperate. -- And this from the same people dishonestly lionizing constitutional originalism and literalism. Oy.

Dougie93 · January 26

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh pay no never-mind to our Libbies. They're nothing but a bunch of butt-hurt sore loosers who are about as physically imposing as a chihuahua.

ah, but it won't be them Liberals in downtown Toronto who suffer,

they're all kicking back in their mansions in Rosedale & Forest Hill, two Tesla's in the garage

it will be the Truckers & Roughnecks out in Alberta who will be sacrificed on the alter of Canadian Nationalism

to pay for bailing out the Quebecois

Vive le Quebec libre

Matthew · January 26

36 minutes ago, Hodad said:

imagine how farking stupid someone would have to be to declare that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of federal and state governments--the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

For real. Clearly not a serious rationale.

gatomontes99 · January 26

38 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Oh, jeebus. Mark Levin is a certified arsehole, but he's not a constitutional scholar. And he's marketing insanity at you--apparently successfully.

And my goodness, imagine how farking stupid someone would have to be to declare that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of federal and state governments--the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Good luck arresting them.

They can try to amend the constitution, but the way it's currently written is clear and has been supported by binding precedent. Trying to invent a convenient, novel reading for it now is dishonest and desperate. -- And this from the same people dishonestly lionizing constitutional originalism and literalism. Oy.

Well, Mark Levin actually has a law degree, worked in the White Hous and owns Federalist Papers. How are you more qualified than that?

What he talked about with Hamnity isn't new. It is the precedent. What you are saying is the novel interpretation.

Hodad · January 26

26 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Well, Mark Levin actually has a law degree, worked in the White Hous and owns Federalist Papers. How are you more qualified than that?

What he talked about with Hamnity isn't new. It is the precedent. What you are saying is the novel interpretation.

I didn't claim to be a constitutional scholar. YOU falsely claimed that Levin is.

And no, FFS, what he is saying is NOT precedent. It's the opposite of precedent. The precedent is--and always has been--that people born here are citizens. That's been true since the nation's founding. The only reason it was written out explicitly as an amendment during reconstruction is to protect Black Americans from Southern legal shenanigans.

And you can't have mine, but for $6 you can get your own copy of the Federalist Papers.

Very impressive.

Edited January 26 by Hodad

ironstone · January 26

22 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Why? Birthright citizenship only applies to people born in a place. Hence the "birth" part.

So a pair of illegal immigrants have a baby on US soil and that child is now a US citizen. Now what happens to the parents? Do they return to their country of origin...or are they going to stay and also be expecting citizenship and free stuff from Americans?

CdnFox · January 26

14 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You've just proven you're too dumb to get the point. The 14th Amendment is unambiguous, unlike the 2nd.

Has been pointed out that simply not true. But I love that you never miss the chance to Flaunt your idiocy

CdnFox · January 26

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yup. This is true.

Paritally true. Some of that was tested under the original Kim ruling on the matter a couple centuries ago. But there is some wriggle room for some of it.

Matthew · January 26

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They are identically open to interpretation.

Not according to the Supreme Court. They have substantially changed their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over time. The meaning has not remained constant. Meanwhile the meaning of the Citizenship Clause has never even slightly been altered at any point that the Court has used it.

gatomontes99 · January 26

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I didn't claim to be a constitutional scholar. YOU falsely claimed that Levin is.

And no, FFS, what he is saying is NOT precedent. It's the opposite of precedent. The precedent is--and always has been--that people born here are citizens. That's been true since the nation's founding. The only reason it was written out explicitly as an amendment during reconstruction is to protect Black Americans from Southern legal shenanigans.

And you can't have mine, but for $6 you can get your own copy of the Federalist Papers.

Very impressive.

He doesn't have copies. He has the real thing. Well, he did until he donated it. He has written at least six books about constitutional issues. He's presented cases to the SCOTUS. So, who are you to say he's not a Constitutional scholar?

Hodad · January 26

11 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So a pair of illegal immigrants have a baby on US soil and that child is now a US citizen. Now what happens to the parents? Do they return to their country of origin...or are they going to stay and also be expecting citizenship and free stuff from Americans?

The parents don't get citizenship, nor are they eligible for "free stuff." Typically they work hard, keep their heads down and pay taxes into a system from which they can receive nothing in return, all to give their child access to the American dream.

CdnFox · January 26

8 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Not according to the Supreme Court. They have substantially changed their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over time. The meaning has not remained constant. Meanwhile the meaning of the Citizenship Clause has never even slightly been altered at any point that the Court has used it.

Absolutely according to the supreme court, and i'd already addressed that.

This amendment can be challenged just as easily as the 2nd, it's just nobody had ever wanted to except for ww2 and a tiny handful of other cases

And the 2nd amendment wasn't altered either.

Like i said, it's not that it couldn't. It's that nobody really wanted to. Now someone says he does. You are being dishonest with yourself if you think there's ANY part of the constitution which can't be "reinterpreted" if people are motivated. Otherwise nothing would ever get overturned. They just have to decide to roe or wade into those waters and figure it out

ironstone · January 26

Just now, Hodad said:

The parents don't get citizenship, nor are they eligible for "free stuff." Typically they work hard, keep their heads down and pay taxes into a system from which they can receive nothing in return, all to give their child access to the American dream.

No 'free stuff'?

So who is paying for them to stay in the migrant hotels? Who pays for their food? Clothing?

https://nypost.com/2024/10/09/us-news/nyc-seeking-14000-hotel-rooms-to-shelter-migrants-through-2025/

You're making it sound like all of them are working and not in need of benefits. No doubt many of them are working, and helping to keep wages for Americans low.

CdnFox · January 26

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I didn't claim to be a constitutional scholar. YOU falsely claimed that Levin is.

And no, FFS, what he is saying is NOT precedent. It's the opposite of precedent. The precedent is--and always has been--that people born here are citizens. That's been true since the nation's founding.

It was absolutely not true since the nation's founding. Your next sentence basically proves that, pointing out that it wasn't extended for example to black people and in some other cases. And that was accepted to be the norm for quite some time until eventually they decided to change that.

And while it is a very common law in many western countries it is not universal by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it's a little rare. Jus Soli (right of soil) is what we use but most places outside of western countries use Jus Sanguinis (right of blood).

Because it was English common law it was somewhat adopted casually but it was not applied evenly until the amendment was written.

eyeball · January 26

16 hours ago, Deluge said:

Wrong. The 14th Amendment is not a free pass.

Whatever else it is you think it should be, laws are subject to constitutions not the other way around.

Hodad · January 26

13 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

He doesn't have copies. He has the real thing. Well, he did until he donated it. He has written at least six books about constitutional issues. He's presented cases to the SCOTUS. So, who are you to say he's not a Constitutional scholar?

Jeebus, dude, he's a pundit.

A constitutional scholar is an academic occupation with a primary output being rigorous scholarly publishing. This is roughly like scientific research publishing in peer reviewed journals. It's not for dilettantes.

And his legal career is thin. I am deeply skeptical that he's argued cases before the SCOTUS. I suspect you made that up. Gonna need a citation there.

robosmith · January 26

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yup. This is true.

IF immigrants are not "subject to US jurisdiction," there is no authority to evict them, lDIOT.

Hodad · January 26

15 minutes ago, ironstone said:

No 'free stuff'?

So who is paying for them to stay in the migrant hotels? Who pays for their food? Clothing?

https://nypost.com/2024/10/09/us-news/nyc-seeking-14000-hotel-rooms-to-shelter-migrants-through-2025/

You're making it sound like all of them are working and not in need of benefits. No doubt many of them are working, and helping to keep wages for Americans low.

So your talking specifically about newly arrived asylum seekers rather than the vast majority of the undocumented population? And you mean who pays to keep them alive while they are detained by US authorities? Well, yeah, we do pay to keep people alive in those circumstances. But once they are released with work permits, they go out and get jobs and build lives.

You seem to be laboring under some kind of delusion that illegal immigrants get some kind of free ride here. That's made up "welfare Queen" nonsense.

robosmith · January 26

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I wouldn't hold my breath there Tweenkie-Poo.

You freaks wonder why this is all happening and how it could happen. Yet you silly twits already know the answer.

Ya gits wut ya pays fer.

Ya Libbies...you've brought this on yourselves with all the lies and purely destructive ideologies you've choked down our throats for so many years. You've absolutely begged for the social pendulum to swing as far back to the right, as you pushed it left.

Do enjoy the next 4 years freaks. And always remember...

We warned y'all...

You should be really proud of your allegiance to US oligarchs over democracy. 🤮

How much are they paying your to post here?

robosmith · January 26

44 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So a pair of illegal immigrants have a baby on US soil and that child is now a US citizen.

That's what it says in the 14th amendment.

44 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Now what happens to the parents? Do they return to their country of origin...or are they going to stay and also be expecting citizenship and free stuff from Americans?

They can turn the kid over to relatives and the kid can sponsor his parents for citizenship when he gets old enough

27 minutes ago, ironstone said:

No 'free stuff'?

So who is paying for them to stay in the migrant hotels? Who pays for their food? Clothing?

https://nypost.com/2024/10/09/us-news/nyc-seeking-14000-hotel-rooms-to-shelter-migrants-through-2025/

You're making it sound like all of them are working and not in need of benefits. No doubt many of them are working, and helping to keep wages for Americans low.

Mostly they pick crops but NOT in NYC.

You need to stop eating the shit that NYP is feeding you.

ironstone · January 26

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

So your talking specifically about newly arrived asylum seekers rather than the vast majority of the undocumented population? And you mean who pays to keep them alive while they are detained by US authorities? Well, yeah, we do pay to keep people alive in those circumstances. But once they are released with work permits, they go out and get jobs and build lives.

You seem to be laboring under some kind of delusion that illegal immigrants get some kind of free ride here. That's made up "welfare Queen" nonsense.

By your own logic, would Americans be progressively better off if the rate of illegal immigration keeps going up?

And not all of these 'newcomers' want to work.

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They can turn the kid over to relatives and the kid can sponsor his parents for citizenship when he gets old enough

Since 2020, how many of these couples have had a baby, left it with relatives...and then returned to wherever they came from?

robosmith · January 26

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, dude, he's a pundit.

A constitutional scholar is an academic occupation with a primary output being rigorous scholarly publishing. This is roughly like scientific research publishing in peer reviewed journals. It's not for dilettantes.

And his legal career is thin. I am deeply skeptical that he's argued cases before the SCOTUS. I suspect you made that up. Gonna need a citation there.

Nothing about arguing cases before the SCOTUS

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

By your own logic, would Americans be progressively better off if the rate of illegal immigration keeps going up?

And not all of these 'newcomers' want to work.

Since 2020, how many of these couples have had a baby, left it with relatives...and then returned to wherever they came from?

Why are you asking me? Do your own research.

Matthew · January 26

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This amendment can be challenged just as easily as the 2nd

On a simplistic level yes the Court could unilaterally declare that "persons" in the Constitution only means those with green eyes and a Hapsburg jaw.

Realistically though there is such a thing as a strong and a weak precedent. Firearm precedents have long been and continue to be weak. Citizenship precidents are very strong. The Court has very few enforcement mechanisms, so they rely on a veneer of trust, consistency, and institutional impartiality to the law.

Incrementally shifting the interpretation of grey areas in the 2nd Amended took place over decades and culminated in DC v Heller (2008).

However, the 14th Amendment lacks the grey area open to interpretation and there is no prior case law on which to build a new judicial priniciple on citizenship or jurisdiction. Doing so would have to be out of nowhere. And would be a major strike against the Courts credibility and prestige, and would produce a weak precident easily overturned by a furure Court.

Edited January 26 by Matthew