(10-31-2018 12:10 PM)450bench Wrote:  If parents are here legally, then the kids are born citizens. If they are not here legally, they are not born citizens. The end.

Here legally on a green card, residing full time....their offspring would probably be considered a citizen per Wong. Someone on a tourist visa or someone visiting from Britain or France, although in the USA legally, no their kid born in the USA should not be considered a citizen.

(11-01-2018 06:44 AM)Francis Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 06:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:31 PM)HCJag Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:47 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Educate yourself.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-mor...onal-right

“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?

“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

That there is pretty interesting stuff. Very enlightening.

I think that makes it pretty clear what the intent was and it makes perfect sense in that context. If only we could bring the forefathers back for a day.

Wouldn't matter - if what they said flew in the face of their agenda, they'd shout them down as bigots, misogynists, homophobes, etc.........well - you get the picture.

Face it the left doesn't like the constitution as a means of governance. It's why they fought Kavanaugh so hard. They want activist judges that legislate from the bench.

...........and if they don't get their way - just get violent.

Both sides want this...……………..

BS, the right wants judges who interpret law as written and act on it.

(11-01-2018 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

Come on, this post hardly lives up to your moniker. You can do better.

Not really, it's why he/she/it is the sole occupant of my ignore list.

(10-31-2018 12:00 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes. There is plenty of evidence that the intent of the 14th was to give citizenship to those that was here and their children that did not have citizenship elsewhere...not its current interpretation. Surprisingly..this has never been challenged in court. If this ends up in the SCOTUS there is a very good chance it would be clarified as such.

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

You are correct. He does seem to know how to play to his base very well and this is great stuff to blast out at the midterms to garner votes. That however does not change one iota that he is correct on both issues.

(10-31-2018 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:53 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:49 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:Where is the outrage from strict constitutionalists?

All over. Including here.
But you knew that.

Yeah, myself and many others were outraged that he'd try to do it by executive order. I think it is a legitimate constitutional question however whether the children of illegals are entitled to birthright citizenship and the supreme court needs to clear it up.

And an EO is one way to initiate that process.

This

I don't think Trump has the authority to do this... but I suppose it depends on what he means. If he means as I suspect, the children of people here illegally... then he MIGHT have the authority... but not about people here on visas etc.

People here on vacation are arguably not 'subject to our jurisdiction' but are instead 'visitors'.

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

Other than a bunch of rhetoric and name calling, your post says nothing. The Dems have taken the melting pot, and because of their identity politics, turned it into a tossed salad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-01-2018 01:09 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

Other than a bunch of rhetoric and name calling, your post says nothing. The Dems have taken the melting pot, and because of their identity politics, turned it into a tossed salad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This. Last thing Dems want is a "melting pot" as they don't have any sort of message that resonates with America as a whole.

(11-01-2018 08:03 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 12:10 PM)450bench Wrote:  If parents are here legally, then the kids are born citizens. If they are not here legally, they are not born citizens. The end.

Here legally on a green card, residing full time....their offspring would probably be considered a citizen per Wong. Someone on a tourist visa or someone visiting from Britain or France, although in the USA legally, no their kid born in the USA should not be considered a citizen.

I don't think the first is clear. It is clear that the children of those in the process of naturalizing are citizens. But student VISA, work VISA or the like its not clear. Illegals its not clear.

Although its not interpreted that way, it seems pretty clear that tourists and temporary labor (whether on job assignment or farm workers) would not have children born here become citizens.

(10-31-2018 10:56 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  14th Ammendment

Sec 1
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.


Surely, yall are outraged over the President’s belief that he can circumvent the Constitution through executive order.

People residing in the USA illegally, and the women who lie on tourist visa apps about being pregnant so they can have an anchor baby, etc., they are their babies are Mexican, Chinese, Russian, Honduran citizens etc. Government "policy" has been to grant anchor babies citizenship, hopefully this policy will change soon.

But to your other point, yeah end DACA with an EO and deport them.

Trump tried to do that. The district court said that apparently didnt have the authority to end an EO with another EO.

Now *that* is a head scratcher for sure.....

(10-31-2018 11:04 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  The 14th was included, in part, as a buttress to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which focused on ensuring blacks were honored as citizens of the US.

One can, at least, make an argument that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires the parents of US born children to be in the US under legal circumstances.

The only real Supreme Court case (Wong Kim) dealt with a child of Chinese parents who were in the US legally under a type of official work visa.

Certainly, any case involving children born in the US to foreign parents not here legally in the US is distinguishable, at least from the facts in the Wong Kim case.

There was, in fact, another case. The Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship to a Native American.

(11-01-2018 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:56 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  14th Ammendment

Sec 1
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.


Surely, yall are outraged over the President’s belief that he can circumvent the Constitution through executive order.

People residing in the USA illegally, and the women who lie on tourist visa apps about being pregnant so they can have an anchor baby, etc., they are their babies are Mexican, Chinese, Russian, Honduran citizens etc. Government "policy" has been to grant anchor babies citizenship, hopefully this policy will change soon.

But to your other point, yeah end DACA with an EO and deport them.

Trump tried to do that. The district court said that apparently didnt have the authority to end an EO with another EO.

Now *that* is a head scratcher for sure.....

Same with ending TPP for Salvadorans and Haitians. Judge allowed the suit to move forward because it was "reported" that Trump called them chithole countries. Ironically the best chance at winning the case is proving they are chithole countries.

are there a lot of strict constitutionalists on here?

Where the Constitution is clear as in the right to bear arms, I am strict. Where it is not, I am not. Over the centuries, the government has taken on all sorts of powers not expressly given to them and we have let that stand... sometimes for decades or even centuries, which is what makes the argument over the 2nd stupid... We went for centuries without ANY meaningful restrictions, and suddenly people see the right to regulate.

I think Obama made it clear that the President has the right to selectively enforce or not our borders. How is this not just more of the door he opened?

I'll accept it as wrong, as soon as we accept that it's been wrong and eliminate all the others.

(11-01-2018 06:44 AM)Francis Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 06:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:31 PM)HCJag Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:47 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Educate yourself.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-mor...onal-right

“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?

“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

That there is pretty interesting stuff. Very enlightening.

I think that makes it pretty clear what the intent was and it makes perfect sense in that context. If only we could bring the forefathers back for a day.

Wouldn't matter - if what they said flew in the face of their agenda, they'd shout them down as bigots, misogynists, homophobes, etc.........well - you get the picture.

Face it the left doesn't like the constitution as a means of governance. It's why they fought Kavanaugh so hard. They want activist judges that legislate from the bench.

...........and if they don't get their way - just get violent.

Both sides want this...……………..

I can't speak for others, but this conservative wants judges who hold to Original Intent rather than activist judges who follow Living Document.


The end result of the Living Document ideology is essentially disregarding the Constitution and writing the rules you want as you go.

If I had to choose between two Living Document judges I'd go with the conservative over the liberal.

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 06:44 AM)Francis Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 06:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:31 PM)HCJag Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That there is pretty interesting stuff. Very enlightening.

I think that makes it pretty clear what the intent was and it makes perfect sense in that context. If only we could bring the forefathers back for a day.

Wouldn't matter - if what they said flew in the face of their agenda, they'd shout them down as bigots, misogynists, homophobes, etc.........well - you get the picture.

Face it the left doesn't like the constitution as a means of governance. It's why they fought Kavanaugh so hard. They want activist judges that legislate from the bench.

...........and if they don't get their way - just get violent.

Both sides want this...……………..

I can't speak for others, but this conservative wants judges who hold to Original Intent rather than activist judges who follow Living Document.


The end result of the Living Document ideology is essentially disregarding the Constitution and writing the rules you want as you go.

If I had to choose between two Living Document judges I'd go with the conservative over the liberal.

Original intent still requires writing rules as you go.

The Framers never wrote about search and seizure with wiretapping or getting on a person's unlocked cell phone.

Was free speech merely spoken word or is it symbolic or written? The word "speech" implies words.

Is the "press" only newspapers? There was no TV back then so the original intent was only to protect written press. Bloggers...are they press?

(11-01-2018 02:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:04 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  The 14th was included, in part, as a buttress to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which focused on ensuring blacks were honored as citizens of the US.

One can, at least, make an argument that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires the parents of US born children to be in the US under legal circumstances.

The only real Supreme Court case (Wong Kim) dealt with a child of Chinese parents who were in the US legally under a type of official work visa.

Certainly, any case involving children born in the US to foreign parents not here legally in the US is distinguishable, at least from the facts in the Wong Kim case.

There was, in fact, another case. The Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship to a Native American.

But that case wouldn't really have any precedential value as it solely focused on the "Indian nation" within the US and the Federal laws that only applied to indians.

There is some decent dicta in the opinion but the holding has little to no value with respect to Trump's proposed EO.

(11-01-2018 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

Come on, this post hardly lives up to your moniker. You can do better.

It was a rather weak attempt to troll - which is largely all this particular poster does.

Notice how it's no more than a fly-by troll attempt, followed by silence.........it's why I basically ignore whatever weak sauce is thrown out...

(11-01-2018 07:43 AM)Momus Wrote:  Don’t ever buy into the right-wing lies that they love America, believe in the Constitution, or are true “patriots”. They hate American ideals such as equality. They hate the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. They reject America as a melting pot. They are motivated not by love of country or love of American ideals, but by fear and hate. Trump knows that his base is racist and cowardly, so he’s going full tilt on immigrant caravans, “invaders”, and birthright citizenship this election to play on their racism and fear. He knows his base and what motivates them.

You people on the left really don't get it, do you? This is exactly the kind of smug, arrogant, condescension that made Donald Trump President.

Are some people who voted for Trump racist? Almost certainly, just as it is almost certain that some racists voted for Hillary (I actually know some of the latter). But efforts like this, which attempt to imply that all Trump supporters are racists, are highly offensive to all those Trump supporters who aren't, and also turn off a lot of undecided voters who have friends that are not racist that supported Trump.

I did not vote for Trump or Hillary. But I find your comments extremely offensive, because I know good people who voted for both.

(11-01-2018 02:50 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:04 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  The 14th was included, in part, as a buttress to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which focused on ensuring blacks were honored as citizens of the US.

One can, at least, make an argument that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires the parents of US born children to be in the US under legal circumstances.

The only real Supreme Court case (Wong Kim) dealt with a child of Chinese parents who were in the US legally under a type of official work visa.

Certainly, any case involving children born in the US to foreign parents not here legally in the US is distinguishable, at least from the facts in the Wong Kim case.

There was, in fact, another case. The Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship to a Native American.

But that case wouldn't really have any precedential value as it solely focused on the "Indian nation" within the US and the Federal laws that only applied to indians.

There is some decent dicta in the opinion but the holding has little to no value with respect to Trump's proposed EO.

And the difference between a citizen of an 'Indian nation' (a sovereign, mind you) and a citizen of Guatemala is..... what exactly?

The thing that is absolutely clear in the case is that a birth on US soil is not dispositive for citizenship under the Constitution (i.e. birthright citizenship). If the dispositive test was 'birth on US soil' birthright citizenship, then Elk *had* to be decided contrary to the actual decision. In that respect, Elk definitely is precedential.

So the argument is that this really isn't an executive order, but a clarification.

Its clear we have granted citizenship to some who should not have it. Birth tourism should not result in citizenship.