Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_subgenius]

Just as a frame of reference, check out the Snyder Act of 1924.... because while Native Americans were being born on American soil they had never been "interpreted" as being US citizens until this actual legislation was passed.

[_EAllusion]

A valid point, if true. Reading the full quote I see what you mean, but also don't. We need more contextual material. I'm reading it to mean, "foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors..." You are stating that "families of ambassadors..." is a description of what is meant by "foreigners, aliens" but it doesn't read that way to me.

I linked a paper going into a lot more detail if you are unable to parse the quote. The clause clarifies who he means by foreigners, which is deliberately chopped off by the person you are quoting to change the meaning. If you try to read it as a grocery list of who doesn't count, it's redundant and the word "who" makes no sense. And it's not like this is the only comment on the matter by the people involved in its passage.

[_subgenius]

The dissent, meaning everyone, agreed with the bolded portion.

spank spank spank....dude, still is not a decision extending citizenship....your reasoning is convoluted here....being on American soil and having protection under 14th is not the same as being on American soil and being extended citizenship...otherwise just being here would make a person a citizen, and that does not.
So, again, this is a specific interpretation that Supreme Court has never ruled on, and of Trump issues an executive order on the matter then rest assured Supreme Court will be ruling on it. For 8 years Obama loaded the gun on using EOs to interpret the Constitution and now Trump has his finger on the trigger....

[_Water Dog]

I linked a paper going into a lot more detail if you are unable to parse the quote. The clause clarifies who he means by foreigners, which is deliberately chopped off by the person you are quoting to change the meaning. If you try to read it as a grocery list of who doesn't count, it's redundant and the word "who" makes no sense. And it's not like this is the only comment on the matter by the people involved in its passage.

I'm unpersuaded.

A simple question, if 14A was meant to apply to illegal aliens - I repeat ILLEGAL ALIENS - show me explicit language from 14A authors stating as much. Where is explicit language describing the exact situation we're talking about?

I do not see how a person who is in the country illegally. By law they are specifically barred from entry. But do so anyway. How is that person somehow different than an ambassador or diplomat? The idea that a person can self-immigrate, regardless of the law, that they can just walk over the line and their jurisdiction magically changes, this is idiotic. The 14A states no such thing.

By law, already right now today, we can deport an illegal mother, right? Is that not proof that we regard this person to be under the jurisdiction of another state? This person is illegal - we are deporting them. How, then, are their children subject to some other jurisdiction? How is the child of an illegal not the same as the child of an ambassador?

In both cases we recognize the parents to be subject to some other jurisdiction................ buuuuutt somehow in one case their children are treated differently? Makes no sense. It's even more backwards. In one case the person is LEGALLY present on our soil. And that's the one we DON'T grant citizenship to? ROFL.

Oh, my. It blows my mind that we're actually debating this.

Can we at least agree that this interpretation of the 14A is inconsistent with immigration law? It is contradictory to incentivize illegal behavior, offering a prize to break the law.

And that's also why this interpretation makes no sense. One way or the other, something is way off. Say we hit the reset button and put it to a vote, where does the will of the people land? Do the American people want open borders, which is to say no borders? Or do they want borders and immigration laws to be enforced?

[_EAllusion]

Just as a frame of reference, check out the Snyder Act of 1924.... because while Native Americans were being born on American soil they had never been "interpreted" as being US citizens until this actual legislation was passed.

The sovereignty of Native American territory is the sticking point here. This is an assertion that Native Americans are on American soil and subject to American jurisdiction rather than foreigners who belong to foreign lands within the contiguous US borders. This is part of a series of acts by the United States diminishing Native sovereignty and, uh, creatively interpreting our treaty obligations.

[_EAllusion]

The dissent, meaning everyone, agreed with the bolded portion.

spank spank spank....dude, still is not a decision extending citizenship....your reasoning is convoluted here....being on American soil and having protection under 14th is not the same as being on American soil and being extended citizenship...otherwise just being here would make a person a citizen, and that does not.
So, again, this is a specific interpretation that Supreme Court has never ruled on, and of Trump issues an executive order on the matter then rest assured Supreme Court will be ruling on it. For 8 years Obama loaded the gun on using EOs to interpret the Constitution and now Trump has his finger on the trigger....

The decision argues, 9-0, that the 14th amendment clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes illegal immigrants. Your entire argument rests on the contention that it does not.

[_canpakes]

For 8 years Obama loaded the gun on using EOs to interpret the Constitution and now Trump has his finger on the trigger....

Then Trump needs to go for it already. Go ahead and knock out that executive order, and let the courts fight over it. It’ll keep the xenophobic members of his Base occupied so that they don’t realize that their jobs are still miserable, their pay isn’t getting any better and their healthcare covers less and less each year while becoming more expensive along the way.

And in the end, Trump’s gambit will expire, and his Base will still lose because they got conned yet again.

[_EAllusion]

For 8 years Obama loaded the gun on using EOs to interpret the Constitution and now Trump has his finger on the trigger....

Then Trump needs to go for it already. Go ahead and knock out that executive order, and let the courts fight over it. It’ll keep the xenophobic members of his Base occupied so that they don’t realize that their jobs are still miserable, their pay isn’t getting any better and their healthcare covers less and less each year while becoming more expensive along the way.

And in the end, Trump’s gambit will expire, and his Base will still lose because they got conned yet again.

If the executive order actually happened, it probably would create some chaos that wouldn't affect you or I, but would cause real harm in people's lives. The bigger issue is that this stuff tries to shift the overton window to greater hostility towards immigrants. That's not even remotely without consequence.

[_canpakes]

If the executive order actually happened, it probably would create some chaos that wouldn't affect you or I, but would cause real harm in people's lives. The bigger issue is that this stuff tries to shift the overton window to greater hostility towards immigrants. That's not even remotely without consequence.

Agreed. There will be consequences.

I’m just tired of the whining and bitching from the Trump crowd attempting to use immigration as both a diversion from other important issues and/or believing that this kind of agitation is some sort of salve for their own perceived miserable existence. Seems like Trump’s bluff needs to be called so that we can fight it out and resolve it, which will either remove this issue from the Base’s Bag or Grievances or force them to move on to matters that have some actual bearing on their own lives.

[_Res Ipsa]

A valid point, if true. Reading the full quote I see what you mean, but also don't. We need more contextual material. I'm reading it to mean, "foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors..." You are stating that "families of ambassadors..." is a description of what is meant by "foreigners, aliens" but it doesn't read that way to me.

Let me get this straight. You were perfectly happy to rely on a misleading, truncated version of the quote without question. No "more contextual material needed." But when presented with a full version of the quote, suddenly you need more? The quote is clear on its face. But now that you realize that the source proclaim should be taken seriously was misleading you, you can't back away from the actual quote fast enough.