Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Seangoli]

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

Really? It seems like he holds Trump to the same standards as Obama 1/3 times.

Which is better than the rest of the Republicans, who have somehow found a way to go into the negatives with holding Trump to the Standards if Obama.

He's better than Cruz, Graham or McConnell is where I am going with this. That's not an impressive feat in any sane world, but tje times we live in and all that.

[Fascist Plutocratic USA]

If the 14th amendment will remain unreasonable in terms of allowing anyone born in the US to automatically have citizenship, then the only recourse is to prevent as many prospective parents as possible, from reaching the US from overseas.

And what are you suggesting closing the borders? You do that and see how long it takes for the economy to crash.

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

[Fascist Plutocratic USA]

If the 14th amendment will remain unreasonable in terms of allowing anyone born in the US to automatically have citizenship, then the only recourse is to prevent as many prospective parents as possible, from reaching the US from overseas.

And what are you suggesting closing the borders? You do that and see how long it takes for the economy to crash.

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

[Seangoli]

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

Really? It seems like he holds Trump to the same standards as Obama 1/3 times.

Which is better than the rest of the Republicans, who have somehow found a way to go into the negatives with holding Trump to the Standards if Obama.

He's better than Cruz, Graham or McConnell is where I am going with this. That's not an impressive feat in any sane world, but tje times we live in make it a Herculean Effort for a Republican.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

When Paul Ryan, Paul F**king Ryan, is saying that Trump doesn't have the power to do this, it probably means that he doesn't have the power to do this.

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

^^ This.
A big reason why I hate most Republicans is because their values seem to shift based on who's doing things more than what things are being done. For instance, you can look up polls regarding the bombing of Syria - currently, Republicans, support it while Democrats oppose it, but in the Obama administration, both parties opposed it, indicating that Democrats opposed the bombing, but Republicans opposed Obama.
I might dislike Paul Ryan's beliefs, but if he's consistent in applying them, then I can respect him.
I mean, "not being ignorant of the Constitution" should be a basic job requirement for a legislator, but baby steps.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And what are you suggesting closing the borders? You do that and see how long it takes for the economy to crash.

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

And where are you going to get your cerium, dysprosium, erbium, europium, gadolinium, holmium, lanthanum, lutetium, neodymium, praseodymium, promethium, samarium, scandium, terbium, thulium, ytterbium, and yttrium?

[Major-Tom]

Does Donald own a horse he could make a Senator?

Ann Coulter.

[Ifreann]

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

And where are you going to get your cerium, dysprosium, erbium, europium, gadolinium, holmium, lanthanum, lutetium, neodymium, praseodymium, promethium, samarium, scandium, terbium, thulium, ytterbium, and yttrium?

The rich mines of Galt's Gulch.

[Valgora]

And what are you suggesting closing the borders? You do that and see how long it takes for the economy to crash.

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

True laissez-faire capitalism would be globalist due to free trade.
Not only that, but removing globalism from true laissez-faire capitalism would still result in a form of cronyism with the American economy in the hands of the wealthy elite - not much different really from the form of cronyism you said comes from globalism.

Also, closing borders wouldn't work well in the end for the US economy. You would need to at least build a strong economy before doing such a thing. Then you have to think about what would having closed borders do to trade, because trade is ultimately good. If you fuck up trade with other countries, that will have a negative effect on the economy and especially on those like farmers.

[Mischland]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

[Vassenor]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

So when it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" it doesn't actually mean "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"?

[Cedoria]

And what are you suggesting closing the borders? You do that and see how long it takes for the economy to crash.

That's just globalist propaganda. America's borders can still be completely closed with a strong national economy if America takes measures to strengthen its economy. If America actually had true laissez-faire capitalism along with completely closed borders for all immigrants, America's economy would be just as strong as it is now if not even stronger. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't require globalism to function properly, and globalism can actually even undermine true laissez-faire capitalism by turning it into a form of cronyism where the entire world economy rests in the hands of international elites, influential globalist organizations, and international bankers. Would that be better for the economy?

You can have Laissez-Faire or closed borders. Pick one.

[Cedoria]

Does Donald own a horse he could make a Senator?

Ann Coulter.

I thought he'd make her chief priest of Trumpism instead. That would be in keeping with the whole Caligula vibe.

Though I always got more of a Ptolemy Dynasty feeling from the Trumps, what with the Donald being a creep on his daughter and all.

[Holy Tedalonia]

While I consider it good to end anchor babies, this is a step in the wrong direction, since it gives presidents power over the constitution.

[Ifreann]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

I'm sure you will be interested to know that the Supreme Court ruled on what, exactly, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;

[Cedoria]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

So when it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" it doesn't actually mean "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"?

Words don't mean what they mean anymore remember? Only alternative facts matter.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

So, when those children commit a crime, they cannot be punished, yes? ICE cannot detain illegal immigrants, I guess, since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Yeah, a foreign ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because of diplomatic immunity. Of course. And if you fly an aircraft registered in Belgium over the US, then you are technically in US territorial skies, although you are subject to the laws of Belgium, so then there is no jurisdiction. But if you are a person born in the US, in a US city, then you are subject to the laws of the United States and therefor you fall under the jurisdiction of the US.

You can choose: either children of illegal immigrants are US citizens, or they cannot be deported.

[Nyoronet]

a

[Valgora]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

I'm pretty certain that someone pointed out that illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government in this topic.

Not only that, but there have been court rulings that upheld the idea that children born to foreign nationals on American soil were in fact citizens.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), "the Supreme Court ruled that a person who:
is born in the United States; of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power; whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United State; whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."
Wikipedia

But about that American Indian thing:
Elk v. Wilkins (1884), "the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. ... Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress half a century later in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which rendered the Elk decision obsolete."
Wikipedia


Since Birthright Citizenship (even to illegal immigrants) is currently interpreted as a part of the 14th Amendment, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to actually change it.

[Seangoli]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

If you argue that the jurisdiction of the US, and those subject to its jurisdiction, only applies to US citizens amd legal residents and not on borders, then you tacitly admit that the US has no legal jurisdictional authority to detain or arrest illegal immigrants for any crime, including illegally entering the US. Either jurisdiction refers not just to authority over citizens but also to land under our control, or you are arguing effectively that thr borders of the US do not provide any defacto jurisdictional authority to the US.

So which is it? Do we have jurisdictional authority to detain and arrest non-legal residents, or dies jurisdictional authority apply only to US citizens and other legal entities ofnthr United States? You can't have it both ways. If jurisdictional authoritybis not defined by borders, them you are in effect arguing that the United States has no enforceable borders. A fascinating argument from the crowd that wants strong border control.

[Des-Bal]

I'm sure you will be interested to know that the Supreme Court ruled on what, exactly, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;

And if the court were to overturn that case that would be fun trivia.

[Holy Tedalonia]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

So, when those children commit a crime, they cannot be punished, yes? ICE cannot detain illegal immigrants, I guess, since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Yeah, a foreign ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because of diplomatic immunity. Of course. And if you fly an aircraft registered in Belgium over the US, then you are technically in US territorial skies, although you are subject to the laws of Belgium, so then there is no jurisdiction. But if you are a person born in the US, in a US city, then you are subject to the laws of the United States and therefor you fall under the jurisdiction of the US.

You can choose: either children of illegal immigrants are US citizens, or they cannot be deported.

I rather just fix the bloody constitution, allowing us to just give children who have parents with citizenships, citizenship’s. “Right by blood,” is simpler and ultimately less flawed.

[Neutraligon]

These sorts of topics that rage on for years even when the truth of the matter is so glaringly obvious leaves a depressing picture for the potential of public discourse. Children born to illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens, in the same way that the children of foreign diplomats weren't granted citizenship at the time of the writing of that amendment. I don't know how people can interpret it any other way, since not even natives were allowed citizenship as their tribes were considered foreign nations until they weren't. So for the "anyone born in America is American" people, you'd have to somehow prove that Mexico isn't a foreign government for your argument to work.

Need I repeat what I said earlier in the thread, namely that if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then you have essentially given millions of illegal immigrants diplomatic immunity.

[Vassenor]

Right and it's totally not because he needs to throw a bone to the racists in his base because poll numbers are flagging.

Slander, or libel?

So who is being damaged by me saying that?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, when those children commit a crime, they cannot be punished, yes? ICE cannot detain illegal immigrants, I guess, since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Yeah, a foreign ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because of diplomatic immunity. Of course. And if you fly an aircraft registered in Belgium over the US, then you are technically in US territorial skies, although you are subject to the laws of Belgium, so then there is no jurisdiction. But if you are a person born in the US, in a US city, then you are subject to the laws of the United States and therefor you fall under the jurisdiction of the US.

You can choose: either children of illegal immigrants are US citizens, or they cannot be deported.

I rather just fix the bloody constitution, allowing us to just give children who have parents with citizenships, citizenship’s. “Right by blood,” is simpler and ultimately less flawed.

Well, go ahead and try, but let's agree that it cannot be done by executive order like the president claims.

Also, what problems have been caused by ius soli, really? What insufferable evil is being wrought on the US population?