Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Genivaria]

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?

Economic Voodoo incoming!

[Valgora]

You're trying to reason with a white nationalist.

Sweet racism bro.

How is pointing out that one is trying to reason with a white nationalist racist?
The racist is the white nationalist.

I love how they excluded an American Indian because his loyalty was to his tribe first before America and this is evidenced to show 'and subject thereof' means you can exclude such people even though you just invaded their territory and they're now subject to your laws.

"Sire, the ingrate savage seems not to love America.."
"Deny him citizenship!"

This thread, this EO, there is no such thing as originalism..

No such thing. India is in Eurasia.

American Indians is another term for Native Americans.

[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.

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;

Also, thisnwas reaffirmed in Plyle v. Doe, wherein the Supreme Court in both in the Majority amd Dissenting opinions clearly stated that Jurisdictional authority does, in fact, refer to physical location in the US. While this didn't challenge citizenship, thats notnwhat is important; what is important is that it reaffirmed the defintion of Jurisdiction laid in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

[Des-Bal]

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.

I don't know why with the violence wrought against "among the several states" that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should expect kinder treatment.

[Valgora]

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?

"Anchor babies" - because apparently that's a massive problem even compared to other issues that seem to be of more importance.

[Cedoria]

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?

Makes the turgid sections of White America uncomfortable.


Apparently that's an evil so great as to justify a freaking national emergency these days.

For people who think of themselves as a master race, they sure seem rather whiny and pathetic.

[Neutraligon]

It is rather fun seeing people claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. I wonder if they are aware that means that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, the only thing that can be done is to have them deported. NO jail time, to getting recompense, no suing them, there is nothing the US court system could do besides deport.

[Ifreann]

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.

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

And if I had a horse I wouldn't walk to work.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Agreed, Making a executive order allowed to do that would give the president to much power, it must never be legal, for that. But a amendment to fix this, would be desired.

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

Because it allows a legal loophole, that has been abused and a “way” in.

[Vassenor]

It is rather fun seeing people claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. I wonder if they are aware that means that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, the only thing that can be done is to have them deported. NO jail time, to getting recompense, no suing them, there is nothing the US court system could do besides deport.

Considering they think the most important thing is getting them out of America, that's probably considered a feature rather than a bug.

[Genivaria]

I've previously stated that I'm against Jus soli on principle and it would be hypocritical if I did a 180 because it's Trump supporting this.
That said I'm aware that Trump and I have wildly different agendas and reasons for fighting Jus soli.

I am of the belief that simply being born on American soil shouldn't be enough to grant you citizenship.
Being born to a citizen should grant you citizenship and being raised in our school system should grant you a headstart as far as citizenship goes I think.

[Neutraligon]

It is rather fun seeing people claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. I wonder if they are aware that means that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, the only thing that can be done is to have them deported. NO jail time, to getting recompense, no suing them, there is nothing the US court system could do besides deport.

Considering they think the most important thing is getting them out of America, that's probably considered a feature rather than a bug.

More important then being able to hold trials if they murder?

[Vassenor]

I've previously stated that I'm against Jus soli on principle and it would be hypocritical if I did a 180 because it's Trump supporting this.
That said I'm aware that Trump and I have wildly different agendas and reasons for fighting Jus soli.

I am of the belief that simply being born on American soil shouldn't be enough to grant you citizenship.
Being born to a citizen should grant you citizenship and being raised in our school system should grant you a headstart as far as citizenship goes I think.

No-one's saying you suddenly have to be fine with it just because Trump hates it. The bigger issue is that Trump has decided he can just remove sections of the Constitution at will, with no regard for the checks and balances.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

I don't know why with the violence wrought against "among the several states" that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should expect kinder treatment.

Because 'jurisdiction' is a term that has been clarified ad nauseum by various courts and legal scholars already, and 'jurisdiction' is an accepted legal term for a specific thing. 'among the several states' is a lot vaguer than 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

It is strange to interpret 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as 'the parents of the person were subjects of another state', because knowing what 'jurisdiction' and 'subject to the jurisdiction' mean, that would be entirely contrary to what is written.

[Des-Bal]

And if I had a horse I wouldn't walk to work.

The difference is that we're not talking about you buying a horse. If we were "I don't own a horse" would be a very silly thing to say. The precedent affords very little protection.

[Nyoronet]

a

[Vassenor]

Makes the turgid sections of White America uncomfortable.


Apparently that's an evil so great as to justify a freaking national emergency these days.

For people who think of themselves as a master race, they sure seem rather whiny and pathetic.

Sweet racism bro

Is that your response to everything now?

[Ifreann]

And if I had a horse I wouldn't walk to work.

The difference is that we're not talking about you buying a horse. If we were "I don't own a horse" would be a very silly thing to say. The precedent affords very little protection.

I guess you didn't hear about how Justice Kavanaugh loves precedent more than he loves beer.

[Bombadil]

Sweet racism bro.

How is pointing out that one is trying to reason with a white nationalist racist?
The racist is the white nationalist.

No such thing. India is in Eurasia.

American Indians is another term for Native Americans.

Additionally I was using the language of the ruling itself so if any issue with the term they can take it up with those who made the ruling.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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

Agreed, Making a executive order allowed to do that would give the president to much power, it must never be legal, for that. But a amendment to fix this, would be desired.

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

Because it allows a legal loophole, that has been abused and a “way” in.

Well, it's not really a loophole, I would say. The drafters did so deliberately not make any reservations regarding the right that it can hardly be seen as a loophole, rather than the normal operation of the law.

It is rather fun seeing people claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. I wonder if they are aware that means that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, the only thing that can be done is to have them deported. NO jail time, to getting recompense, no suing them, there is nothing the US court system could do besides deport.

I would argue that the US court systems could not even deport these individuals. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the US can exert no power over them. The US court system could not issue verdicts relating to these individuals, since even their jurisdiction is blocked.

[Trumptonium1]

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"?

"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" apparently doesn't mean "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" so the answer to your question is no, grammar can be flexible.

[Des-Bal]

Because 'jurisdiction' is a term that has been clarified ad nauseum by various courts and legal scholars already, and 'jurisdiction' is an accepted legal term for a specific thing. 'among the several states' is a lot vaguer than 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

It is strange to interpret 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as 'the parents of the person were subjects of another state', because knowing what 'jurisdiction' and 'subject to the jurisdiction' mean, that would be entirely contrary to what is written.

That's just not true. Regulating commerce "among the several states" means regulating interstate commerce which in tern can mean selling products made in your neighborhood to your neighbors. There's nothing stopping the court from carving out a special definition of jurisdicion under the fourteenth amendment.

[Genivaria]

I've previously stated that I'm against Jus soli on principle and it would be hypocritical if I did a 180 because it's Trump supporting this.
That said I'm aware that Trump and I have wildly different agendas and reasons for fighting Jus soli.

No-one's saying you suddenly have to be fine with it just because Trump hates it. The bigger issue is that Trump has decided he can just remove sections of the Constitution at will, with no regard for the checks and balances.

Yes that's fair enough, Trump is definitely over stepping his authority here.

[Page]

I don't know why with the violence wrought against "among the several states" that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should expect kinder treatment.

Because 'jurisdiction' is a term that has been clarified ad nauseum by various courts and legal scholars already, and 'jurisdiction' is an accepted legal term for a specific thing. 'among the several states' is a lot vaguer than 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

It is strange to interpret 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as 'the parents of the person were subjects of another state', because knowing what 'jurisdiction' and 'subject to the jurisdiction' mean, that would be entirely contrary to what is written.

And if the parents weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that would mean they really wouldn't be illegal, because for one to be an illegal immigrant they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the country they're in.

So, anti-immigrant people, here's your choice:

1) Birthright citizenship stays
or
2) No such thing as illegal immigration anymore

Cause you can't have both.

[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.

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"?

How can they be subject to the jurisdiction of the American government if they were born to an illegal alien?

To the below, you're correct that in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the status of the foreign allegiance of the parents was considered less important than whether their residence in America was legal, and when applied today would exclude only those children whose parents had illegal residence in the United States. I think that this interpretation would have been much less likely to pass had the court foresaw the extensive implementation of work visas etc.

However, a bad interpretation of an amendment doesn't nullify its original meaning, which was to exclude children of foreign nationals born in America from citizenship.