Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Des-Bal]

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

And returning to the metaphor "I've never bought a horse before" would also be a silly thing to say.

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

Oh yeah it's a huge childish powerplay and I'm torn between whether it's just grandstanding before the midterms or we're about to undertake a military action that would be inconvenient for the media to get excited about.

[Page]

Are you willing to have the constitution violated over babies being born in trains from Canada to Mexico?

How is the constitution being violated when it is being legally nullified?

I'm sure Donald could get it through as an actual amendment anyway when the GOP gets 60 seats in the midterms and or through a Convention of states, but this is good enough. The constitution wasn't intended this way.

Nice try, but amending the US Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate, or a constitutional convention by the states, and in either case 3 out of 4 states must ratify an amendment for it to be valid. That isn't going to happen.

[Nyoronet]

a

[Mischland]

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.

If an illegal invades our borders the responsibility of punishment should rest on their own government, lest that government be accused of abiding an invading force of their making due to negligence of law and order

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Look, illegal immigrants are faced with a choice.

1. Remain childless, so that the consequences of illegal immigration are yours and yours alone to face.

2. Have children so that the state has to choose between letting an illegal immigrant stay and separating them from their kids.

Some people might have children for other reasons, of course, and these reasons can be instead of or in addition to the above.

But so long as the child can't be deported, the 14th Amendment is essentially creating incentives for the selfish decision to bring a child into a situation a child shouldn't have brought into in the first place. And then, when the government has a deterrent (somewhat) against deporting parents who are illegal immigrants, that makes them all the more likely to deport the ones who chose NOT to have kids themselves.

Kicking out the less-selfish while letting the selfish ones stay... the 14th Amendment was a mistake.

What do you mean "bring a child into a situation a child shouldn't have brought into the first place"? Because if you want a family and you want a better life (or the hope of one) in America, it makes sense that you might want to have your family with you.
Not only that, but how can we be so sure that illegal immigrants are having children for the selfish reason you claim vs. illegal immigrants having children for any other reason?

The 14th Amendment was not a mistake.

Suppose you come to America BEFORE you have children. Does it not stand to reason that the circumstances make it selfish, in and of itself, to have kids?

[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.

If an illegal invades our borders the responsibility of punishment should rest on their own government, lest that government be accused of abiding an invading force of their making due to negligence of law and order

invasion
noun [ C or U ] UK ​ /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US ​ /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
​
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:

They were planning to mount an invasion of the north of the country.

So yeah, not sure how immigration is an invasion.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

Well, simple. Jurisdiction means that you are subject to (some) of the laws of the US. It means that the US has power over you, simply put. So, if you are in the US, the US has power over you by territorial jurisdiction. Of course, you can also be in the US in such a manner that the US doesn't have power over you (such as with diplomats and people in airplanes), but that is not the case with illegal immigrants. The fact that they are illegal immigrants means that they are subject to the laws of the US.

Also, you will have to give some sources for that last claim. Yeah, interpretation by the Supreme Court is authoritative, so their interpretations are leading.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Its a small problem of a much bigger one. Immigration is a big deal to the us, and the anchor baby discussion is a battlefield. It’s fallacious to say that it isn’t important.

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.

Calling people like me, racist, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Spare me your rather weak insults

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.


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.

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

[Page]

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

If you want to have a serious debate, maybe you should stop using slurs like "anchor babies."

And just to be perfectly clear, because I know you will want to twist my words, I am not saying you don't have the right to use this term as part of freedom of speech, I don't think governments should jail or fine or otherwise punish people who use slurs. What I am doing is calling you out for it. Such language is dehumanizing. Babies born on US soil are AMERICAN CITIZENS.

[Ifreann]

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?

Because, as per Wong Kim Ark, one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if one has to obey they laws of the United States. And illegal immigrants very obviously have to obey the laws of the United States as much as anyone else.

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.

Wong Kim Ark wasn't given US citizenship because his parents were legally resident in the US, he was given US citizenship because he was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[Ifreann]

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment.

They were aware of that issue and didn't seem to care.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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

Its a small problem of a much bigger one. Immigration is a big deal to the us, and the anchor baby discussion is a battlefield. It’s fallacious to say that it isn’t important.

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.

Calling people like me, racist, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Spare me your rather weak insults

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.

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

Then why has the 14th Amendment only come under scrutiny now? The US has had periods of far great immigrant influx since the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The drafters might not have thought of 'anchor babies', but there is a lot they did not foresee. However, they did foresee immigrants coming to the United States, and having children. As we can see from the drafting history, neatly pointed out by Fox News of all sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-i ... tional.amp

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The drafters had a perfect opportunity to weave language about subjects to foreign power into their amendment. They purposefully changed the language of the 1866 Act to exclude references to foreign powers. From that, we can only interpret that the drafters thought about it, and that they went with the current wording regardless.

[Mischland]

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.

Well, simple. Jurisdiction means that you are subject to (some) of the laws of the US. It means that the US has power over you, simply put. So, if you are in the US, the US has power over you by territorial jurisdiction. Of course, you can also be in the US in such a manner that the US doesn't have power over you (such as with diplomats and people in airplanes), but that is not the case with illegal immigrants. The fact that they are illegal immigrants means that they are subject to the laws of the US.

Also, you will have to give some sources for that last claim. Yeah, interpretation by the Supreme Court is authoritative, so their interpretations are leading.

During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.

[Seangoli]

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

I hardly think that the drafters thought of singular qeapons that could kill multiple people before reloading whem drafting the second Amendment. I imagine had modern weaponry existed at the time, many may very well have been far more reluctant on the wording of the second Amendment.

Getting into arguments over what the original drafters did or did not mean is a very foolish excercise that will lead dow. Roads you do not want to go down. Intention is nearly impossible to parse out, and evem if it is it sets a very worrying precedent.

The text should be read as plainly as possible.

[Mischland]

Its a small problem of a much bigger one. Immigration is a big deal to the us, and the anchor baby discussion is a battlefield. It’s fallacious to say that it isn’t important.


Calling people like me, racist, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Spare me your rather weak insults


I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

Then why has the 14th Amendment only come under scrutiny now? The US has had periods of far great immigrant influx since the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The drafters might not have thought of 'anchor babies', but there is a lot they did not foresee. However, they did foresee immigrants coming to the United States, and having children. As we can see from the drafting history, neatly pointed out by Fox News of all sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-i ... tional.amp

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The drafters had a perfect opportunity to weave language about subjects to foreign power into their amendment. They purposefully changed the language of the 1866 Act to exclude references to foreign powers. From that, we can only interpret that the drafters thought about it, and that they went with the current wording regardless.

See my previous post

[Trumptonium1]

How is the constitution being violated when it is being legally nullified?

I'm sure Donald could get it through as an actual amendment anyway when the GOP gets 60 seats in the midterms and or through a Convention of states, but this is good enough. The constitution wasn't intended this way.

Nice try, but amending the US Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate, or a constitutional convention by the states, and in either case 3 out of 4 states must ratify an amendment for it to be valid. That isn't going to happen.

33 states have entirely Republican legislatures. A further 4 (Maine, Washington, 2 others I can't remember) are inches off Republican control. A further two - Colorado and New York - are controlled by Republicans in one of the two legislative chambers. That's 38 for you.

[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.

If an illegal invades our borders the responsibility of punishment should rest on their own government, lest that government be accused of abiding an invading force of their making due to negligence of law and order

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

[Page]

Nice try, but amending the US Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate, or a constitutional convention by the states, and in either case 3 out of 4 states must ratify an amendment for it to be valid. That isn't going to happen.

33 states have entirely Republican legislatures. A further 4 (Maine, Washington, 2 others I can't remember) are inches off Republican control. A further two - Colorado and New York - are controlled by Republicans in one of the two legislative chambers. That's 38 for you.

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

I guarantee you aren't getting New York, Colorado, Washington, or Maine either. The Deep South would probably go for it as well as some of the planes states like Kansas and Oklahoma, but I doubt you'd even get half.

Also where are 66 Senate votes coming from? Even the most optimistic projections for the Republicans don't get them that many seats. I'll even put Joe Manchin down on Team Blood and Soil, because why not? He usually betrays the Dems anyway, but even then you're not close to the goalpost.

[Frievolk]

33 states have entirely Republican legislatures. A further 4 (Maine, Washington, 2 others I can't remember) are inches off Republican control. A further two - Colorado and New York - are controlled by Republicans in one of the two legislative chambers. That's 38 for you.

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

Bold of you to assume they won't go after Amendment no. 13 or 15 next

[Neutraligon]

33 states have entirely Republican legislatures. A further 4 (Maine, Washington, 2 others I can't remember) are inches off Republican control. A further two - Colorado and New York - are controlled by Republicans in one of the two legislative chambers. That's 38 for you.

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

Also, why are the two where one of the two legislative chambers as part of the 38. Also why do they think that having a Republican majority mean they would support this amendment?

[Des-Bal]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

It sounds like the US and Canada are the only developed nations that are non-apartheid states.

[Seangoli]

Then why has the 14th Amendment only come under scrutiny now? The US has had periods of far great immigrant influx since the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The drafters might not have thought of 'anchor babies', but there is a lot they did not foresee. However, they did foresee immigrants coming to the United States, and having children. As we can see from the drafting history, neatly pointed out by Fox News of all sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-i ... tional.amp



The drafters had a perfect opportunity to weave language about subjects to foreign power into their amendment. They purposefully changed the language of the 1866 Act to exclude references to foreign powers. From that, we can only interpret that the drafters thought about it, and that they went with the current wording regardless.

See my previous post

And obviously other drafters didn't agree with that terminology or interpretation, as they decided to omit or clearly state that as the intention even though issues woth immigration were, in fact, a huge part of the political discourse of the time. Drafters of legislation are not a monolith of a singular idea, amd while some likely *desired* that as an interpretatuon, others did not.

Every Amendment is a compromise of some sort or another. Trying to interpret by origonal intention opens a can of worms, wherein other drafters intentions whom may be disagreeable are suddenly just as valid as the ones younagree with. Rather than going down that road of sussing out "original intent" (of which there are as many different original intemts as there are drafters), reading it as plain text with as little extra interpretation as possible provides for far less abuse.

[Neutraligon]

Well, simple. Jurisdiction means that you are subject to (some) of the laws of the US. It means that the US has power over you, simply put. So, if you are in the US, the US has power over you by territorial jurisdiction. Of course, you can also be in the US in such a manner that the US doesn't have power over you (such as with diplomats and people in airplanes), but that is not the case with illegal immigrants. The fact that they are illegal immigrants means that they are subject to the laws of the US.

Also, you will have to give some sources for that last claim. Yeah, interpretation by the Supreme Court is authoritative, so their interpretations are leading.

During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.

The original debate is useless when jurisdiction has since been clarified by the courts.

[Frievolk]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

Is every country in europe or asia an apartheid state?

Yeah, becuase every country in Europe or Asia has a fully Jus Sanguinis law.
What Trump calls for isn't a restricted Jus Soli (which would be bad, but like most countries in the world). It's complete abolishment of Jus Soli, which only two countries in the world have. Mali and India. I think.

[Page]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

Bold of you to assume they won't go after Amendment no. 13 or 15 next

Republicans will go after the Second Amendment too as soon as more black people, Muslims, trans people, and leftists start to arm themselves for self-defense.