- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are illegal children “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:41 am to CptBengal
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:41 am to CptBengal
"You're always subject to your local jurisdiction"
That's not true. Diplomats are not. An easy reading of the 14th is that it was making it clear that it did not confer citizenship on the kids of foreign diplomats.
That's not true. Diplomats are not. An easy reading of the 14th is that it was making it clear that it did not confer citizenship on the kids of foreign diplomats.
1
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:41 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I'm wondering about that clause. I assume they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they're actually in the US when they give birth despite the fact that they're here illegally, right?
In 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme court allowed for children born to parents who were legal permanent residents in the US to become naturalized citizens
The question is still open if those born to illegals are also citizens. It has been treated as such but has never been adjudicated.
It is probably a coin toss as to how SCOTUS will rule. Which essentially would favor those who are against it since it is being allowed currently
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:44 am to MrCarton
quote:Maybe the implications are on completely different levels, but a lot of the same arguments regarding “spirit and intent” outside the document itself have been used.
Not analogous.
But like the 2nd Amendment, which I believe is intentionally broad since any narrowing of a right can he used to apply it elsewhere or narrow it even either bit by bit, I believe the 14th was similarly broad on purpose.
The rights of the constitution are largely negative rights and limitations on the government itself, and even the few exceptions, have a similar purpose. Therefore, I think regarding potential limitations and exclusions of those rights, the government should always have the burden of proof and high burden at that. And arguing that it’s “common sense” is not sufficient, or even valid at all, as an argument unless that common sense can be supported with legal and empirical evidence that meets that high burden.
Personally, I don’t think anchor babies automatically getting citizenship makes a lot of sense, but I haven’t seen much to support why their exclusion would be necessary beyond “common sense.”
Although I’m beginning to think the idea of citizenship without any consent and explicit request for it is a little odd for anyone given that the privelages and responsibilities cannot be understood at that time, nor can their consent and wishes to bear them.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:48 am to Federal Tiger
Should someone be allowed to reap the benefits of their parents criminal act?
Should the baby of a drug dealer get the keep the house, cars and pet tigers when daddy gets arrested and convicted?
Should the baby of a drug dealer get the keep the house, cars and pet tigers when daddy gets arrested and convicted?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:49 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Seems to me like progs like to stop reading bc they’re naturally lazy and criminal. The conjunction “and” is a very important part of the amendment.
Kinda how conservatives like to stick their fingers in their ears with regards to the 'well regulated militia' part of the 2nd amendment.
I'm pro 2nd amendment, but it's hypocritical to hem and haw about 'libruls' ignoring that line of the 14th when those same people pick and choose which lines to ignore in other amendments.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how would they be deported? by the authority of....laws
if they're deported by our laws, then how are they not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
Logically, which law was broke first? So if we had caught the immigrant who broke the law at that time, the baby would never be born here.
It's as though you're arguing they should get some rights because they happened to have a child before we caught them. That's a naive way of thinking.
And...you want them to fall under jurisdiction for birthrights, but not subject the parents to being deported?
I mean if you want to follow everything exactly to some illogical fashion as you say...then fine, let the children stay and deport the parents. The children will just have to live in some adoption centers/orphanages. That or allow parents to take them back with them.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:52 am to alphaandomega
quote:
Should someone be allowed to reap the benefits of their parents criminal act? Should the baby of a drug dealer get the keep the house, cars and pet tigers when daddy gets arrested and convicted?
Of course not
But it is even worse. With the laws surrounding chain migration the anchor baby gets to bring 7 lose relatives along with them.
Which is akin to the criminal who gives his ill gotten gain to his child who then gets to issue a get out of jail free card to his parent.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:54 am to buckeye_vol
"Personally, I don’t think anchor babies automatically getting citizenship makes a lot of sense, but I haven’t seen much to support why their exclusion would be necessary beyond “common sense.” "
This is pretty much where I come down on the textual argument. I don't see how the president can win on that legal battlefield.
A thought regarding 2A and the 14th: It has long been established (over the objections of some on this board
) that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Fully auto weapons, WMD, the carrying of concealed weapons, etc. All of those things are regulated by legislation that shapes the contours of--and limits--the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Am. Well, why can their not be similar legislation that does the same with the 14th? It would not deny birthright citizenship so much as define it in a manner at least arguably consistent with its text. To borrow from the language of the gun control crowd, "common sense regulation" of birthright citizenship to clarify that the children of those present in the US in violation of valid US law do not receive birthright citizenship. Any takers?
This is pretty much where I come down on the textual argument. I don't see how the president can win on that legal battlefield.
A thought regarding 2A and the 14th: It has long been established (over the objections of some on this board
) that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Fully auto weapons, WMD, the carrying of concealed weapons, etc. All of those things are regulated by legislation that shapes the contours of--and limits--the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Am. Well, why can their not be similar legislation that does the same with the 14th? It would not deny birthright citizenship so much as define it in a manner at least arguably consistent with its text. To borrow from the language of the gun control crowd, "common sense regulation" of birthright citizenship to clarify that the children of those present in the US in violation of valid US law do not receive birthright citizenship. Any takers? Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:55 am to Federal Tiger
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:55 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country
You're simply wrong.
They're 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and therein lies the problem with the 14th amendment. What the writers intended to say and what they wrote are two clearly different things.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:58 am to WildManGoose
quote:But how is anyone subject to a jurisdiction BEFORE their existence to the world when they were born, including us?
They must have been subject to the jurisdiction of the US before they could be granted citizenship.
And furthermore, since the responsibilities of US citizenship includes things like "support and defend the Constitution" and "defend the country," how can we be given those responsibilities when we can't consent to them or even understand them at all?
I just don't see how birthright citizenship of ANYONE is valid under these assumptions until they reach an age of consent when many of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship become possible.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:00 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
The meaning of the amendment as described by its authors can't be more clear. Even those that wrote about it shortly after agreed.
Lulz, no.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is very clear and lists all of the exceptions.
The 14th amendment is vague as hell and lists NO exceptions.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:02 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
Because that language is not in the Amendment. It’s just what the guy who wrote the amendment stated 2 years before it was ratified.
And that shows the intent of the Amendment.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:04 am to alphaandomega
quote:Sure. If they were the legal property of the parent. But more importantly than just "should they reap the benefits of their parents' criminal acts," I don't think the should be required to face unnecessary consequences of a crime they did not commit.
Should the baby of a drug dealer get the keep the house, cars and pet tigers when daddy gets arrested and convicted?
And where does one draw the line regarding the crime that they benefit from? A child born from a far more serious crime like rape, reaps the benefits of citizenship, but his/her mere existence to reap those benefits is directly and exclusively related to the crime itself.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:07 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
The irony on both sides, is that the left wants to “adjust” the 2A, but doesn’t want to budge on this and we don’t want to doing anything to the 2A, but want to adjust 14A, section 1.
Not really. The 2nd HAS been "adjusted" many times. There are 1000's of laws "adjusting" the clear language of the 2nd.
Time to apply that process to the disjointed language of the 14th.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:10 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
An easy reading of the 14th is that it was making it clear that it did not confer citizenship on the kids of foreign diplomats.
What language in the 14th establishes that discrimination against diplomats?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:14 am to Dale51
quote:Yet, he somehow managed to completely leave out that intent altogether in the TEXT. Why would he do that ? And I would think that with social media, 24 hour news, the internet, etc., we should know better than ever that the words of a politician are essentially meaningless since they will contradict themselves on a whim whenever convenient. We just have the benefit of more easily documenting these changes; however, politicians of the past, were still politicians afterall, and it's a dishonest profession.
And that shows the intent of the Amendment
But it's interesting to see the arguments for "intent" outside of the text, from people who supported the textualists appointments and professed to share their views. Luckily I believe that the appointees are principled in their views, but it's clear that textualism is a principle of convenience, just like EO abuse, deficits, big government, states rights, etc.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:19 am to Dale51
quote:And the adjustments always require a high burden of proof on the government to justify any movement from the strictest interpretation.
Not really. The 2nd HAS been "adjusted" many times. There are 1000's of laws "adjusting" the clear language of the 2nd.
Time to apply that process to the disjointed language of the 14th
The same should apply here. If the government can't support it within the Constitution itself, then it should have to provide substantial legal and empirical evidence, a lot more than just "intent" and "common sense."
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:22 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Yet, he somehow managed to completely leave out that intent altogether in the TEXT.
Maybe because that concept was obvious to clear thinking and rational minds back then? (I think he even used the word "obvious")
It's would be like Bic lighters being liable for a house fire because they didn't specifically warn against intentionally starting your couch on fire. Some things are just common sense and don't need to be specifically pointed out?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:28 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
And the adjustments always require a high burden of proof on the government to justify any movement from the strictest interpretation.
What are some of these "high burden of proof" adjustments concerning the numerous laws "adjusting" the 2nd?
quote:
If the government can't support it within the Constitution itself, then it should have to provide substantial legal and empirical evidence, a lot more than just "intent" and "common sense."
Do millions of criminal aliens present in the country and the damage they do constitute empirical evidence? If not, what issues would you accept as valid?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News