re: President Trump promises to end birthright citizenship

quote:

---

They were not a considered component at all. It simply was not on the radar screen.

---

A distinction without a difference that I already addressed last page

quote:

---

quote:

---

Parents were here legally, thus unquestionably under US jurisdiction.

---

That is not how the case defines the terms.

quote:

---

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.

---

The court is specific. The words of the 14A exclude 2 classes of children:

Those born to diplomats.

Those born to soldiers in an active campaign on US soil or to occupied US citizens during an active war campaign and occupation on US soil.

The court explains its historical precedent to both scenarios:

1. Children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation:

quote:

---

In U. S. v. Rice (1819) 4 Wheat. 246, goods imported into Castine, in the state of Maine, while it was in the exclusive possession of the British authorities during the lase war with England were held not to be subject to duties under the revenue laws of the United States, because, as was said by Mr. Justice Story in delivering judgment: 'By the conquest and military occupation of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm possession which enabled him to exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over that place. The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them; for, where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.' 4 Wheat

---

2. Children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state:

quote:

---

In the great case of The Exchange (1812) 7 Cranch. 116, the grounds upon which foreign ministers are, and other aliens are not, exempt from the jurisdiction of this country, were set forth by Chief Justc e Marshall in a clear and powerful train of reasoning, of which it will be sufficient, for our present purpose, to give little more than the outlines. The opinion did not touch upon the anomalous case of the Indian tribes, the true relation of which to the United States was not directly brought before this court until some years afterwards, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 5 Pet. 1; nor upon the case of a suspension of the sovereignty of the United States over part of their territory by reason of a hostile occupation, such as was also afterwards presented in U. S. v. Rice, above cited. But in all other respects it covered the whole question of what persons within the territory of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

---

---

quote:

---

Children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation

---

Which will be the case made for millions of illegals, a category left wholly unconsidered by that court.


Look, you and I agree, an Amendment may well be required. But just as Joe Biden's F-15's were not considered in the 2nd Amendment, there is room for a very legitimate argument here. This is not the slam dunk case you imply.

quote:

---

Did Joe's tariffs spark economic growth?

---

Did they hurt growth?
Did the mere threat of them spark a Mexican rethink of the illegal migrant issue?

quote:

---

I'd hope more than 95% of people could accurately summarize the law when Roe v. Wade was controlling, as it was much more popular to discuss than this issue.

---

O.k.

I don't know what that has to do with your original implied point and my response to it, though.

You seemed to be saying that the Republicans in question should be expected to simply go along with the 14th since it's the law and has SC court precedence. That they would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

My point is that Roe v Wade was also the law and had SC precedence.

And it was overturned.

So why shouldn't the 14th (or really, just the Citizenship Clause in the 14th) be re-examined also?

I'm not reading 9 pages on this and I don't care about the minutia, but it seems that the argument is that not only is the CC being used for purposes other than what it was conceived for, the actual reason it was conceived is obsolete...we don't have any more slaves (not legal ones, anyway).

So why is this clause so untouchable?

quote:

---

Did they hurt growth?

---

Absolutely. As well as innovation.

Meanwhile, China is taking over the world with their EV's which are as good quality as ours, and have far better technology.

quote:

---

“U.S. consumers of imported goods have borne the brunt of the tariffs through higher prices, and … the trade war has lowered aggregate real income in both the U.S. and China

---

quote:

---

What they found is that while U.S. regions home to targeted industries saw no effect — positive or negative

---

LINK

quote:

---

Another anti-Trump take

---

Naw. I never mentioned him.

Your SFPDS is really bad this morning.

quote:

---

He won't get it but he should force the issue so we can get everyone on the record on where they stand.

---

Doesnt matter “where they stand” because they’re getting re-elected anyway. Trump needs to focus on the attainable. He’s only got a short time to get isht done. This is a distraction.

quote:

---

I don't know what that has to do with your original implied point

---

I think the issue is going to be your interpretation of some implication that doesn't exist

quote:

---

You seemed to be saying that the Republicans in question should be expected to simply go along with the 14th since it's the law and has SC court precedence. That they would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

---

And I was confirmed correct because this is not what I said at all.

quote:

---

So why is this clause so untouchable?

---

It's not but it's going to be hard to overturn the applicable cases, and very hard to do this with maintaining intellectual consistency for certain juridical philosophies that MAGA prefers

quote:

---

It appears to me they've had little to no effect on growth inhibition.

---

Under Biden they didnt?

They did zero for growth. In fact, Trump had to beg the fed for help in 2019 because these tariffs didnt do what he thought they would do.

Just for his re-election.

LINK

quote:

---

For the past year, President Donald Trump has repeatedly ping-ponged between claiming the “Economy is BOOMING,” and blasting the Federal Reserve for not doing enough to support economic growth.

“Would be sooo great if the Fed would further lower interest rates and quantitative ease,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday, less than a week after the US central bank signaled it would be hitting the pause button on any more rate cuts going forward. “The Dollar is very strong against other currencies and there is almost no inflation. This is the time to do it. Exports would zoom!”

The President campaigned on promises of 3% growth, and is presiding over somewhat less than that, with a final report issued Friday showing respectable 2.1% growth for the third quarter.

---

quote:

---

Trump had to beg the fed for help in 2019 because these tariffs didnt do what he thought they would do.

---

We've addressed this. Trump generated economic growth with TAX CUTS and DEREGULATION during his 1st term. After keeping rates low during the entire Obama Presidency, the Fed stupidly tamped growth down with EIGHT (8) rate hikes during Trump's term. Trump called that stupidity out.