- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 3:52 pm to scrooster
quote:
I hope you’re correct and that Trump and his people are prepared to state their case and defend it to a good conclusion for all of us.
Even if you would give the alt-left their claim of citizenship for a child born on US soil, that still says nothing about the mother or father if they were illegal criminal aliens.
Want to play that game?...you give up the child after being born and get your azz back to your own country...with a black mark on your name for sneaking into the US in the first place. No soup for you!
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:13 pm to slackster
It says "AND subject to the jurisdiction....."
The very fact that these are not citizens and are deported back home is a factual expression of them being subject to jurisdiction outside of the US
The very fact that these are not citizens and are deported back home is a factual expression of them being subject to jurisdiction outside of the US
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:22 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
It's a draconian solution in search of a relatively minor problem
It isn't a minor problem...
Here is one example and think of what it's future implications may be.
There are approximately 50000 Chinese babies born in the US every year to Chinese Citizen parents come for the birth of their child and return to China after the birth.
Those children will be eligible to return to the US when grown as US citizens and be employed in classified environments and or work on government contracts and circumvent the restrictions against foreign nationals.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:40 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:We’re not talking about the parents, who weren’t born in the US or naturalized. The “jurisdiction” refers to:
It says "AND subject to the jurisdiction....."
The very fact that these are not citizens and are deported back home is a factual expression of them being subject to jurisdiction outside of the US
quote:And the debate is whether the intent was whether—save for the explicit exceptions— born in the US literally meant “born in the US” or “born in the US with some additional requirements.”
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
The “intent” has been debated for 150+ years, so pretending that it’s clear is ridiculous. And from a completely literal interpretation, without trying to gauge intent from what is not written, then there is not anything that would clearly exclude anchor babies.
Now frankly, I’m not sure why they would write an amendment, and not include these obvious broad class of exceptions if they wanted them to be exceptions. However, even if there is clear legal reasoning for the exceptions, and those are aligned with the original intent, it’s still anything but clear from the text itself.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:46 pm to Loserman
quote:If our vetting process for national security employment decades after one’s birth is a legitimate concern in this discussion about birthright citizenship, then I think we have bigger concerns to deal with regarding our vetting process.
Those children will be eligible to return to the US when grown as US citizens and be employed in classified environments and or work on government contracts and circumvent the restrictions against foreign nationals.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:59 pm to Jjdoc
If trump gets this through it will end any importance that Hispanics carry with the dems.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:25 pm to baobabtiger
quote:Huh? I don’t see anyway an EO will have an legal standing to go into effect regarding this. And even if so, the vast majority of Hispanics, a growing demographic, are neither here illegally nor considered anchor babies. And those who this would impact moving forward (future anchor babies) are at least 18 years from voting, an eternity (or many eternities) in politics. I mean they may be GOP supporters by then anyways, as they are skewed younger currently (which skews D).
If trump gets this through it will end any importance that Hispanics carry with the dems.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:33 pm to Jjdoc
But does this open the door for Obama to be a citizen? 
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:46 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Oh, it certainly has legal standing. It will immediately be stopped by the courts though, which will move it right on up the ladder to SCOTUS. The case for birthright citizenship Constitutionally conferred by a foreigner illegally residing in the US is thin.
I don’t see anyway an EO will have an legal standing to go into effect regarding this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:07 pm to buckeye_vol
No no. The AND comes after.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:But there is another issue that is important, and likely needs decided first: the Constitutionality of an EO, irrespective of the substance of it.
Oh, it certainly has legal standing. It will immediately be stopped by the courts though, which will move it right on up the ladder to SCOTUS. The case for birthright citizenship Constitutionally conferred by a foreigner illegally residing in the US is thin.
So it's not just a "what" issue, it's also a "who/how" issue. That makes the legal standing especially questionable, when there is an important contingency before even getting to the substance.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:40 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:The Executive Branch has the right and responsibility to enforce our laws. EOs are a mechanism to fulfill that duty. There is no Constitutional question.
Constitutionality of an EO
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:45 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:Of course it comes after. I never said it didn't, and I don't know why that matters since it's referring to the jurisdiction that results from the Citizenship itself.
No no. The AND comes after.
The jurisdiction is a result; the Citizenship is the cause.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:And what law would he be enforcing?
The Executive Branch has the right and responsibility to enforce our laws.
quote:It's a mechanism that is largely used outside the scope of its actual purpose; in other words, it's too often used to create a law, not just enforce an existing one.
EOs are a mechanism to fulfill that duty.
quote:What? EO power itself is not in question, and it wasn't with Obama, Bush, etc.
There is no Constitutional question.
The question is always whether a particular EO falls within that power, AND if so, whether the directives in the EO itself have a Constitutional basis in substance and procedures.
In the case of Citizenship, Naturalization of Citizenship is a power exclusive to Congress, and they most recently defined the processes with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And as it pertains to being born in the US, the act just restates the 14th Amendment so "those born in the US are citizens" is already enacted in legislation the President tasked to enforce.
So in this case, he would be going against the law.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 8:07 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:56 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And what law would he be enforcing?
Well immigration laws, I guess. The question would be whether it runs afoul of the 14th Amendment...which is about as clear as mud. This is precisely how it’s supposed to work. Let the courts interpret the ambiguity.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:14 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
We’re not talking about the parents, who weren’t born in the US or naturalized. The “jurisdiction” refers to:
Oh yes we are or we would NOT have needed to add the wording. It would have stop with "All persons born on USA Soil is a citizen". BUT THAT'S NOT they stated.
The SCOTUS 100% disagreed with you.
quote:
And from a completely literal interpretation, without trying to gauge intent from what is not written, then there is not anything that would clearly exclude anchor babies.
It' included intent. Again... It's why the Indian was NOT given citizenship and Congress was forced to act under their CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:15 pm to BBONDS25
quote:But as it pertains to "citizenship by birth" the law just restates the 14th Amendment.
Well immigration laws, I guess. The question would be whether it runs afoul of the 14th Amendment...which is about as clear as mud. This is precisely how it’s supposed to work. Let the courts interpret the ambiguity.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
quote:I'm beginning to wonder if his admin has found a way to discourage "anchor" babies by targeting something/someone related to them (e.g., parents), but he is mixing up the purpose with the actual legal mechanisms to achieve it.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Oh, it certainly has legal standing. It will immediately be stopped by the courts though, which will move it right on up the ladder to SCOTUS. The case for birthright citizenship Constitutionally conferred by a foreigner illegally residing in the US is thin.
YEP!
You can't claim allegiance to the US when you came here to break the USA laws and entered illegally.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:23 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Of course it comes after. I never said it didn't, and I don't know why that matters since it's referring to the jurisdiction that results from the Citizenship itself. The jurisdiction is a result; the Citizenship is the cause.
What? LMAO!
You don't know why it matters.... just stop for one second.
Again, let's talk that through. If it is as you say it is, then there would have been no "and". They would have just stopped before it and put a ".", called it a day and went on home. Clearly think that through.
They obviously added the "and.. jurisdiction". If we take that to mean what you are suggesting then the whole matter makes ZERO sense.
Jurisdiction was added for a reason. Explain why and how it pertains to that sentence.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News