Trump and the 14th amendment.

[Aeson]

You are ignoring the difference between legal and illegal all together. Worse, you are smearing people who even bring up the difference. I asked you if the children born to invading soldiers should have birthright citizenship for that reason, because they entered illegally to do harm. How did you respond? By smearing and ignoring the point.

I answered about foreign military. You just don’t know how to read so came to an absurd conclusion about me calling military diplomats.

[Aeson]

But you failed to see that their would be a difference between the children of diplomats being granted birthright citizenship and the children of invading soldiers being granted birthright citizenship.

According to the law and SCOTUS there is no applicable difference to birthright citizenship. They both fail the allegiance test as they are agents of a foreign power.

[Aeson]

You are ignoring the difference between legal and illegal all together.

I am not ignoring the difference, I am pointing out that in the 14th there is no exception made for illegal aliens. It’s entirely understandable that there wouldn’t be an exception made for illegals since there were no illegals when the 14th was ratified.

You are trying to wish into existence an exception that simply isn’t there. At some point the law or SCOTUS may change that, but for now no amount of xenophobia on your part can make the 14th birthright citizenship address illegal aliens differently than legal aliens.

[Ming]

A because B. B = reason. So no, I am not just guessing. Guessing is what people do when they have no reason.

Yes you are guessing since you have no reason but your own opinion.
In other words, you are just pulling it out of your ass yet again.
Again, how about a cite to prove you just aren't making stuff up again instead of just posting your normal nonsense as some lame attempt to cover up for your original worthless statement

[Kidlicious]

One more time ...
"Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
if it's what courts use to interpret the law then most of them probably believe in it. If they didn't they would change the method. What's stopping them?"

[Ming]

And again, you weren't referring about the courts, you said " Most people do."
So try, try again

[Kidlicious]

According to the law and SCOTUS there is no applicable difference to birthright citizenship. They both fail the allegiance test as they are agents of a foreign power.

The idea of a subject to a Monarch doesn't really transfer to the idea of a citizen in modern US. Diplomats and foreign soldiers were not subjects because the Monarch had no authority over them. But he had authority over his subjects, and could of if he wanted restricted immigration according to social contract theory. It's just that it was not in his interest.

[Dinner]

Wouldn't the Ex post facto principle apply ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)
Technically speaking, the ruling of the court is not a law. And I don't know what is needed for a ruling to be applied. An 'act'? A 'law'?

Yeah, I imagine it would.

[Dinner]

Good then that the remaining 4.5k of the caravan of refugees are just that ... refugees ... and no invading army

If you want to be honest then I bet not even 1% would qualify as refugees. More like 0.01%. Virtually all of these people are just economic migrants who, legally, are supposed to use the regular immigration system but they are abusing the asylum system with mass filings of fraudulent claims. Dems are playing with fire if they don't acknowledge this truth.

[Dinner]

I am not ignoring the difference, I am pointing out that in the 14th there is no exception made for illegal aliens. It’s entirely understandable that there wouldn’t be an exception made for illegals since there were no illegals when the 14th was ratified.

You are trying to wish into existence an exception that simply isn’t there. At some point the law or SCOTUS may change that, but for now no amount of xenophobia on your part can make the 14th birthright citizenship address illegal aliens differently than legal aliens.

From the link in the OP:

In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case¹², the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

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;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case^{10,11, 16} once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14^th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14^th Amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------

So there is an argument to be made over definitions though it seems unlikely that the court would fully agree with the argument above. I do think the courts could shut down birth tourism though.

[Dinner]

Wrt the Wong case it should be noted that his parents were lawful permanent residents of the US (had green cards) as they arrived prior to the Chinese exclusion act. Wong was born in the US then went on a trip to visit family in China but when he tried to return was denied entry so he sued. The court ruled that as his parents were lawful permanent residents he, as their child, was covered by the 14th.

Note, 92% of native Americans born in the US did not have U.S. citizenship until Congress granted it to them in 1924. Courts had ruled that despite being born in the US Indians owned allegiance to their tribes and not to the US thus they were not under the jurisdiction of the US. Let that sink in.

There has never been a definitive court ruling about noncitizen non-perminent resident's children automatically gaining citizenship. THAT is what the Republicans are going to challenge in my estimation. Note this does not require the constitution to be changed and is simply challenging meanings and definitions.

[Dinner]

Wrt the Wong case it should be noted that his parents were lawful permanent residents of the US (had green cards) as they arrived prior to the Chinese exclusion act. Wong was born in the US then went on a trip to visit family in China but when he tried to return was denied entry so he sued. The court ruled that as his parents were lawful permanent residents he, as their child, was covered by the 14th.

Note, 92% of native Americans born in the US did not have U.S. citizenship until Congress granted it to them in 1924. Courts had ruled that despite being born in the US Indians owned allegiance to their tribes and not to the US thus they were not under the jurisdiction of the US. Let that sink in.

There has never been a definitive court ruling about noncitizen non-perminent resident's children automatically gaining citizenship. THAT is what the Republicans are going to challenge in my estimation. Note this does not require the constitution to be changed and is simply challenging meanings and definitions.

[pchang]

So, the 14th amendment talks about sojourners. I would ask what makes one NOT a sojourner and I think the answer is anyone who intends to stay in the US. Thus, birth tourists are excluded, but illegal aliens are not.

[spambot]

So, worst case scenario, what happens if too many undesirables settle in the United States?

[pchang]

Too late. It already happened in 1607.

[Dinner]

So, the 14th amendment talks about sojourners. I would ask what makes one NOT a sojourner and I think the answer is anyone who intends to stay in the US. Thus, birth tourists are excluded, but illegal aliens are not.

The authors of the 14th spoke about sorjourners not being meant to be included though the actual text of the 14th does not mention sorjourners (it simply mentions jurisdiction which is itself a kettle of fish). I agree that the most likely outcome is that birth tourists are ruled to not have automatic citizenship while children of illegals probably will. Why? Again, the Wong case pointed out that his parents were domiciled in the US (also that his parents were lawful permanent residents) so my guess is the court will focus on the domicile issue. Republicans will probably argue that Wong doesn't apply because Wong's parents were legal residents while illegal aliens are not.

That is my guess, anyway.