birth tourism and anchor babies

[Been Jammin]

Pro 2nd people on here discuss the 2nd from the perspective of the debates that it was written from.

No. I am referring to the posters who say, "the 2nd can't be debated. The words are on paper and set in stone. There is no debate, It is not open for interpretation. Intent/ability of the founding fathers to predict the future can not be considered....etc.". Some of those same posters seem to be excited about DJT's X.O.

 

[Ponca Dan]

"glee" If you say so. You cool with immigrants gaming the system?

No, I'm not cool with gaming the system. I have said nothing that should have given you that idea. I have said twice now that my concern is with giving one person (the President - any president) that kind of political power. I am not talking about what is contained in the order, but in giving someone the authority to begin with. If a president can have that power, and you're fine with Trump banning citizenship to people, will it still be fine when a new Democrat president comes in an issues an order granting citizenship to anyone who walks across the border? If President Trump can have that power, and you think it's a good thing, then is it not also a good thing for President Obama to have had the same power? A President Warren?

 

[windriverrange]

As stated, it is my opinion on who the 14th amendment is referring to today. Back then it would have been applied to territories at the time, such as Colorado and Wyoming and such.

Good point CP, appreciate that. I come at it from the point of "intent" and the intent was never for it to be used the way it is today. In fact and sorry don't remember year ( it was 1921 or 1922 though) immigration was completely stopped for some period. The rational being that they wanted all he immigrants already here assimilate before opening the doors again.

Been, I have no problems changing the constitution through the prescribed way of the constitution. The intent was never to allow millions of people from shit holes to migrate here, to cost citizens the billions they have. I would love to have a states convention and iron this out among other things. But given the political motivations don't think a majority of either party will do anything, so if Trump does and it winds it way up through the courts ending up at the supreme court, have to say I really like the chances of the original "intent" being upheld.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It is only unilateral if it is without recourse. We the people have adopted the constitution. If that is a power granted by the constitution to the executive branch only then we elect executives who'll do with that power as we the people choose.

Nothing is unilateral.

Like I said we view this differently.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Good point CP, appreciate that. I come at it from the point of "intent" and the intent was never for it to be used the way it is today. In fact and sorry don't remember year ( it was 1921 or 1922 though) immigration was completely stopped for some period. The rational being that they wanted all he immigrants already here assimilate before opening the doors again.

Been, I have no problems changing the constitution through the prescribed way of the constitution. The intent was never to allow millions of people from shit holes to migrate here, to cost citizens the billions they have. I would love to have a states convention and iron this out among other things. But given the political motivations don't think a majority of either party will do anything, so if Trump does and it winds it way up through the courts ending up at the supreme court, have to say I really like the chances of the original "intent" being upheld.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Sounds pretty concrete

 

[Ostatedchi]

Or there could be other opinions:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015...p-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment/

 

[windriverrange]

speaking of singapore

i took my youngest and my nephew to arlington cemetery this summer

i took a picture of all the GD gum on the sidewalks as you entered thru security

and showed the boys how disprespectful people are of this hallowed ground.

My goal in life is to visit and pay my respects to all the American dead buried in US Military Cemeteries (26) around the globe. Have been to almost half so far and each is a spectacular piece of ground, with an unbelievable beauty draped in sadness. You won't see much if any trash on them and in some places where American dead are not buried in official US cemeteries' the gravesites are taken care of very well. In Holland for example families accept responsibility for the graves and place flowers there every June 6th.

I went to high school with a gal whose grandfather was on the USS Indianapolis. His body was never recovered but his name is inscribed on one of the rotunda walls at the cemetery in The US Military Cemetery Manila. I took a picture of seaman Wakefield (provided by the family) and held it up to his name and had staff take a picture of his name with photo. Also had them do the relief etching of the name which they mailed to me later. For Christmas had my HS friend come over and gave her the etching to give her father for Christmas. He will never see his dads name on that wall, but dam sure will know it is there and has pictures and the etching for proof and as something to hand down to grandkids.

When I was given the tour of the cemetery in Normandy turns out the girl who gave me the tour was a third generation Frenchperson to work there. Her grandfather had driven disinterred soldiers remains to Cherbourg to be shipped home to family for re-burial. Her dad had been the lead grounds keeper for the cemetery his whole life and the young lady was a guide and planned to make a career of that. Incredible!

If your ever in Singapore go out to Sentosa Island and look at the wax model makeup of the meeting room where the British signed the surrender papers to the Japanese. There are also some gun emplacements around, but the wax characters involved in that ceremony are spot on.

Lastly, while was in Manila, took off one day a bit early to take a boat out to Corregidor Island and tour that place.....absolutely amazing and I highly recommend doing that if you are ever close.

I can tolerate a lot of things, but disrespect of those hollowed grounds is something I will never tolerate. Funny that peoples who's relatives were liberated (sometimes twice) by American/Allied troops have more respect for those cemeteries than some Americans do for Arlington NC. Anyway, don't mean to hijack the thread......

 

[gopokes2003]

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Sounds pretty concrete

Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Some would argue, since they are aliens breaking US law their children are not able to become citizens of the US. The supreme court has said foreign parents must be domiciled, have established residency in the US, and be working, for their child to become a natural born citizen. The parents also cannot be on US soil in an official capacity of a foreign government.

 

[Medic007]

No. I am referring to the posters who say, "the 2nd can't be debated. The words are on paper and set in stone. There is no debate, It is not open for interpretation. Intent/ability of the founding fathers to predict the future can not be considered....etc.". Some of those same posters seem to be excited about DJT's X.O.

Are you familiar with the debate surrounding the 14th Amendment?

 

[Been Jammin]

Are you familiar with the debate surrounding the 14th Amendment?

yup

 

[Medic007]

yup

Then you should clearly see the correlation between what pro 2nd people have discussed here regarding the intent of the authors and the post that you quoted. Hint, it isn't hypocrisy...

 

[Headhunter]

Explain such “clear legal authority” lol

Here you go you know nothing ignoramus. The Presidents legal authority is spelled out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

section 212(f) of the INA reads as follows:

f. Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Section 212(f) can be roughly broken into two halves. The first half explains the President's power to issue a proclamation temporarily halting or restricting the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens. The second half explains the Attorney General's power to prevent the entry of aliens traveling on a commercial airline that has failed to comply with the legal requirements for detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States. In the following sections, we will discuss the President's power to issue proclamations under section 212(f). .

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[long-duc-dong]

No, I'm not cool with gaming the system. I have said nothing that should have given you that idea. I have said twice now that my concern is with giving one person (the President - any president) that kind of political power. I am not talking about what is contained in the order, but in giving someone the authority to begin with. If a president can have that power, and you're fine with Trump banning citizenship to people, will it still be fine when a new Democrat president comes in an issues an order granting citizenship to anyone who walks across the border? If President Trump can have that power, and you think it's a good thing, then is it not also a good thing for President Obama to have had the same power? A President Warren?

Yeah, I wasn't asking you about any of that. I was responding to your glee comment and that you associated it with the fact illegals will no longer be able to game the system. You used the word glee as some sort of negative reaction to the fact illegals might have to be forced to play by the rules. I found it silly.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Yeah, I wasn't asking you about any of that. I was responding to your glee comment and that you associated it with the fact illegals will no longer be able to game the system. You used the word glee as some sort of negative reaction to the fact illegals might have to be forced to play by the rules. I found it silly.

Is he wrong? Posters on here have regularly yearned for ultra-stringent immigration, to the point of denying any asylum.

To deny that is what is silly, and you know it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yeah, I wasn't asking you about any of that. I was responding to your glee comment and that you associated it with the fact illegals will no longer be able to game the system. You used the word glee as some sort of negative reaction to the fact illegals might have to be forced to play by the rules. I found it silly.

The problem with reading things on a board like this is you can only interpret the tone of what you read, and may not be interpreting properly. It sounded like some of the posters were using a "hell yeah!" tone of voice, which struck me as being gleeful. There was no intention to insult you or anyone else.

 

[Medic007]

Is he wrong? Posters on here have regularly yearned for ultra-stringent immigration, to the point of denying any asylum.

To deny that is what is silly, and you know it.

lol. I'd ask you to find any posts where anyone has advocated "denying any asylum" or "ultra-stringent immigration," but we both know you can't and will bitch out as usual.

 

[long-duc-dong]

The problem with reading things on a board like this is you can only interpret the tone of what you read, and may not be interpreting properly. It sounded like some of the posters were using a "hell yeah!" tone of voice, which struck me as being gleeful. There was no intention to insult you or anyone else.

I agree. I couldn't tell your tone either. And make no mistake about it, I don't get insulted by anything said on a message board, especially this one.

 

[Ostatedchi]

If you want to talk original intent.

U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the amendment’s citizenship clause, had “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

 

[Medic007]

If you want to talk original intent.

U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the amendment’s citizenship clause, had “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

@Been Jammin, your thoughts on Ostatedchi's post?

 

[Rdcldad]

If you want to talk original intent.

U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the amendment’s citizenship clause, had “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

meh let’s not get facts in the way

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

If you want to talk original intent.

U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the amendment’s citizenship clause, had “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

Sooooo...in this case, Trump would be?????????

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

If you’re born here, you’re not a foreigner. That’s...pretty much plain fvcking English lol.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

meh let’s not get facts in the way

These “facts” you speak of...they exist beyond in the heads of sheeple righties, correct?

 

[Rdcldad]

These “facts” you speak of...they exist beyond in the heads of sheeple righties, correct?

sure thing snowpuff

 

[Ostatedchi]

@Been Jammin, your thoughts on Ostatedchi's post?

They'll choose to ignore it.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[Been Jammin]

Let me ask you guys something. I have an employee whose grandparents were illegal aliens. His parents were born in the U.S. He was born in California. If we end birthright citizenship, is my employee a US citizen? I mean, his grandparents were not citizens, which means his parents were not citizens, which means he isn’t a citizen. Which is a problem, because he has been voting in elections for years. I guess we will have to do something about his social security number because it wasn’t issued to him by the DHS. Which means I have been employeeing an illegal alien, so I’m sure I will be penalized, and probably need legal representation. And, of course, there is the whole ICE thing for him to worry about.

 

[Headhunter]

Here you go you know nothing ignoramus. The Presidents legal authority is spelled out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

section 212(f) of the INA reads as follows:

f. Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Section 212(f) can be roughly broken into two halves. The first half explains the President's power to issue a proclamation temporarily halting or restricting the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens. The second half explains the Attorney General's power to prevent the entry of aliens traveling on a commercial airline that has failed to comply with the legal requirements for detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States. In the following sections, we will discuss the President's power to issue proclamations under section 212(f). .

Crickets.

 

[gopokes2003]

Let me ask you guys something. I have an employee whose grandparents were illegal aliens. His parents were born in the U.S. He was born in California. If we end birthright citizenship, is my employee a US citizen? I mean, his grandparents were not citizens, which means his parents were not citizens, which means he isn’t a citizen. Which is a problem, because he has been voting in elections for years. I guess we will have to do something about his social security number because it wasn’t issued to him by the DHS. Which means I have been employeeing an illegal alien, so I’m sure I will be penalized, and probably need legal representation. And, of course, there is the whole ICE thing for him to worry about.

Of course this scenario would never happen. Is there any way to revoke someone's US citizenship? No, there isn't, that I'm aware of. Unless they renounce their citizenship, they're fine.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Of course this scenario would never happen. Is there any way to revoke someone's US citizenship? No, there isn't, that I'm aware of. Unless they renounce their citizenship, they're fine.

This. You don't retroactively remove someone's citizenship. Not in the scenario you say.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Crickets.

Do you even realize how much modification has happened to that? Like you think you found the holy grail lol

“Crickets”

 

[Medic007]

Let me ask you guys something. I have an employee whose grandparents were illegal aliens. His parents were born in the U.S. He was born in California. If we end birthright citizenship, is my employee a US citizen? I mean, his grandparents were not citizens, which means his parents were not citizens, which means he isn’t a citizen. Which is a problem, because he has been voting in elections for years. I guess we will have to do something about his social security number because it wasn’t issued to him by the DHS. Which means I have been employeeing an illegal alien, so I’m sure I will be penalized, and probably need legal representation. And, of course, there is the whole ICE thing for him to worry about.

This post has to be you being intentionally obtuse. It would be applied going forward, not retroactively.

 

[Anodyne]

If you want to talk original intent.

U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the amendment’s citizenship clause, had “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

[what's up with the bracketing of "or"]

 

[Been Jammin]

This post has to be you being intentionally obtuse. It would be applied going forward, not retroactively.

Of course I’m being obtuse. I do have a Latino employee who was born in CA, but I made up the rest of the story.

I really don’t have strong feelings about the 14th. I just think it is interesting that the 2nd is set in stone, but the 14th is debatable. We can talk about the original intent of the 14th, but we can’t debate what the definition of “arms” is in relation to the 2nd. The fact that the founding fathers could not have possibly imagined the killing power of an AR-15 is a non starter.

It all seems pretty arbitrary, and fits with the conservative agenda. Guns are good. Minorities are bad.

I said I don’t have strong feelings on the 14th, but to be more clear, I have no problem with it in its current state. If it changes, I won’t be angry. It won’t affect me in any way that I can see.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Of course I’m being obtuse. I do have a Latino employee who was born in CA, but I made up the rest of the story.

I really don’t have strong feelings about the 14th. I just think it is interesting that the 2nd is set in stone, but the 14th is debatable. We can talk about the original intent of the 14th, but we can’t debate what the definition of “arms” is in relation to the 2nd. The fact that the founding fathers could not have possibly imagined the killing power of an AR-15 is a non starter.

It all seems pretty arbitrary, and fits with the conservative agenda. Guns are good. Minorities are bad.

I said I don’t have strong feelings on the 14th, but to be more clear, I have no problem with it in its current state. If it changes, I won’t be angry. It won’t affect me in any way that I can see.

The 2nd amendment was most recently reviewed in 2010 in DC vs. Heller. Who says it can't be reviewed?

You just don't get many court cases that would reintroduce the 14th to judicial review.

 

[Ostatedchi]

[what's up with the bracketing of "or"]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...11bc1146b0b_story.html?utm_term=.27332add9c77

Editor’s note: Michael Anton inserted the bracketed word “[or]” into a statement made by Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard during debate of the 14th Amendment on May 30, 1866, as recorded in the Congressional Globe. Anton wrote that Howard “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’ ” Writers before Anton have made the same insertion, and Anton stands by his interpretation of Howard’s statement and maintains that the insertion of the word clarified rather than altered its meaning. You can read his full explanation in a blog post subsequently published by the Claremont Review of Books.
Others believe the inserted word changes rather than clarifies the meaning of the quotation. Because the quotation can be read a different way, we should have asked Anton to publish it unaltered and then explain his interpretation rather than publishing it with the inserted word.

 

[Medic007]

I really don’t have strong feelings about the 14th. I just think it is interesting that the 2nd is set in stone, but the 14th is debatable. We can talk about the original intent of the 14th, but we can’t debate what the definition of “arms” is in relation to the 2nd. The fact that the founding fathers could not have possibly imagined the killing power of an AR-15 is a non starter.

It all seems pretty arbitrary, and fits with the conservative agenda. Guns are good. Minorities are bad.

Yeah, sorry man. I can usually connect with your posts whether I agree with the content or not, but this one is rubbish. Guns are good and minorities are bad? I'd expect that from some of the knuckleheads on here, but not from you.

 

[CowboyJD]

Crickets.

Because it’s legally and factually irrelevant to the issue being discussed...birthright citizenship.

But here’s a comment for you....

Your non-sequitur is very non-sequitury.

 

[Anodyne]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...11bc1146b0b_story.html?utm_term=.27332add9c77

Editor’s note: Michael Anton inserted the bracketed word “[or]” into a statement made by Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard during debate of the 14th Amendment on May 30, 1866, as recorded in the Congressional Globe. Anton wrote that Howard “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’ ” Writers before Anton have made the same insertion, and Anton stands by his interpretation of Howard’s statement and maintains that the insertion of the word clarified rather than altered its meaning. You can read his full explanation in a blog post subsequently published by the Claremont Review of Books.
Others believe the inserted word changes rather than clarifies the meaning of the quotation. Because the quotation can be read a different way, we should have asked Anton to publish it unaltered and then explain his interpretation rather than publishing it with the inserted word.

I read up a bit on this back in the summer when Anton floated the idea in the WaPo. The use of [or] here is based on a really poor accounting of the 1866 debate. The general implication that the Amendment drafters never imagined birthright citizenship applying to non-African Americans is incorrect. Amendment critics at the time noted that, as written, the Amendment would allow for the naturalization of Asians, "Gypsies," and other 'undesirables.' Johnson even vetoed the preliminary bill partly on this basis. In overriding the veto and drafting and defending the Amendment, the drafters answered this charge basically with a, 'yeah, we know.' Subsequent debates about 'jurisdiction' and allegiance are clearly referring to Native Americans. This interpretation of the original intent of the drafters was of course confirmed by SCOTUS.

I'm just a simple post-1945 historian, and do my best to avoid 19th century legal and legislative history. But I think the work of Martha Jones and Garrett Epps is worth reading for anyone who wants to take this debate seriously. Also, this 2006 essay by James Ho is very well sourced straight back to the Congressional debates (Ho is a federal judge and fervent originalist that was on a SCOTUS appointment shortlist).

It's perfectly defensible to argue that Congress got the 14th Amendment wrong, and that SCOTUS was wrong with Wong Kim Ark, and that current circumstances make the Amendment impractical or outdated. There are mechanisms for dealing with that. But trying to get around that process (of amending the Constitution to limit birthright citizenship) requires bad history via errors of omission and commission.