Trump

[heironymouspasparagus]

Shockingly middle of the road. In Oklahoma, I feel like a flaming liberal.

That said, I suck at these tests. For example: When you ask me if quick decision making is an advantage of a one party state, the answer is "agree." It absolutely IS an advantage of a one party state, does that mean I agree with it? NO. I suspect my response in that regard alters the result.

Lots of ambiguity.


I just went with what I "agree", not what I think really happens without regard for consequences.  So, I ended up with more libertarian than I would probably want in the real world.  Except for myself, of course!   Nobody can tell me how to live my life better than I can!

[erfalf]

14th Amendment - he wants to abandon birthright citizenship...

16th Amendment - he has stated previously that he wants to kill the 16th Amendment (income tax)

18th Amendment - I assume he's against this one.
(I wrote this last night, I may have been drinking, and stopped doing citations at a certain point... clicked post today. Good job me for waiting until sober me could review before posting!)

Please don't take this as support for The Donald, but on a couple of those.

14th - the constitution does not require birthright citizenship. So that is something that is up for debate, particularly since the court has never made a ruling on so called "anchor babies".

16th - There are sane people that are for "flat tax/fair tax" or whatever. I favor more of a consumption tax and would be perfectly fine with no income tax. Some states do it, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

18th - Do you have a citation on that one that he would be against it?  You must have been the most drunk at this point.


The political compass questions were strange in some cases. Very leading questions, as in I don't know how they would use some of them to draw a conclusion since not affirming non-binary questions doesn't really mean anything in some cases. But none the less my chart is below. I'm sure it's a huge shock to you all.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Please don't take this as support for The Donald, but on a couple of those.

14th - the constitution does not require birthright citizenship. So that is something that is up for debate, particularly since the court has never made a ruling on so called "anchor babies".


The political compass questions were strange in some cases. Very leading questions, as in I don't know how they would use some of them to draw a conclusion since not affirming non-binary questions doesn't really mean anything in some cases. But none the less my chart is below. I'm sure it's a huge shock to you all.  

"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."


Not sure what you mean by "does not require birthright citizenship".  Anyone born here just IS a citizen.  No requirement in any way.



We aren't very far apart after all on that chart... Good!  There is hope for you after all!!  Lol....

[erfalf]

"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."


Not sure what you mean by "does not require birthright citizenship".  Anyone born here just IS a citizen.  No requirement in any way.



We aren't very far apart after all on that chart... Good!  There is hope for you after all!!  Lol....

if you include "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it makes a difference. 

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

Obviously that is not how the law is being applied, which also doesn't make it right.

[erfalf]

Would it really take much to change the policy that we currently follow? Assuming it could stand up to constitutional review, which I think it would. I'm sure there would be lawsuit after lawsuit, which would be interesting because I assume they would have to be filed by non-citizens to have standing. Is that even possible? for non-citizen to have standing?

[cannon_fodder]

No, I have no citation that he is against the 18th Amendment. And holy crap, The Donald doesn't and never has drank alcohol (and wants to "go after" alcohol companies the same way we went after cigarette companies). Crap on a cracker. Maybe I gave him too much credit. http://conservativeamerica-online.com/3-donald-trump-does-not-drink-alcohol/
- - -


Re birthright citizenship - we have always had birthright citizenship. The concept is so old it has a Latin name,  jus soli (so it must be true!). The notion that immigrants should be excluded because of history is pure fiction. If they want to change the way it has always been done, stand up and say so. But they hide behind a false notion of tradition.

In 1607 the first baby born to settlers was automatically a citizen of Great Britain and of the Colony of Virginia. When Britain took over Spanish areas or French areas, people born there were British. That held until 1776, when we declared all citizens independent from Britain and citizens of a new nation. As early as 1830 the Supreme Court said "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

After a time, each State declared which free persons born in their territories were citizens (see Dred Scott v. Sanford, an amazing and painful case). The Federal government affirmed the position through the civil war that anyone born in the US was a prima fascia citizen, and the burden was on the States to prove why that "natural born right" was to be taken away. Obviously, slave holding states tried very hard to take that right away from free black people born in their territory (prior to the civil war).

That changed with the 14th Amendment, which preempted the power of the States and declared all persons born in the US to be citizens of the United States. The assumption was that certain groups of people wouldn't be deemed undesirable by certain factions who control certain states (black people at that time) and would therefore be excluded from citizenship. To prevent this, the Fed forced States to adopt as citizens anyone born within their territory and afforded the children the rights of a citizen (incidentally, a similar concept put the Cherokees in a tight spite visa vis the Freedmen).

The law you discuss was passed 2 years before adoption of the amendment. It illustrates that Congress clearly knew how to delineate children born to citizens and those subject to a foreign power and had robust debate in that regard, yet in drafting the 14th Amendment they made no such distinction. Ergo, they intentionally did not exclude children born to foreign citizens. They easily could have, immigration was as, if not more prevalent then than it is now.

And all of this is just background noise, because the issues has been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States 130 years ago. California tried to exclude citizenship to those pesky Chinese that kept coming over (we kept advertising for them to come over to provide cheap labor... then whined about it). The Court ruled that children born in the US to parents who are the citizens of another nation are granted US Citizenship by virtue of their birth.  The Court specifically dismissed the argument you raised about "subject to foreign powers," which was relied upon by the dissent. If you are here... you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so the point was moot. Additional cases in the 1980s further buttress the 130 year old rule (requiring public education for children of illegal immigrants, as they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US).

I linked the Wikipedia page to the case above. Really good discussion of this case and contemporary arguments therein. I'd also recommend you read Dred Scott, so much history in that case - particularly when we know what was going on in the broader aspect at the time and what the ultimate result was.

So yeah, we could change the policy. After 130 years of jurisprudence and millions of people who have been citizens for generations, we could do it. But we would almost certainly need a Constitutional Amendment to do it. When Congress has been presented mere legislation on the issue, it has died before seeing the light of debate.

[erfalf]

No, I have no citation that he is against the 18th Amendment. And holy crap, The Donald doesn't and never has drank alcohol (and wants to "go after" alcohol companies the same way we went after cigarette companies). Crap on a cracker. Maybe I gave him too much credit. http://conservativeamerica-online.com/3-donald-trump-does-not-drink-alcohol/
- - -


Re birthright citizenship - we have always had birthright citizenship. The concept is so old it has a Latin name,  jus soli (so it must be true!). The notion that immigrants should be excluded because of history is pure fiction. If they want to change the way it has always been done, stand up and say so. But they hide behind a false notion of tradition.

In 1607 the first baby born to settlers was automatically a citizen of Great Britain and of the Colony of Virginia. When Britain took over Spanish areas or French areas, people born there were British. That held until 1776, when we declared all citizens independent from Britain and citizens of a new nation. As early as 1830 the Supreme Court said "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

After a time, each State declared which free persons born in their territories were citizens (see Dred Scott v. Sanford, an amazing and painful case). The Federal government affirmed the position through the civil war that anyone born in the US was a prima fascia citizen, and the burden was on the States to prove why that "natural born right" was to be taken away. Obviously, slave holding states tried very hard to take that right away from free black people born in their territory (prior to the civil war).

That changed with the 14th Amendment, which preempted the power of the States and declared all persons born in the US to be citizens of the United States. The assumption was that certain groups of people wouldn't be deemed undesirable by certain factions who control certain states (black people at that time) and would therefore be excluded from citizenship. To prevent this, the Fed forced States to adopt as citizens anyone born within their territory and afforded the children the rights of a citizen (incidentally, a similar concept put the Cherokees in a tight spite visa vis the Freedmen).

The law you discuss was passed 2 years before adoption of the amendment. It illustrates that Congress clearly knew how to delineate children born to citizens and those subject to a foreign power and had robust debate in that regard, yet in drafting the 14th Amendment they made no such distinction. Ergo, they intentionally did not exclude children born to foreign citizens. They easily could have, immigration was as, if not more prevalent then than it is now.

And all of this is just background noise, because the issues has been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States 130 years ago. California tried to exclude citizenship to those pesky Chinese that kept coming over (we kept advertising for them to come over to provide cheap labor... then whined about it). The Court ruled that children born in the US to parents who are the citizens of another nation are granted US Citizenship by virtue of their birth.  The Court specifically dismissed the argument you raised about "subject to foreign powers," which was relied upon by the dissent. If you are here... you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so the point was moot. Additional cases in the 1980s further buttress the 130 year old rule (requiring public education for children of illegal immigrants, as they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US).

I linked the Wikipedia page to the case above. Really good discussion of this case and contemporary arguments therein. I'd also recommend you read Dred Scott, so much history in that case - particularly when we know what was going on in the broader aspect at the time and what the ultimate result was.

So yeah, we could change the policy. After 130 years of jurisprudence and millions of people who have been citizens for generations, we could do it. But we would almost certainly need a Constitutional Amendment to do it. When Congress has been presented mere legislation on the issue, it has died before seeing the light of debate.

Wong Kim Ark was here legally.

You even quote

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

This does not include those here illegally.

I know the link below is authored by "right wingers" but it quotes authors of the legislation. They clearly meant this to apply to those here legally, which I am not arguing against. What is at question is the "anchor baby" policy that we are following.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

[Hoss]

...So yeah, we could change the policy. After 130 years of jurisprudence and millions of people who have been citizens for generations, we could do it. But we would almost certainly need a Constitutional Amendment to do it. When Congress has been presented mere legislation on the issue, it has died before seeing the light of debate.

And even IF it were to come up as a Constitutional amendment (or a repeal as the case may be, which usually happens with an amendment repealing a previous amendment, i.e. prohibition), it would still require being passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress (Senate and House), then it must be ratified by 38 of the 50 states (three quarters if your math stinks like mine).

It's not easy to do.

[erfalf]

And even IF it were to come up as a Constitutional amendment (or a repeal as the case may be, which usually happens with an amendment repealing a previous amendment, i.e. prohibition), it would still require being passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress (Senate and House), then it must be ratified by 38 of the 50 states (three quarters if your math stinks like mine).

It's not easy to do.

Could it not be executive action. If said executive believes he/she is acting with in the bounds of the constitution (which a case could be made). I figure only lawsuits would stop him, and again, who would bring the suit?

[erfalf]

Senator Jacob Howard, who worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting the 13th Amendment, also served on the committee that drafted the 14th spells out the intent:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

So you have the author stating what they meant. What's left to interpret.

Elk v. Wilkins

Professor Edward Erler testifying:

"It's my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996"

Importantly he points out how that vague language of the 14th was later defined in the legislation he mentioned.

This is not some white noise that has no basis in reality. It is real. You are on the opposite end of the spectrum of the author of the legislation for pete sake.

[patric]

[erfalf]

And the rest of the story...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/16/rudy-giuliani-911-remarks/

The sad part is that NPR seems to have been "fooled" as well.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/16/490200895/rudy-giuliani-claims-no-terror-attacks-in-u-s-pre-obama

This does not help when trying to maintain that Gubment check.

[cannon_fodder]

So you have the author stating what they meant. What's left to interpret.
. . .
This is not some white noise that has no basis in reality. It is real. You are on the opposite end of the spectrum of the author of the legislation for pete sake.

Several things:

First, those advocating the elimination of birthright citizenship are not all limiting their calls to children born to unauthorized persons. While some certainly are and have been for many generations, others are not nearly as specific. Trump being among those that are not specific.

Second, as I pointed out, the Wiki article does a great job of laying out the entirety of the debate. A debate which settled on universal birthright citizenship by the close of the 19th Century. The author of the legislation specifically stated that it should apply to diplomats accredited by foreign governments, but didn't discuss the children "illegal immigrants" (certainly in part because that wasn't really a thing at the time). However, the concept evolved greatly,  to the point that the children of diplomats are likely eligible for US citizenship. His quote has certainly led to questions, but scholars disagree if his sentiment extended to other mere visitors to the US, as opposed to those who sought to make this their home.

Third, what's left to interpret is the actual implementation of the law. The courts quickly gravitated to a one-size fits all birth-right citizenship model and the legislature never really made a move to change it. After the constitutional interpretation has stood for a period of time, it takes an amendment to change it. In this instance, the interpretation has stood for a very long time.


The spectrum on citizenship goes from the the most liberal "citizenship by stepping foot in the country" to the most conservative "no citizenship unless we say so." Birthright citizenship is definitely to the left of center. Arguing over the form of birthright citizenship is merely arguing over how far left of center one is, not opposite ends of the spectrum.

Also, I haven't argued a position. I've merely pointed out how long the law has stood in the US and the historical context for the same. Recall, I even cited to cases and sources that contradict and dissent from the longstanding interpretation. While I feel that universal birthright citizenship has many advantages and am, in fact, in favor of retaining the policy (particularly given the likely need for a constitutional amendment); I can also see the ambiguity and the issues that it causes.

For me, its an interesting history and enjoyable debate, not a passion or deeply held belief.

- - -

Regarding the executive order solution - Court have ruled that executives can basically change the law by neglecting to enforce a law (recent examples: Obama ignoring pot operations in Colorado, California, Oregon, etc.). But changing birthright citizenship is contrary to Supreme Court precedent. It isn't a failure to act, it would be ordering the US Government to deny what has been considered a Constitutional right to someone who is a US Citizen under the status quo.

And yes, for the record, I think the executive power to just not enforce certain laws is dubious. While I appreciate the outcome in the marijuana example, the ability to abuse that power is terrifying.

- - -

NOT --- imagine trying to have this level of discussion with the Donald. If you can't imagine the President engaging in intelligent discussion of important issues... that person probably shouldn't have the job. 

[erfalf]

I'm with you Cannon. The way the language is left open to interpretation will always lead to discussions/disagreements such as this. And when there is little to no exact judicial precedent it makes it all the more "entertaining". I honestly don't know what Trump's position is other than I heard him mention it in passing once. I have been pretty adamant that there can't be open borders with the welfare state as it exists today, therefore birthright citizenship for Illegal aliens has got to be eliminated, as I am fairly certain we will not be eliminating many welfare programs.

[cannon_fodder]

The actually welfare spent on illegal aliens is something like $20 Billion (~100bil for all immigrant families). Compared to $1 Trillion on US Citizens (and that's counting medicaid as welfare, but not SS or Medicare). But we are actually fairly low on the "welfare" state spending in spite of what you may hear on talk radio. Similar in Welfare/GDP to Israel or Slovakia, not the socialist paradise we may be led to believe and at 19% we are below the global average of 22%. In the broadest sense, Social security and medicare make up the bulk of our welfare spending, then medicaid ($488B, not counted as welfare in most countries), "food stamps" (291B), Housing (40B), unemployment (36B) and the rest is basically trivial in the Federal Budget.

Definitely waste. Definitely abuse. Definitely perverse incentives. Also definitely more complex than "cut 'em off" as many of the programs are subsidies for industry (be it Pharmaceuticals, farmers, or minimum wage employers). I strongly believe in social welfare programs of many types, but I also believe they need to be watched very closely and likely cut back. But not in a knee jerk manner, smart cuts with smart incentives. There are things we can do to save money and make both sides equally unhappy (see Colorado's birth control shift, which resulted in fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer abortions, and therefore a lower budget for medicaid...).

Most pertinently, it isn't really an illegal immigration issue, in that they make up ~2% of the cost.

Another worthwhile discussion Trump is incapable of having.

/sorry for the thread drift. I suck.