President Trump- The Implications

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's a bit more complicated than that and you know. My main point is that "birthright citizenship" is a murky subject still. And really has yet to be truly defined, and still at this point could be changed by Congress while still not running afoul of the Constitution.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

"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."

Really not murky at all except to those who want to try to stir up some kind of crap. 

From your reference;

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court made clear
that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage
and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats
and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation.


Well, except for the Native Americans who were getting hosed so bad then - no Constitutional protection, but treaties made it law of the land in spite of what the proponents of genocide/extermination wanted and tried to do.


So we have the actual text of the amendment, plus a court decision that hasn't been rescinded or changed specifying that yes, they are citizens.  And that is why the extremist right is trying so hard to get another amendment - they know it is the law of the land.  They are just like the chimpanzees in the zoo, slinging their own 'stuff'.

[rebound]

"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."

Really not murky at all except to those who want to try to stir up some kind of crap. 

From your reference;

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court made clear
that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage
and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats
and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation.


Well, except for the Native Americans who were getting hosed so bad then - no Constitutional protection, but treaties made it law of the land in spite of what the proponents of genocide/extermination wanted and tried to do.


So we have the actual text of the amendment, plus a court decision that hasn't been rescinded or changed specifying that yes, they are citizens.  And that is why the extremist right is trying so hard to get another amendment - they know it is the law of the land.  They are just like the chimpanzees in the zoo, slinging their own 'stuff'.

I'll weigh in a little on Erfalf's side.  It is not, at this time, unclear.  Per your notes above, and general acceptance, right now anyone born in the US is a citizen.

However, I do think there is merit to the argument that when/if the parent is not in this country legally, this does not convey automatic citizenship.  (Note:  "legal" could mean just about anything, but the parent would have to have some from of official document - green card, whatever - proving their right to be here.)  I could see a well-crafted amendment being given consideration, and even eventual acceptance.   However, that does not change the situation that right now, there is no ambiguity on current law.  (Again, caveat, not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, so JMHO.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll weigh in a little on Erfalf's side.  It is not, at this time, unclear.  Per your notes above, and general acceptance, right now anyone born in the US is a citizen.

However, I do think there is merit to the argument that when/if the parent is not in this country legally, this does not convey automatic citizenship.  (Note:  "legal" could mean just about anything, but the parent would have to have some from of official document - green card, whatever - proving their right to be here.)  I could see a well-crafted amendment being given consideration, and even eventual acceptance.   However, that does not change the situation that right now, there is no ambiguity on current law.  (Again, caveat, not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, so JMHO.)

That's what I was getting at - current law is clear.  It will require an amendment to change and I don't know what my position is on that...probably lean toward changing it.  Don't see a reason to grant citizenship without due process just for an accident of birth.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And in a similar vein - two of our Supreme Court justices "have doubts" about the concept of personal privacy.   Snoopin' and poopin' into everybody's business is the hallmark position of the extremist right...this just brings it out into the open for all to see.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/90e51cb5-c739-3038-933d-835fd51ee276/justices-thomas-and-gorsuch.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

Money laundering on the grandest scale!!   And the US taxpayer gets to pay for the latest Trump resort!!


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-orders-help-chinese-phone-215814298.html



Can hardly wait to see how the Trump apologists rationalize, distort, and twist this around...!

[Breadburner]

Money laundering on the grandest scale!!   And the US taxpayer gets to pay for the latest Trump resort!!


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-orders-help-chinese-phone-215814298.html



Can hardly wait to see how the Trump apologists rationalize, distort, and twist this around...!

Midol...Works for PMS and TDS....Try it....LOL....!!!!

[cannon_fodder]

A mere 72 hours after the Chinese government agreed to put a half-billion dollars into an Indonesian project that will personally enrich Donald Trump, the president ordered a bailout for a Chinese-government-owned cellphone maker.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-orders-help-chinese-phone-215814298.html

Can hardly wait to see how the Trump apologists rationalize, distort, and twist this around...!

Midol...Works for PMS and TDS....Try it....LOL....!!!!

ANSWER:  They won't.

Very few Trump supporters actually debate the merits of his politics, actions, consequences, words, or anything of merit.  Most often you will get mocking glee that whatever it is hurt someone they perceive as an enemy (usually when it makes "liberals" upset).  If you ask why XY or Z was good for the United States or why reversing the position you loved on AB and C is also good... you will just get blank stares, conspiracy theories,  or the aforementioned insults ("what abut Hillary" is also still hanging around).

Sure, it looks bad for the President to adopt a China First policy while at the same time it comes to light that Trump has benefited from Chinese government action... but most of his supporters don't even know what's going on, if you point it out to them they will shout FAKE NEWS, and if forced to acknowledge it they will just insult you. In short:  follow the leader.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Midol...Works for PMS and TDS....Try it....LOL....!!!!

Ahhh...how sad... is that really the best you can come up with??  That went out of style right after spring break in 7th grade.  Geez...hope you are better at bread...

[heironymouspasparagus]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-orders-help-chinese-phone-215814298.html

ANSWER:  They won't.

Very few Trump supporters actually debate the merits of his politics, actions, consequences, words, or anything of merit.  Most often you will get mocking glee that whatever it is hurt someone they perceive as an enemy (usually when it makes "liberals" upset).  If you ask why XY or Z was good for the United States or why reversing the position you loved on AB and C is also good... you will just get blank stares, conspiracy theories,  or the aforementioned insults ("what abut Hillary" is also still hanging around).

Sure, it looks bad for the President to adopt a China First policy while at the same time it comes to light that Trump has benefited from Chinese government action... but most of his supporters don't even know what's going on, if you point it out to them they will shout FAKE NEWS, and if forced to acknowledge it they will just insult you. In short:  follow the leader.

Yep.  I know....prime example just above here from Breadburner.   

Gotta get this back on my signature line;   

I don't share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And I just found out... TODAY is National Sea Monkey Day!!   


Can't believe I almost missed it...gonna have to take the afternoon and celebrate!

[erfalf]

That's what I was getting at - current law is clear.  It will require an amendment to change and I don't know what my position is on that...probably lean toward changing it.  Don't see a reason to grant citizenship without due process just for an accident of birth.

It would not require an amendment to change it so that aliens here illegally would not be afforded the right of citizenship, since the law is ambiguous enough and no court has actually ruled on it. Which was my point.

[erfalf]

And in a similar vein - two of our Supreme Court justices "have doubts" about the concept of personal privacy.   Snoopin' and poopin' into everybody's business is the hallmark position of the extremist right...this just brings it out into the open for all to see.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/90e51cb5-c739-3038-933d-835fd51ee276/justices-thomas-and-gorsuch.html

Fair question, is someone driving a rental car and doesn't have their name on the agreement not probably cause for cops? Stolen vehicle potentially. He also had prior drug and weapons violations which they were aware of prior to the search. He was actually in violation of the agreement at that point (not sure the cops knew this or not, but I'm sure if they read hard enough they would see it). They did find 49 bricks of heroin in this particular vehicle by the way, so the fact that this made it to the Supreme Court (only to be remanded) is kind of comical. I'm asking in all honesty because obviously the Daily Beast is taking it a bit far in their conclusions (unsurprisingly).

[erfalf]

Also regarding Byrd, do you anticipate rental car companies rewriting contracts to make them void upon a non-listed person driving it (as this one did not).

[rebound]

It would not require an amendment to change it so that aliens here illegally would not be afforded the right of citizenship, since the law is ambiguous enough and no court has actually ruled on it. Which was my point.

I don't get your logic here.   It HAS been ruled on.   Right now, the ruling stands that anyone born here, regardless of situation (except for narrow exclusions) is a US citizen by birth.  That is current law and has been ruled on.

What you are suggesting, I think, is that there have been laws proposed that would attempt to change this without having to do an amendment.  None of those have been passed, or even vote on, and so no ruling could yet me made. (And without an amendment, any law of that nature would certainly be challenged.)  So right now there is no ambiguity, just some people who would like to change the situation, and that is not the same thing.   

[erfalf]

I don't get your logic here.   It HAS been ruled on.   Right now, the ruling stands that anyone born here, regardless of situation (except for narrow exclusions) is a US citizen by birth.  That is current law and has been ruled on.

What you are suggesting, I think, is that there have been laws proposed that would attempt to change this without having to do an amendment.  None of those have been passed, or even vote on, and so no ruling could yet me made. (And without an amendment, any law of that nature would certainly be challenged.)  So right now there is no ambiguity, just some people who would like to change the situation, and that is not the same thing.  

There has never been a ruling on "anchor babies" of undocumented/illegal/whatever vernacular you want to use individuals. In the Kim Ark case, they were in the country legally and were properly documented. I'm not suggesting that change, as by being documented you have basically asked to be under our jurisdiction, and went through a process to do so.

I will say, if there has been a relatively recent case that I have overlooked, I am totally willing to drop my argument. But to my knowledge, no such case has been heard, hence my suggestion that it is still ambiguous at this time, and congress by itself can reserve the right to administer the law as they see fit (which they also have not done to date) and not run afoul of the constitution.