Trump Targets Birthright Citizenship and Calls for Military Role in Deportations
Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants.

On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump shared a post written earlier this month by Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal nonprofit Judicial Watch, that suggested the incoming Trump administration was "prepared to declare a national emergency" and "use military assets" to implement "a mass deportation program." Trump added, "TRUE!!!"
Stephen Miller, a top immigration adviser during the first Trump administration who has been tapped for a policy role in the second, told The New York Times last year that the military would construct "vast holding facilities" for detained migrants. State National Guard troops (along with local police officers) would be directed to carry out immigration enforcement, Miller explained, and Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act as a legal basis for deputizing the armed forces to arrest migrants.
Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the president-elect planned to "marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history." Trump himself has suggested that 15 million to 20 million migrants might be unlawfully present in the U.S. and thus subject to his deportation operation (most estimates put the undocumented population at around 11 million). Whatever the discrepancy, it seems that Trump has more than just "illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers" in his sights.
The fact that Trump wants to use military assets to carry out deportations conveys just how disruptive, difficult, and even violent such an operation could be. Even if the administration deports a more modest 1 million people per year, as Vice President–elect J.D. Vance has suggested, people will be forcibly separated from their jobs, communities, and families in gut-wrenching ways.
A major question lingering over Trump's mass deportation plan is the extent to which it will target—and separate—families. Estimates vary, but between 4 million and 5 million U.S. citizen children live with at least one undocumented parent, and additional U.S.-born kids live with an undocumented family member. Incoming "border czar" Thomas Homan, when asked on 60 Minutes whether there is "a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families," answered, "Of course there is. Families can be deported together."
The incoming administration has other plans to target mixed–immigration status families. Officials intend "to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship," reported the Times. That amounts to "a de facto suspension of the Constitution," argued Michael Clemens, an economics professor at George Mason University.
The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is something that only a few dozen countries guarantee, and it is a key component of the idea that anyone can be an American. The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that a child born on U.S. soil to Chinese immigrant parents had, in fact, become "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." Trump wants to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants via executive order, but it's not at all clear that he can do so (nor is it clear that Congress could do so through legislation). It would likely take a constitutional amendment, the success of which seems far-fetched.
Still, the next Trump administration appears to be banking on its ability to challenge longstanding aspects of the U.S. immigration system that it wasn't able to tackle the first time around. Getting the military involved in deportations, whatever form that takes, will be far more visible than the quieter administrative matter of withholding passports and Social Security cards from certain U.S.-born children, but both plans completely contradict America's image as a nation of immigrants.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sorry kid, majority rules. Game over.
Majority rule dictatorship? Oh joy. You have a strange idea of individualism and libertarianism.
Do we have a massive welfare and regulatory State? Maybe target those for support.
Good idea. Those came from majority dictatorship ignoring the Constitution too.
Indeed. The only thing that will save this nation from despair is abiding by the US Constitution. The more it gets ignored the more tyrannical, criminal and corrupt the national government gets.
You'll never keep a USA if you don't have a definition of what a USA is.
Great. That was the case in ancient Rome too. We will return to that. So we will vote you a death sentence once we get a majority, just as in Rome. And you will support it.
Where-as he was being sarcastic.
You, as a Democrat, isn't.
This guy gets it.
Toe, to get rid of you and your fellow travelers.
Fiona....we did it your way. It was a fucking failure. Tens of millions of illegal aliens, higher crime, higher property taxes, drug ODs from smuggling fentanyl, and a lot of resources spent on illegals that should be spent on American citizens.
This simple insight eludes you.
I bet you're still in shock and disbelief Pres Trump won the election.
100%, if they want to mount a competent rebuke to this they need to provide an answer to the disaster created by a welfare state interacting with failed states.
This isn't the Schengen zone.
Fiona is completely broken. They might as well bring back Shitty Shikha at this point. Although it’s more likely they’ll hire more dumb leftist kids fresh out of college (like Little Emma) due to forthcoming budget cuts.
What about Koch AI text generators? The topics are pretty simple and the spin is very consistent.
True, and the writing would improve.
I hope you mean "spent by American citizens" instead of "spent on American citizens?"
The 14th Amendment provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Easy solution. Declare illegals and their spawn to be outlaws. That way they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Then instead of using the military, just let MAGAs murder them by the millions. They can use machetes, fists, guns, or whatever they want. And it won’t count since they’re not subject to the law. Anyone who isn’t white and talks funny can just be killed right there on the spot. Problem solved. Be like the Rwandan genocide, only legal. In the future proud MAGAs can sit their grandkids on their knees and brag about killing José and Muhammed. It will create so much future bonding.
Ideas™ !
Anyone who isn’t white and talks funny can just be killed right there on the spot.
Remember this is the guy constantly whining others don’t address his beliefs. I wonder why that is. Plus he claims he doesn't assume opposition to his preferences is driven by racism, but we see he does as it is an underlying principle of his criticism.
I think sarcasmic just called for the summary execution of millions of people who don't look like him. That is hard core.
This has to be parody. No way sarcasmic seriously calls for the death of millions.
Better bookmark it so you can pull it out years from now and hit em over the head with it.
Done.
Sarc, blame this guy.
And here, I thought the Koreans were locking him up for 16 years.
Sarc always pretends he doesn't know what "Strawman" means, and then shows he's actually a master craftsman.
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument, often in an extreme or exaggerated way, and then attacking that misrepresentation instead of the original argument.
So a strawman is when you or Jesse attack what the voices in your head tell you that I think.
I’m not arguing against anything. So my post cannot be a strawman.
Rather I'm arguing for something, not against something. I'm arguing in favor of a proposal that would allow you to murder people you hate and murder their children too, without any consequences. I thought you'd be more appreciative.
Ideas™ !
“So a strawman is when you or Jesse attack what the voices in your head tell you that I think”
Yes, meathead. Telling people that Jesse and I are pointing out the retarded things you say is because we are hearing voices is a good example.
A strawman is when you misrepresent what someone else says (or just make shit up), and argue against that misrepresentation (or fiction) instead of what the person said. It’s literally what you and Jesse do all day long.
I was trying to help you guys out. Give you a legal means to murder the illegals you hate, as well as their illegal spawn, and get away with it. Why does that anger you? Is it because I didn't propose a way for you to murder to half of the country that doesn't support Trump?
We know what you would do to the illegals if they were wearing MAGA hats.
I wouldn’t join you in raping them in front of their children if that’s what you mean.
Jeff would support you if he did. Your big brother loves rape forgiveness.
And child rape in general.
Why do you democrats always claim your clear language is misinterpreted. The bitch in Bucks County who said she would ignore the law is doing the same thing.
Budd Dwyer did the honorable thing.
No, a strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents opinions. Knocking down a strawman is knocking down that misrepresentation. You can create a strawman and leave it for others to knock down. It's still a strawman.
You're only saying that because you're too short to knock anything down.
Ideas!
Damn, you’re not funny.
Lol.
Posting your full unedited quotes are not a strawman retard.
https://www.google.com/search?q=strawman+argument
Did you read any of your search results, greasy? You been playing dumb for for too long.
He ain't playing.
It’s fascinating to watch his stupidity. Such a shame he’s too frightened of me to interact.
"Declare illegals and their spawn to be outlaws." I've seen this argument presented seriously by GOP affiliated people arguing the language 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is the key phrase. If they are children of 'illegal' immigrants, they can't be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US.
I am fairly sure in law school we had a test on the constitution's phrasing and it was focused on the language used in various amendments and text of the constitution. "The right of the people..." (2nd amend) or "all persons"...(14th amend) or compare the 4th amend "the right of the *people* to be free from unreasonable search or seizure" doesn't delineate a difference between citizens or non citizens whereas in other parts of the constitution or amendment language might be limited to citizens.
So does an illegal alien in the US have a right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure because they are one of the "people" whom the 4th amend protects?
An example of the specific phrasing might be in Art III of the constitution which talks about diversity of "citizenship" to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. If we are going to give words and phrases their literal common sense application, there is a difference between a specific "citizenship" qualifier vs "the people" or "persons." Anybody present in the US may take advantage of certain constitution rights based merely on their presence here. Other rights/privileges or immunities might apply only to citizens.
Given the language at issue in the 14th amend being quite broad as to apply to "any person born in the US" I am not so sure the Sup Ct can just ignore the language without upsetting hundreds of years of precedent that discusses the various uses of the words and phrases in various parts of the constitution. Hence, a constitutional amendment to change the language to something like "all persons born to at least one US (or both) citizen parent..."
Then again, can this US Sup Ct be trusted to be textualist even though multiple members of the Court profess to be such? Guess we shall see in about 3.5yrs.
Excellent comment +10000000.
Though I'll mention the 4th requires 'warrant'.
Having enough evidence of being an illegal invader would trigger a 'warrant'.
But if the 4th applies- warrant or not - to unreasonable seizures of a person [which being detained, however briefly, clearly involves a seizure of said person based on precedent] then one would have to go through the case law interpreting the 4th amendment to determine what is the minimal level of proof required to meet the reasonableness standard.
Being brown is not individualized reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed [see Terry v Ohio] nor would being brown and speaking Spanish. Plenty of legal residents fit both criteria as well as plenty of US citizens. So you would need something more. Unless we are willing to forego 4th amendment rights for everyone for the sake of making it easier to be racist assholes.. a bargain i am not willing to take. The war on drugs did enough damage to the 4th amendment. Its hanging by a thread already.
The judiciary will be the arbiters of "level of proof" as it's always been.
Nobody here believes you went to law school.
If you did you'd be arguing the definition of jurisdiction in the relative clause.
You don't speak for anyone here.
And you only speak for yourself, White Mike.
Did you finish jacking it to ENB already?
You don't seem to understand my comment or legal history as the Sup Ct has held that mere presence in the US alone grants 'people' certain constitutional protections. If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US then they couldn't have constitutional protection, now could they dipshit?
Unless you want to argue the children of illegals aren't persons or people.... as they say around my part of the country 'get fucked.'
Given the context and timing of the 14th Amendment it's pretty evident, to me at least, that the Amendment's intent was to force the Confederate states to recognize that their black residents were citizens of the United States and entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship. I'm not confident that the drafters of the language of that Amendment intended the language to apply to people born in the future. Clearly, the Amendment does not make that distinction, and the cited case held that the birthright citizenship provision does apply to persons born in the U.S. after the Amendment but cases have been reconsidered and overturned before so that could happen here.
I’m not confident that the drafters of the language of that Amendment intended the language to apply to people born in the future. Clearly, the Amendment does not make that distinction, and the cited case held that the birthright citizenship provision does apply to persons born in the U.S. after the Amendment but cases have been reconsidered and overturned before so that could happen here.
Why does it matter what they intended? The words mean what they mean.
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.
"All persons born...in the United States..." doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Perhaps someone might debate whether a military base overseas counts as "in the United States", or some other territory that isn't within the borders of one of the 50 states or D.C. That's about it. "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." seems really easy to interpret as well. To be within a government entity's jurisdiction, is to be under its authority, subject to the laws of that place. The distinction there was probably to exclude citizenship for the children of diplomats and the like.
Trying to change these obvious and straightforward ways of reading the text to make children born to undocumented immigrants be not citizens of the U.S. by birth is going to be a shining example of starting with a conclusion and reasoning backwards from there.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... means more than just having to obey the laws. It means that the USA protects that person from other nations as well, recognizing that the nationality of that person is American.
Those are additional ideals and values you feel are included in that concept. They are not part of the plain meaning of that phrase. I only ever hear the word "jurisdiction" used in a way that refers to whether or not some government agent or agency has the authority to act on a matter or in a location. A sheriff's jurisdiction is the county that they are the sheriff for. A judge has jurisdiction to hear a case when the judge has the authority to make binding rulings on the case.
If there is court precedent that expands the meaning of jurisdiction to include the concepts you want to include in it, then I'd like to know about them. But I am unaware of any such precedent.
Criminal citizens can be detained just as legally as criminal non-citizens. If you are arguing that the 4th amendment protects illegal border crossers from deportation, then you need to request a refund of your law school tuition.
Before you get to the 'your papers please' you have to a reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain the person in the first instance. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the exclusionary rule take over from there.
There is likely an exception in the border area but the incoming administration isn't talking about limiting action at the border. They are talking about raiding factories and doing a nationwide sweep to deport 20million people.
Lol. So I was off on my prediction sarc would revert to claims of racism. Took a few hours. Not 10 minutes.
Yet he wants to claim to want honest discussions. Hilarious.
I really thought you’d go for it.
You only care about children when you can hold them up and claim that the homosexuals are after them, but otherwise you relish in the mistreatment of kids. You get giddy when anyone talks about separating families over government papers. You defended Obama for it. So I thought the prospect of you finally getting to murder that neighbor you hate so much along with her kids would make you happy.
It's so nice to have realsarc back.
Never disappoint us again.
A lot of “you” in that post.
You are one sick piece of shit. Just like we already knew.
Again, claiming that people who oppose illegal immigration wish to murder them.
You denied it yesterday, mind you, and you're more open about it now.
So, again, WHO is requesting murdering of illegals? It is not a soul on the anti-illegal immigration side.
Ship them all to Fiona’s zip code.
Or her house
Then evict Fiona and her family. But order her to continue to pay the rent/mortgage, and property upkeep for the new illegal residents.
Or her panties.
You know, this is the only reason this issue finally broke through. Because they did start shipping them to all of those sanctimony cities across the U.S. and, shockity horror, fucking liberals don't like these people shitting up their schools and streets and Home Depots, etc, any more than the border state people who have been dealing with this for decades.
I'm gonna go with "this isn't as big a deal as people are making out of it because Trump is hilariously incompetent and has never succeeded at accomplishing any policy priority, why would this one suddenly be different?"
He'll probably appoint some dipshit friend of his to "oversee" the whole thing and six months later it will all be forgotten about when said dipshit either gets arrested for one reason or another or is thrown out of MAGA-land for one reason or another. We've all seen the circus before. The monkeys change, but the ringmaster is the same.
I hope it's as big a deal as people are making out, Shrike.
I'm gonna go with n00bdragon is a steaming pile of TDS-addled lying shit.
Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants.
I must be misremembering because I don't recall anything in the constitution about our image.
Even if you wanted to go off our history, that would limit us to immigrants from Europe looking to practice Christianity, neither of which are acceptable to Fiona or globohomos like Koch.
+1
Fiona doesn't give a shit about The Constitution or immigration. In another article she would, rightly, identify the very notion of a "National image" as nationalist and condemn it. If you asked her whether ending Birthright Citizenship reflected more or less poorly on our "image as a nation of immigrants" than The Trail of Tears, she'd almost certainly say less.
Because, as has been shown and the majority of the nation has figured out, they don't care about immigrants or immigration or natives and it's all about pitting groups against each other to advance their own power/social status.
The mistake was back letting the Irish, German and Italians come into the country.
Look, we already have one sarcasmic.
My Irish and German ancestors began their journey in this country by joining up to fight my Italian and Mexican ancestors in a major war, to free my African ancestors.
So it wasn't all that bad letting those Krauts, Dago's and WOPs in.
And her and her ilk ignoring our laws and encouraging more such actions does what to our image as a nation of laws?
Illegal immigrants are an affront to America's legal immigrants.
FTFY
Yes. Thank you.
Yep.
+1
And all immigrants are an affront to native americans. So whats your point here?
Can you find me a Native American who was alive when all those immigrants arrived? And was it unusual for those Native Americans to try to repel them by lethal force? I think I would like to have a beer with one of them!
Ah, but then we had government people making deals, treaties and the like. I wasn't here then. Were you? So what the fuck is YOUR point, genius?
You are the one setting up the dichotomy between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants that you invented. There exist right now illegal immigrants in Texas that don't believe they CAN be illegal because that land was their ancestral home as part of what was northern Mexico. They can trace familial lines back. Some may even have old property records.
Its a fool errands to blame our fucked up immigration system and naturalization process [i waited 20yrs to become a citizen!] as some sort of marker of anything other than a failed legal immigration system. Yes some people had to wait 20yrs and others just...walked across the border. Or more likely flew in and overstayed a visa. Yet they are both here now. The question is what to do about it. The simplistic answer is to 'just use the military and put them all in camps and deport them' and like most simplistic answers, it fails to take into account the many obvious negative collateral consequences of doing so. This plan as discussed would be a disaster of epic proportions. Just because people vote for stupid doesn't mean responsible people should do stupid things. I believe the idiom having to do with cutting off your nose to spite your face applies here.
I invented a dichotomy between legal and illegal? Really? That is the definition of a dichotomy. You, on the other hand invented a nonsensical dichotomy between "all immigrants" and people that are dead, who therefore have no skin in the game.
Next, please to tell us HOW MANY of these special case illegal immigrants exist right now in Texas that yada yada, in contrast to the millions that have been enticed over the border in the last four years by the current, criminal administration, and given all sorts of free shit from the taxpayers?
And do you believe that people who voted for "stupid" should have voted for the same criminals who caused the current immigration fiasco? And if they are so "stupid" for voting for a "simplistic" solution, by which you mean "just use the military and put them all in camps and deport them" ...that's YOU being simplistic. And maybe stupid. But I'll give you three years or so to calm down and see if you got it right. I for one don't have a crystal ball.
And, not to get personal, but if you do in fact live in Chicago, how come you spent 20 years waiting to become a citizen only to end up in a democrat-run shit-hole?
Sorry about that last item. Honestly. But I just couldn't resist.
I agree, responsible people shouldn't do stupid things. Hence, they kept Kamala out of the White House. I love real-world correlates, don't you?
"You are the one setting up the dichotomy between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants that you invented. There exist right now illegal immigrants in Texas that don’t believe they CAN be illegal because that land was their ancestral home as part of what was northern Mexico. They can trace familial lines back. Some may even have old property records."
Some MAY --- but do not present anything. Nor do they express who the "deed" was with. I could care less if somebody believes they cannot be illegal. Progressives think they cannot be racist yet they demonstrate it on the regular.
The Native Americans should have done a better job at border control?
"Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants."
Only for the idiots that can't distinguish from legal immigrants and criminals who flout American laws.
Neither plan is addressed at immigrants, just criminals. Refer to Little Rock.
" . . . people will be forcibly separated from their jobs, communities, and families in gut-wrenching ways."
As a direct result of their own choice to adopt a criminal lifestyle.
When criminals are taken out of society, these thing happen.
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
"people will be forcibly separated from their jobs, communities, and families in gut-wrenching ways.” feels and awful lot like crocodile tears from the "Learn to code." dipshits.
Remove the parents of “birthright citizenship” kids and give the kids to the childless cat ladies.
The parents go, and take the kid with them. He can come back if he wants when he is 18.
Seems like the common sense answer. Not a hard 18, however, if the kid shows he is emancipated, has job or U.S. guardian or some such.
I’m sure Shrike and Jeffy could use a new houseboy.
With puberty blockers, older teens could fill that job.
Jeffy is a huge proponent of puberty blockers!
Why do you hate children?
And on brithright citizenship, Trump is 1-0 on "superprecedents".
And his term hasn't even started.
If you support birthright citizenship then you're a leftist. Only leftists support the Constitution.
No such thing as leftist, there are Davoscrats like you and then the rest of humanity.
I preferred you in that drunken and drugged moment when you conversed like a human, instead of a troll trying to impress trolls. Were you injured or something? Mixing pain killers and booze?
I preferred you in that drunken and drugged moment when you conversed like a human,
There’s fakesarc again.
Realsarc calls everyone who disagrees with him racist and engages in other juvenile taunting like claiming to fuck their mothers.
It’s interesting the left wing commenters have such a hard time not contradicting themselves. If you’re honest with your beliefs that shouldn’t happen. It’s almost like they are playing roles and they can’t keep the role separate from themselves.
I already took a shit today. Otherwise I'd welcome your opinion.
Ideas!
Some stink.
You mean while you were passed out?
More sarc projection. He always tells us what his proclivity is.
With a forty in each hand,
Blacked all day is his plan.
Most of the deportation action will occur near the border, just as it was during the Obama years.
The only additional action under Trump would be fast tracking deportation for criminals, those who are denied asylum and anyone who was ordered ordered by the court to be deported but stayed on because no one cared.
Given that Trump didn’t send storm troopers to round up random illegal families in Long Beach during his first term, it’s safe to assume that Fiona’s nightmare scenario won’t occur. Americans might be willing to discuss reasonable amnesty. They’re still moderate on immigration. They also want the government to vet newcomers and kick out illegals who committed DUI. This just basic stuff any country would do. They were willing to overlook trump’s personality so they can live in a functioning society.
"and "use military assets" to implement "a mass deportation program."
What military? The same one who were chased out of Afghanistan after 20 years? The one that replaced a secular dictator in Iraq with a regime beholden to Iranian Islamists? That military? I smell desperation.
Out of curiosity, anyone have an idea of the number of birthright citizens are serving in the military now? Won't they have to purge themselves before they turn their guns on the rest of us? I'm reminded of the Wannsee conference of 1942 when plans for the holocaust were fleshed out. Some of the more Liberal minded SS officers pointed out that even in the ranks of the SS some amount of Jewish ancestry was common and the plans would inevitably come around and bite them on their SS aSSes.
Even though Maurice (1/8th Jew) had been a party member since 1919, taken part in the abortive Beer Hall Putsch (for which he was awarded the prestigious Blood Order), and been a bodyguard for Hitler, Himmler considered him to be a serious security risk given his "Jewish ancestry".[2][21] Himmler recommended that Maurice be expelled from the SS, along with other members of his family. To Himmler's annoyance, Hitler stood by his old friend.[18] In a secret letter written on 31 August 1935, Hitler compelled Himmler to make an exception for Maurice and his brothers, who were informally declared "Honorary Aryans" and allowed to stay in the SS.[22]
(More evidence for my contention that Hitler's antisemitism was a convenient political pose rather than a deeply held conviction.)
As opposed to YOUR antisemitism? Which is obviously heartfelt, and extreme.
"As opposed to YOUR antisemitism?"
Let whinge about me. You've clearly nothing of substance to add.
Pointing out your motivations, and inherent dishonesty is clearly something of substance to add,
You are reflexively playing the antisemitism card like the Zionist thugs you admire so much. It's about as vacuous and substance free as it gets on this board. Bored is the word.
Yeah, that kind of anti semitic rhetoric really makes my accusations redundant.
"makes my accusations redundant."
In that case, save your comments for when they are not redundant. Save everyone the time and trouble of reading them.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Trump has completely broken Fiona.
Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants.
Our southern border pretty much confirms we're still a nation of immigrants. Martha's Vineyard on the other hand is an affront to our image as a nation of immigrants. Or perhaps, maybe just Martha's Vineyard isn't a Vineyard of immigrants.
Didn't they use the military to rid Martha's Vineyard of the illegal aliens?
So the takeaway is that Wimpy Don and his supporters hate America and everything is stands for? What else is new?
paraphrased, "If you don't allow Nazi's to invade America; then you hate America!" /s
So Stupid.
So the takeaway is that Ghatanathoah is a steaming pile of lying TDS-addled shit.
The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that a child born on U.S. soil to Chinese immigrant parents had, in fact, become "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
If he's able to appoint more Justices, especially if they replace the Liberal Justices, he can get the Court to overrule or significantly modify Wong Kim Ark. You may think that's far-fetched, but I'm sure most thought that of the idea of Roe v. Wade being overruled; then came Dobbs.
I'm not sure the comparison is strong. Roe had to invent a right (to privacy) that numerous other decisions violated and effectively none supported. It was always a shit decision invented by the left to achieve their policy preference rather than because it legitimately held from the constitution. There's nothing remotely as weak about Wong.
"effectively none supported" - there was a whole list of precedent cases in the Roe v Wade ruling.
Contrast that with Dobbs ... Alito, "moral standards is why".
Just never-mind the 13A application to the Roe v Wade ruling.
BTW: Republicans wrote Roe v Wade. Pro-Life was literally created by Catholic Democrats.
That 13A (&9A) application exists solely in the minds of Roe v. Wade fans. Had the court actually applied 13A, it would pass muster, but the liberal court was too fearful of the future anti-government applications of an empowered 13A and 9A, so they cobbled together the teratoma that was Roe v. Wade.
That’s true. Roe v Wade granted 13A violations to the States post viable. That was its mistake. It should’ve ruled the right to fetal ejection and that mistake is probably the very roots of ‘abortion’ being such a debate today.
Power corrupts absolutely where some power is granted. Roe v Wade was actually too Pro-Life by Constitutional standards. Alito stated as much in Dobbs. The ‘fear’ of having an Individual right to drug-use and prostitution which by Individual Rights of the Constitution is an Individual Right. It all comes down to religious tyranny.
Except Wong is being misrepresented. Wong's parents were permanent legal residents when he was born. That means they were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the US. Some woman didn't hop over the border and drop a kid.
Wrong in multiple ways.
- You threw in the word "personal" that isn't in the constitutional text.
- But even then, "personal jurisdiction" has a well-known legal definition and it doesn't hinge on permanent resident status.
But Roe didn't have the direct constitutional amendment language hook that the 14th amend does w/regard to birthright citizenship. How can anybody forget the penumbras!
Its going to be mighty hard for a group of textualists to ignore the plain language of the 14th amend...and given the age of Wong Kim (1890s) and the fact the language of the amendment hasn't changed... it'd be a bit of a joke to say the Court in 1890 didn't understand the original meaning of a phrase as simple as "all persons born here... are citizens." (paraphrased) Not saying its impossible for a group of hacks but if you don't want to be known throughout history as a group of hacks perhaps best to not prove how hackish you are.
It does in the 13A.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” … “shall exist within the United States”
Government cannot Gun-Force a Woman to ‘involuntarily’ reproduce.
You can 'save' the egg all you want; but you can't enslave the Woman doing it.
The test will come when a lawsuit is filed on behalf of a child indisputably born here, and a federal court issues an order to the Social Security Administration to issue the SSN, or to the Department of State to issue the passport.
Since (a) it’s not really a close call for anyone arguing in good faith, and (b) the government can always take back the papers if they eventually win, it’s likely the court will NOT stay the order until the appeals are complete.
That’s going to be the branch point.
If they obey the order, they’ll probably also obey if they lose the appeals. And the higher courts are more likely to hand Trump a loss if they know it will stick.
If Trump decides to defy the order, it’s likely he’ll also defy the appeals court and SC. He's undisciplined enough that he'll probably announce his intention in a tweet. Then we’re in a new game.
Hey mike. Tell us how even in your case it protects the right of an illegal immigrant parent to live here. Especially given courts just ruled marriage doesn't grant that right.
Irrelevant question. Don't interrupt conversations you don't understand.
Still not a lawyer. Ignorant to the whole decades long unjudicated discussion around jurisdiction.
“decades long unjudicated discussion” – Keeping up a bad faith, ignorant, and illogical narrative in some subreddit doesn’t give it validity. Not even if you keep it up for decades.
But its not unjudicated. There is case law looking at similar phrasing such as the 14th amend employs and that case law says it applies to any person in the US.
Any person in the US is protected by the due process clause of the same 14th amendment, to use an example. Look at the language employed here: "Nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Notice how you would have to argue the person in the birthright citizenship clause is not protected but we already know based on the language in the due process clause and equal protection clause that any *person* is in fact protected by this language and the supreme court has held as much. So again, you are going to have to overthrow ALL the precedent ruminating on these particular words or phrases OR twist yourself into such textual and linguistic knots as to be functionally retarded.
If you want to go with retarded and claim that mantle, have at it, bro. But own it.
Just deport the parents. Kids will follow. I know, all those Democrat votes going byebye. So sorry.
>>This is something that only a few dozen countries guarantee, and it is a key component of the idea that anyone can be an American.
it's a loophole to the idea anyone can be an American. stupid one, too.
And it should be corrected by Constitutional Amendment.
NOT Executive Orders (illegally).
yes.
The odds of Trump actually deporting 10+ million immigrants are pretty low.
* Legal challenges for all sorts of crazy reasons.
* Backlash from all the separated families.
* Distractions from so many other goals.
* Only four years.
More likely, he'll be able to stop most of the handouts and reduce the flood of new immigrants.
I'm one of those idiots that likes voluntary immigrants, and I believe that without government handouts, only a few thousand a year would actually sneak in and cause mayhem as criminals, outsiders who hate the country, etc. The rest would only come if they have family or friends already here to help them settle in and support them while they get on their feet. It worked before WW I because they had no handouts.
There's also all the hand-wringing do-gooders who think living in crowded tenements is a violation of human rights and think it is government's duty to require everyone have certain minimum accommodations. They sure don't help matters.
Too many do-gooders giving away my money. Trump can stop some of it, the federal part, but I doubt he'll be able to stop the states thievery, and I doubt he'll be able to deport anywhere near as many as people expect/fear.
Are the number of affected families greater than the 70ish% support for deportation of illegals?
Let be real all this is going into the courts and it's going to be a real mess. I hope there is some goody two shoe group out there that going to get every kid born in this country their SS number and other papers. These kids are our fellow citizens, and I hope we will all stand up for them and their civil rights.
lol… So wrong. The very part of being an illegal is they aren’t “our fellow citizens”.
It amazes me you think you can just claim citizenship on your very own statements.
I believe in the Constitution clearly you don't. Born on our soil and they are our fellow citizens.
*and* subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That's not an (OR) that is an (AND). Illegal Invaders are NOT subject to US jurisdiction they are subject to the jurisdiction they ran from.
No you don’t. You’re just a democrat. The constitution pinky counts when you think it can be used to advance your Marxism.
Kids can stay. Parents who are illegal aliens can get deported. Choices they made, risks they took.
Another person who can't tell the difference between the parents and the kids.
Do you think the US Government 'owns' all the kids born?
Or is it more correct that the parents of foreign-jurisdiction 'owns' their own kids?
You sure can tell who Democrats are.
They think Gov-Guns do and own F'En everything and everyone.
Are you conflating citizenship with being "owned" by a country?
I mean, most governments do…
Yes, he's conflating. The US “owns” those kinds neither more nor less than they own TJJ himself.
Wow. Talk about a self-projecting tactic.
The point was ‘foreign-jurisdiction’ parents ‘own’ their own-born kids and thus the born is of its parents jurisdiction. If I was born while my parents were on vacation in Russia I am born under my parents jurisdiction NOT Russia.
Otherwise parents who gave birth on vacation would have to leave their baby after vacation was over.
Course I’m sure you grasped that concept.
Pulling rabbits out of your hat to get your way pretty much defines a leftard.
You’re wrong on two points. The parents of Wong were permanently domiciled aliens. That is they had a green card. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does NOT mean territorial jurisdiction. That would be silly because obviously anyone in the US is subject to our criminal laws. What the phrase means is subject to personal jurisdiction. If you’re a US citizen you are subject to our laws anywhere in the world. That’s not true of illegal aliens or tourists so their children born in the US should not be given US citizenship their citizenship would follow their father’s.
For example Kamala Harris' parents were both here on student visas she should not be a US citizen she's a citizen of Jamaica.
Interesting…
“And how should the first sentence’s restriction to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States be understood? When adopted, that clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country, because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country. The limiting clause also was understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribes’ members.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/700
The 14th Amendment test is….
1) born or naturalized
– AND –
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
obviously 2 was written for a reason.
Perhaps Republicans do have a solid point in denying birth citizenship to “because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts by their host country”
It’s pretty hard to argue one is “subject to US jurisdiction” when their parents are subject to a foreign nations jurisdiction.
A really good article on it.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
“This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.”
Indeed; The wording is right there...
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/civil-rights-act-of-1866-april-9-1866-an-act-to-protect-all-persons-in-the-united-states-in-their-civil-rights-and-furnish-the-means-of-their-vindication
As any UN diplomat what happens if they have a kid while living in the US. No citizenship. Clearly, in midtown east Manhattan, people can read the fine print of the Constituion.
Children born to illegal aliens aren't diplomats.
Therefore, the diplomat exception to birthright citizenship does not apply to them.
Doesn't matter. 'diplomat' isn't in the 14A.
But the 14A was based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1866 who's actual wording is "not subject to any foreign power". If you're a *subject* of a foreign nation you do not fit the intended bill for being "subject to the (US) jurisdiction thereof". The Constitution did NOT omit that phrase. It is there and there for a reason.
If ANYBODY born here is automatically a citizen --- why would a diplomat's child not ALSO be a citizen?
The Constitution doesn't provide 'anyone born here'.
There is an 'AND' (jurisdiction) requirement to the born.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does NOT mean territorial jurisdiction
Unsupported assertion.
That would be silly because obviously anyone in the US is subject to our criminal laws.
Yes they are, and that's why any child born in the US, and subject to our criminal laws, is a citizen full stop.
What the phrase means is subject to personal jurisdiction.
You don't know what that phrase means. You are using it incorrectly. Look it up.
That’s not true of illegal aliens or tourists so their children born in the US should not be given US citizenship their citizenship would follow their father’s.
What rancid nonsense. This is exactly why the 14th Amendment was passed. Southerners had been arguing that since black kids' parents weren't citizens, the kids weren't citizens either. The Amendment was passed for the open purpose of shutting down the exact same thing you're proposing.
They are NOT a *subject* of US jurisdiction.
They are a *subject* of their foreign nation.
Nothing silly about it.
If a UN diplomat from Russia gives birth in Turtle Bay, is that kid a US citizen? NO.
If a plane load of pregnant women from China land in LAX, please tell us what happens? They get sent home, cause we know damn well there's a large birth tourist industry.
Are you suggesting we undo these policies? If not, why not? Cause these policies, unlike a delivery ward in El Paso, follow the fine print of the 14th amendment. Furthermore, almost no nation does this birthright thing. Cause is plain ass stupid.
Please read the Wong Kim Ark decision by the Sup Ct- you are embarrassing yourself.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf
You mean the part about the parents being permanently domiciled?
No you idiot. The part about the law of birthright citizenship under the common law and all the colonies preceding the adoption of the constitution. There is a whole fucking discussion about that history and based on that history Wong Kim is a fucking citizen simply for having been born here.
That history is not going to change when this US SUP CT addresses Trump's illegal attempt to change the constitution without an amendment. They are the originalists/textualists. They are stuck with the same result.
The author of the 14th amendment said specifically that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in totality. Tourists and illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and their kids born in the US aren't citizens.
Being subject to criminal laws doesn’t make you a citizen of the host country. What the fuck?
Being born here and subject to criminal laws makes you a citizen of the US.
So let a person claim citizenship if they can back it up with fact. Just do not generate citizenship as an automatic function of collation of virtually qualified births. In other words, don't let artificial intelligence connect records and declare you to be a citizen of a nation without checking with you, first.
Why would they put in the Constitution that someone born or naturalized in the US is subject to its territorial jurisdiction? Are illegal aliens and tourists not?
Immigration and criminal law aren't the same thing.
Personal jurisdiction is the courts authority over you.
As in the Wong Kim Ark case the blacks were domiciled here. They lived here.
Keep digging, man.
Why would they put in the Constitution that someone born or naturalized in the US is subject to its territorial jurisdiction?
That's not what is says. You're reading it backwards. Let me diagram it for you:
Born or naturalized here + subject to "territorial jurisdiction" ---> Citizen
domiciled here. They lived here.
Where are you claiming a newborn child lives? They haven't lived anywhere except here.
Everyone in the country including tourists and other aliens are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the US.
Their parents were domiciled here which is what the Wong case says.
"...Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants..."
No, neither are.
Clutch the pearls! He's going to enforce our immigration laws. The end is nigh!
Which federal law says US citizens can have their birth certificate, social security, or passport denied because of a crime committed by their parents?
He's not threatening to enforce laws. He's threatening to make up laws on the fly.
Believe that runs in contrast to...
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
If he can get a law through Congress it might be legal to use the Army for border enforcement.
But not even Congress can authorize deporting US citizens, regardless of parentage.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. The Holy Grail
Plopping out of mommy 100 yards from Mexico and 30 min after she scurried across is no basis for granting citizenship.
There's a reason hardly any nation does this. Reason also ignores " subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was a way to distinguish slaves from Indians (the whole point of this thing). Meaning, guess what?: The UN diplomats living down the street from me don't get citizenship for their kids if delivered here. Also, Reason, if a plane full of women from China 8 months pregnant land at LAX, guess what happens? Ain't no visa being granted, and back home they go. The act of physically coming out of mommy in a certain plot of land is not a citizenship granting act in the letter of the Constitution, not how it's applied in many important cases. And if that's not enough, can we simply agree it's stupid policy, and we need a clarification amendment, who's dumb enough to oppose? If not, then I want to see those same people demand we change our Customs policy, and allow all pregant women to come on in by the plane load. To get citizenship for their kid and chain migration rights for all 85 of his second cousins.
The act of physically coming out of mommy in a certain plot of land is not a citizenship granting act in the letter of the Constitution
Actually, that’s IS the letter of the Constitution.
In fact, it's the only way to get citizenship that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizenship based on your momma is only statutory, Congress could eliminate that path.
” subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
That's the fine print preventing citizenship via a taco bell like run for the border.
Also, UN diplomat kids aren't citizens. Is our State Department interpreting the Constituion incorrectly?
I wish some of you would take like 20 minutes to read the definitions of "jurisdiction", "diplomatic immunity", and the actual Wong Kim Ark decision.
Then you'd understand why your comment about the UN diplomat is an own goal. A self-gotcha. A rake stomping. Sawing off the limb you're sitting on.
Is it?
No Fiona. You reason like a child and not a particularly bright sort. The affront is our nation of legal immigrants. “Our” nation. The amendment was drafted after a Civil War on behalf of the liberated slaves who had no proper citizenship. It’s been abused ever since by people and Democrats who like you always take on the high moral posing so typical of the left.
Your reasoning is not unlike some 3rd rate attorney defending a burglar with the argument that his family has grown accustomed to the big screen TV he took and it's cruel to punish the innocent family.
LOL.. "defending a burglar with the argument that his family has grown accustomed to the big screen TV he took and it’s cruel to punish the innocent family"
+100000000000.. Well said.
Good. Birthright citizenship is an affront to our history and our Constitution. Invasion by criminals demands a military response since the states won't do their job.
Hahahaha 'affront to the constitution.' Are amendments part of the constitution or not? I swear you fools couldn't even pass a basic civics course let alone a citizenship test.
Your option is limited to one: amend the 14th amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. That is it. Do you even know how that is done in the US? Based on your comment i am suspecting not.
Birthright citizenship is a result of the misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case. The SC said the children of domiciled aliens are citizens not kids dropped a foot over the border.
Actually invasion control is a “Union of States” (federal) job.
Not that they've demonstrated any effort in doing their *actual* job recently.
Hey, you people arguing against birthright citizenship….how are you a citizen and why shouldn’t we deport you?
It’s NOT your parents unless you were born outside the US. Here is the text of the law:
(c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
I guess we found one of the 12 people who voted for Chase.
He might have gotten more votes, but he just wasn’t gay enough.
“..America's image as a nation of immigrants.”
NOPE! This “we are all immigrants” nonsense needs to stop. I’m not an immigrant nor were my parents or grandparents. “Nation of immigrants” no longer applies. We are a country that welcomes immigrants whom want to live the American way of life and whom come here legally. Sneaking into the country and birthing a litter of kids should not make them automatically citizens.
And if you choose to argue that what now constitutes the US is "a nation of immigrants", that would include the Amer-Indian Mongoloids who have no more claim than those who arrive later.
Notice the remains of the Kennewick Man have disappeared into the religion of the Amer-Indians, as it might have disturbed the narrative.
Fiona, unless you make room in your community, your job (including your Reason gig), your house, and every other part of your life (and for more than just a token few immigrants), STFU.
Actually, how about she just shuts the fuck up either way
Whatever the discrepancy, it seems that Trump has more than just “illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers” in his sights.
No, that pretty much covers it.
Who else do you think he’s talking about? I mean, granted, the latter two are a particularly undesirable version of the first one – and I can see how that might confuse someone with a very low IQ (not accusing you, just suspecting) – but did you have someone else in mind?
The fact that Trump wants to use military assets to carry out deportations conveys just how disruptive, difficult, and even violent such an operation could be.
He already won the election, Fiona. You don’t have to keep selling him.
Thomas Homan, when asked on 60 Minutes whether there is “a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families,” answered, “Of course there is. Families can be deported together.”
And why wouldn’t they?
I mean, it’s a confusing way of explaining it – nobody would be “deporting” the legal-citizen family members of a criminal alien. But you’d think they’d follow their kin voluntarily. And if they wouldn’t, then are we really talking about “families” in a meaningful (as opposed to narrative) way?
but both plans completely contradict America’s image as a nation of immigrants.
We’re not a nation of criminal immigrants.
We’re a nation of legal immigrants.
Why do all you open borders folks ALWAYS try to obfuscate that?
Ask, and you’ll probably get (might be some conditions, favors often work that way). Try to take without asking, and we’ll punch you straight in the mouth. And rightfully so.
That's the thing. Trump's words are reasonable and easily understandable by anything.
The problems come with the words she's inserting inside. All the really objectionable parts are from her own imagination because she is assuming the real reason for this is racism instead of the stated intentions.
That's the thing with the Left in this election. All the evils they are objecting to are entirely projection and fantasy that Trump's some dark lord.
"Whatever the discrepancy, it seems that Trump has more than just “illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers” in his sights."
No, that pretty much covers it.
Especially if you are honest and accept that illegal aliens are criminals, which does not require a lot of explanation.
Trump says he will target newborn US citizens. You’re saying newborn children are born as criminals if their parents are criminals.
Figures that you'd believe that.
Except he didn't say that. As I said, you are inventing words that he said and then objecting to your own invention.
If you read the 39th Congress debates, it's pretty clear that the 14th amendment does not require what is commonly called “birthright citizenship” because the jurisdiction clause of the citizenship clause excludes foreigners here temporarily and all those who are citizens or subjects of a foreign power – even a quasi-foreign power like Indian tribes.
Then read Harry Reid’s 1993 Senate Bill here. It’s perfect. This does not even contradict Wong Kim Ark either.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1351/text
SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth
Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after
the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a
citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a
lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of
another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a
national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a
national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born
subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1
of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United
States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the
United States at the moment of birth.
Legislative pronouncements don’t change the original meaning of the amendment/constitution when drafted. Do you even originalist?
Sec 5 gives congress power to pass legislation consistent with the amendment to carry it into force. You don’t get to change the amendment without following the procedure to amend the constitution.
That’d be like congress saying “Notwithstanding any bill, amendment or constitutional interpretation by any Court to the contrary, congress pursuant to sec 5 of the 14th amend hereby declares equal protection as previously understood does not apply to black people.” Sure man.
thatsnothowanyofthisworks.gif
"Legislative pronouncements don’t change the original meaning of the amendment/constitution when drafted. Do you even originalist?"
Do you even have an ounce of honesty? Cite missing, windycityshitbag
Go back to just typing insults. When you try to discuss facts you fall flat on your face.
The Constitution controls Congress, not the other way around.
Amazing that you didn’t know that. No one needs a cite because everyone except you already knows it by 8th grade or so.
"Go back to just typing insults. When you try to discuss facts you fall flat on your face."
Go back to trying to find facts to post, shit-bag
"The Constitution controls Congress, not the other way around."
And?
"Amazing that you didn’t know that. No one needs a cite because everyone except you already knows it by 8th grade or so."
Not amazing a steaming pile of TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit like you made a specious claim.
FOAD, asshole.
BTW, fuck-face, if you ever deserved other than insults, you might get that.
You don't. You are a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit who deserves nothing other than you get.
FOAD, asshole.
There you go. Stay within your capabilities, Sevo. Now you only look vicious; when you try to make a point you look ignorant, stupid, and vicious.
My capabilities are suited to those with intelligence when I encounter them, fuckwit. That leaves you out.
FOAD, asshole.
Yes ... "The Constitution controls Congress, not the other way around."
And the 14A states ... "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Your ignorance-of doesn't control the Constitution either.
M L quoting Democrat Harry Reid as an exemplar of honest good faith reasoning. Harry Reid is the man whose response when called out on his lying said "It worked, didn't it?"
And on top of that THE BILL FAILED which means it doesn't count for squat.
I don't know. I think I might be with Reason on this one. After all, Chase's 0.4% was too high. When you hit rock bottom, definitely stake out the least popular position you can on the most pressing issue in the country.
Tell that to dicksalad above; that slimy pile of shit will be happy to engage in that fantasy also.
Airplane personnel would be likely to recognize this, that a child born of any parent whatsoever when flying over United States soil gets recognized in that manner of Amendment 14.
From the current US State Department guidlines:
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
…
All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth
…
Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally.
…
A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
…
“Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters (except as provided in 8 FAM 301.1-3) are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth…”
…
“Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.”
…
The authorities cited by the US State Department are the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. Not some executive order….
The State Department ‘Agency’ doesn’t have the authority to write law.
Nor to violate the US Constitution in contrast to SCOTUS.
Contrary to what is widely seen in this [Na]tional So[zi]alist invaded nation that once was a USA.
There's no question that children born on US soil are US citizens. That's an open and shut case ever since the 14th Amendment was ratified.
If their parents are deported, then of course those children will overwhelmingly stay with their parents, wherever they are deported to. That doesn't change their status as US citizens.
Once those children reach the age of maturity, they will be able to move back to the US, should they choose to do so. They will also, like any other US expat, be subject to pay US taxes, be subject to US laws, be subject to the draft and other forms of conscripted US service, and have the happy duty of voting in US elections.
Honestly, I'm not seeing a real problem with this. Yes, very inconvenient from the parents' point of view, but that was the risk they took coming here without permission in the first place. Their children's rights viz US citizenship are still protected, and that's something valuable.
"Once those children reach the age of maturity, they will be able to move back to the US, should they choose to do so."
If these children are US citizens, how can they be forceably deported in the first place? Don't US citizens have the right to live in the US? Do you advocate forceably removing other US citizens, or just these children?
" Their children’s rights viz US citizenship are still protected, and that’s something valuable."
Again, forceably removing US citizens from the country seems a strange way of protecting their rights as citizens. Have you thought this through?
If these children are US citizens, how can they be forceably deported in the first place?
They can’t, and wouldn’t be. Their parents would be relocating them of their own volition. I suppose they could leave them behind, and let them become wards of the State. ‘course, that’d really be a lethal shot to anyone ever feeling sympathetic toward criminal aliens.
I like the headline.
The sub-headline lost me.
Remember back when Bill Clinton said it depended on the meaning of what the word "is" is?
Well, with the 14A, it depends on what the meaning of the word "and" is (or, more specifically, was commonly understood to be in the 1860s).
The amendment says you must
(a) be born in the USA
- AND -
(b) be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
There are two ways to read "and" there. Open borders traitors read it as "you're either born in the USA, *or* subject to its jurisdiction." In other words: "women AND children first, off the Titanic." In this case it would be every human born anywhere on US soil, *plus* anyone with a US citizen parent (because generally, historically speaking, national citizenship was handed down by lineage), *plus* the freed slaves of the day. But apparently not Native Americans?
The other is that you must qualify under BOTH clauses. Example: to vote in a town election, you must be 18 years old AND demonstrably domiciled in the voting jurisdiction.
The only way the clause makes any sense is the second one. It simply says that anyone born in the USA *who is subject to its jurisdiction*, i.e., anyone who has a U.S. citizen or naturalized parent, is a citizen. But diplomats' kids are excluded. And Congress can always still add additional categories based on the enumerated power of "establishing a Uniform Law of Immigration and Naturalization."
The context of the 14A was to ensure that freed slaves would be considered US citizens. The language was debated quite vigorously and the intent of the Congress passing the 14th amendment was CLEARLY not for "global birthright citizenship."
US vs Wong Kim Ark was about LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT parents. They had a kid (1) in the USA, who was also (2) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Why? As lawful residents, they were under the US umbrella, and thus protected. This is all fine. The additional reasoning provided was invalid. This was in the first progressive era when crooked leftist judges were beginning to upend the Constitution left and right, leading to things like the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
If you love stare decesis so much, how come Brown v. Board of Eduction, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was allowed to upend Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which was "the law of the land" for nearly 70 years? The Court has gotten a LOT wrong. Just look at the absurdity that is "Wickard v. Filburn," which basically says if something MIGHT affect commerce, even when it ISN'T commerce, the government can regulate it. That case basically says our allegedly "limited government" can do whatever the fuck it damn well pleases as long as "the economy" is involved.
It's bullshit, and so is the "birthright citizenship" interpretation of the 14A. Which, by the way, has NEVER actually been adjudicated for illegal parents. There has been a 'custom' but that custom is WRONG and is based on our traitor government selling us out to foreign criminals, as usual.
How are either of these actions an “affront to the idea of America as a nation of immigrants? We’re talking illegal immigrants here, not illegal. Why is it the left can’t grasp that concept?
Anchor babies have been a problem forever. Nothing like encouraging pregnant women to cross miles of desert to have their babies here. It ends up killing both of them. The baby shouldn’t suffer for their parents breaking the law. It shouldn’t benefit from it, either. Remain in Mexico and go through the LEGAL process.
Using the military to remove illegals isn’t a violation of posse comitatus because we’re not using the military against the citizenry. We using it against invaders who have illegally entered the country. Put another way, North Koreans show up in an LST, land in San Diego, are they now automatically citizens with full rights while they’re mowing us down?
I feel Reason has become unhinged these last few months. If these kind of crap articles keep showing up, goodbye.
How would this apply to somebody's children born here on a visa? Either a tourist or a work visa?
Sorry Fiona; but you may have to learn to mow your own lawn, clean your own house, babysit your own kids, and blow your own leaves into your neighbor's yard.