Birthright Citizenship

[FiatLux]

Trump tries to end Birthright Citizenship.

A Ronald Reagan appointed judge tells Trump to go fuck himself.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-jud ... 025-01-23/



Dumbfuckistanians around the country blast Ronald Reagan for not being Nazi enough

[Meat Head]

Have you ever considered moving to Israel?

[mvscal]

Don't give a shit what some ancient fossil thinks. You can pry rocks up all day long till you find some asshole who will say what you want him to say.

It isn't set in stone. I have yet to hear an even remotely compelling argument as to why the children of people who aren't supposed to be here should automatically become citizens.

[Diego in Seattle]

Damn....we were so close to getting them deported.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

This is supposedly a 14th Amendment issue. A little history, here is how the two parties voted insofar as ratifying the 14th Amendment

94% of Republicans
0% of Democrats

Moving on...

We could read the Congressional record at the time the 14th Amendment was proposed to see how the people who proposed it and ratified it felt about the issue (center column, starting in the middle after the title "Reconstruction"):



The idea that you can drop a puppy across the border and by virtue of its landing it becomes a citizen runs afoul of all other nations' understanding of citizenship and is contrary to the historical underpinnings of this nation. The SCOTUS will have to decide. But there is a very large amount of evidence on the Trump side to contend with.

[Dr_Phibes]

We could read the Congressional record at the time the 14th Amendment was proposed to see how the people who proposed it and ratified it felt about the issue (center column, starting in the middle after the title "Reconstruction"):

Thanks for posting that, chap. Love things like that, fascinating.

[Innocent Bystander]

Don't give a shit what some ancient fossil thinks. You can pry rocks up all day long till you find some asshole who will say what you want him to say.

It isn't set in stone. I have yet to hear an even remotely compelling argument as to why the children of people who aren't supposed to be here should automatically become citizens.

The Chinese challenged the Chinese Exclusion Act by misapplying the Fourteenth Amendment -- and won.

https://constitutioncenter.org/educatio ... m-ark-1898


Full opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1918088

[Innocent Bystander]

This is supposedly a 14th Amendment issue. A little history, here is how the two parties voted insofar as ratifying the 14th Amendment

94% of Republicans
0% of Democrats

Moving on...

We could read the Congressional record at the time the 14th Amendment was proposed to see how the people who proposed it and ratified it felt about the issue (center column, starting in the middle after the title "Reconstruction"):



The idea that you can drop a puppy across the border and by virtue of its landing it becomes a citizen runs afoul of all other nations' understanding of citizenship and is contrary to the historical underpinnings of this nation. The SCOTUS will have to decide. But there is a very large amount of evidence on the Trump side to contend with.

Republicans were not conservatives, they were anti-slavery. Democrats were not liberals, they were pro-slavery. Connotations change, just as what defines race (or gender) changes.

I believe that using the Fourteenth to fight the Chinese Exclusion Act is Roe vs Wade levels of legislating from the bench.

I believe it is indeed important that the record you posted is sub-headed 'Reconstruction'. There's even a debate about Native Americans and possibly including 'excluding Indians not taxed'. The Fourteenth at its core is about the citizenship status of people who had been here for longer than the country had existed. It was not about women whose countries arrange maternity tours.

Mr. Cowan then asks the money question in the final column: what is the legal definition of 'citizenship of the United States'. He dpecifically references the Chinese, thirty years before United States vs Wong Kim Ark. Can you post the link to the next page to show how the others answered him?

For you and the other attorneys here, if Wong not have been included in 1868, what changed in 1898?

[88BuckeyeGrad]

Can you post the link to the next page to show how the others answered him?

Yes. Here is a link to all of the pages (click to the left and the right of the image): https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67 ... 867/m1/12/

[smackaholic]

My thoughts on the topic.

Trump is right. Citizenship based solely on the geographical location of a birth is insane. Birthright citizenship should apply to those born in the US to legal residents. Period.

As for the DACA crowd, they should not be granted citizenship. I do think that they should be eligible for permanent legal residency. If they want the benefits of citizenship, let them go to the country their parents came from and get in line. This policy treats them fairly, without removing some consequences of their bypassing the law.

[Innocent Bystander]

Can you post the link to the next page to show how the others answered him?

Yes. Here is a link to all of the pages (click to the left and the right of the image): https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67 ... 867/m1/12/

Thank you.

[Roux]

The Reagan-appointed judge got it completely right.

He said the felon's Executive Order was “blatantly unconstitutional”. “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

[dan's college room mate]

I don’t believe it is TBOM’s place to interpret the ammendment.

As it is written it does put some conditions on it. It says children born to those subject to the laws of the US

What do you interpret that as?

Seems to me that they are saying it applies to legal residents.

Also common sense says that is who it should apply to.

You libs are always pointing to how the enlightened Euros do it.

I’d be willing to bet they reserve it to those with legal status.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roux]

It says "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."

Two parts: (1) born or naturalized, and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Born is pretty straightforward, so let's consider subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical José, born in the United States to parents affiliated with MS-13, and who entered our country completely illegally. Bad bad people. Let's assume José is now 24 years old, has joined MS-13, and is living a life of crime.

Until one day he gets busted, and José is now facing many felony charges.

José's defense attorney moves to dismiss those charges, saying that the court lacks jurisdiction over him. Do you think that the court will find that José is subject to the court's jurisdiction?

Do you think José is an American citizen?

. I have yet to hear an even remotely compelling argument as to why the children of people who aren't supposed to be here should automatically become citizens.

Because of the plain language of the Constitution (not what some people said about it) provides for them to be citizens.

[dan's college room mate]

Well, anyone physically in the country is “subject to the laws”, but what do you think the intent was here?

It’s pretty damn obvious. They were talking about people residing here legally. Otherwise they would have just said people born here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[88BuckeyeGrad]

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical Vladimir, born in the United States to parents affiliated with Russia, and who entered our country legally as foreign ambassadors. Bad, bad people. Let's assume Vladimir is now 24 years old, has joined a Russia-affiliated Mafia, and is living a life of crime.

Until one day he gets busted, and Vladimir is now facing many felony charges.

Vladimir's defense attorney moves to dismiss those charges, saying that the court lacks jurisdiction over him. Do you think that the court will find that Vladimir is subject to the court's jurisdiction?

Do you think Vladimir is an American citizen?

[Biggie]

Gonna be lots of castor oil and long walks on February 18.

[mvscal]

The Reagan-appointed judge got it completely right.

He said the felon's Executive Order was “blatantly unconstitutional”. “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

You also thought Harris was a slam dunk.

[The Seer]

You also thought Harris was a slam dunk.

And that Biden had may have just lost a step.....

[Mikey]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

[Biggie]

Don’t sell yourself short, Judge. You’re a tremendous Militia.

[Left Seater]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

It’s also pretty amazing that some folks here aren’t calling for changes to this Amendment given that children of criminal aliens are granted citizenship.

But please keep making this argument loud and often. It will help keep the GOP in office for a long time.

[Mikey]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

It’s also pretty amazing that some folks here aren’t calling for changes to this Amendment given that children of criminal aliens are granted citizenship.

But please keep making this argument loud and often. It will help keep the GOP in office for a long time.

False equivalence. But keep trying.

[dan's college room mate]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

The intent was that private citizens have the means to defend themselves with “firearms”. At the time that meant muzzleloading flintlocks. They didn’t specify flintlocks though. They just said “firearms”.

As for the “well regulated militia”, they meant that people had the right to form local groups of armed men, aka militia. They weren’t government controlled national reservists. That would have defeated the purpose.

They had centuries of history where authoritarian governments had a habit of subjugating people. This was their tool to resist that.

Do you think the citizenry should be limited to flintlocks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diego in Seattle]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

The intent was that private citizens have the means to defend themselves with “firearms”. At the time that meant muzzleloading flintlocks. They didn’t specify flintlocks though. They just said “firearms”.

As for the “well regulated militia”, they meant that people had the right to form local groups of armed men, aka militia. They weren’t government controlled national reservists. That would have defeated the purpose.

They had centuries of history where authoritarian governments had a habit of subjugating people. This was their tool to resist that.

Do you think the citizenry should be limited to flintlocks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

[Mikey]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

A good early morning dump?

[88BuckeyeGrad]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

A good early morning dump?

Indeed.

[smackaholic]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

A good early morning dump?

Most of us are of the age now where this is viewed as a major accomplishment.

[smackaholic]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

The intent was that private citizens have the means to defend themselves with “firearms”. At the time that meant muzzleloading flintlocks. They didn’t specify flintlocks though. They just said “firearms”.

As for the “well regulated militia”, they meant that people had the right to form local groups of armed men, aka militia. They weren’t government controlled national reservists. That would have defeated the purpose.

They had centuries of history where authoritarian governments had a habit of subjugating people. This was their tool to resist that.

Do you think the citizenry should be limited to flintlocks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

They meant that people had the right to form local militias and this was their way to keep the government from squashing those rights.

Sadly, you government control assholes have tried to say that this means government control.

What we should do today is have a constitutional ammendment where we can clalrify parts of the Constitution that need clarifying. The 14th ammendment is another example. It should read that children born here of parents with legal status, gets automatic citizenship.

[Left Seater]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

It’s also pretty amazing that some folks here aren’t calling for changes to this Amendment given that children of criminal aliens are granted citizenship.

But please keep making this argument loud and often. It will help keep the GOP in office for a long time.

False equivalence. But keep trying.

Label it whatever you like, but please keep the status quo. It is great for the GOP.

[mvscal]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

It means proficient.

[Diego in Seattle]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

It means proficient.

And gun owners are proving proficiency when?

[88BuckeyeGrad]

If I was asked to explain what this means:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

My first response would be: What the fuck?

It is a difficult sentence to parse.

A well regulated Militia. I think I know what a "Militia" is. It is generally understood to be a military force that is raised from the civil population. "A well regulated" Militia would therefore seem to refer to a group of civilians who have been trained and equipped to defend themselves and their community.

being necessary to the security of a free State. Following the prior phrase, this seems to explain why it is necessary to have a well regulated Militia, namely so it can provide for the security of a free State. Mmkay.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It seems to me that this phrase cannot be read in isolation. If those were the only words present, it would be very clear. The government cannot infringe the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. But those words are not in isolation. They come after the two phrase fragments first discussed.

Again, if I was asked to interpret this (without knowing how it has been interpreted), I would think that it means that the government cannot infringe the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms that might be useful when the people are called to serve in a well regulated Militia that is providing security for the free State. And that is broader than you think. It does not require that the people actually be a member of a Militia. They could choose to join one when it became necessary. And it does not require that the people be members of a Militia that trains. A well regulated Militia could be formed in a time of need. It means that the people's existing right to keep and bear arms that might be useful for that purpose cannot be infringed by the government.

I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that relates to personal defense weapons. That would be a different purpose than providing security for a free State as a member of a Militia. But I suspect that no one ever conceived of the possibility that the government might attempt to take away personal defense weapons. That right was probably already just assumed as being true. I think the Second Amendment relates to weapons that can be used by a Militia, which may be different than personal defense weapons.

But that's just me. I'm not the judge and do not get to interpret the words.

How do you read it?

[Roux]

I read the Constitution as a living document.

For example, what the Founders thought was "cruel and unusual punishment" is considerably different than how we understand those words today.

And that's ok. So while it may be interesting to read the commentary of those who originally passed it, I view that as mere dicta and not controlling.

So for another example, "all persons" means "all persons" and not limited, as may have been in the minds of the authors.

[mvscal]

I read the Constitution as a living document.

Well, it isn't, so fuck off.

[mvscal]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

It means proficient.

And gun owners are proving proficiency when?

Demonstrating proficiency with your firearm to include safety procedures is "gun control" I would gladly support and believe to be Constitutional.

[mvscal]

I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that relates to personal defense weapons.

Self defense is a basic natural right. What the founders envisioned goes far beyond simple small arms. The federal government still permits the issue of letters of marque under article 1 section 8, does it not? Or have tards like Roux magically unalived that section of the "living document"?

[Innocent Bystander]

It’s kind of ironic that the folks here arguing about the “intent” of the 14th amendment, for the most part, would completely ignore the “intent” of the second amendment when at the time of its ratification the meaning of “firearm” was vastly different than it is today, and did not include semiautomatic rifles with large clips and bump stocks, or even semiautomatic handguns. They also completely discount the first 13 words.

I believe a firearm isn't just a firearm, but intended to be any weapon which has no usage except to kill. Swords, clubs, stringed bows, strategically trained horse hooves, axes, ropes, slings are all weapons which have non-lethal applications.

A firearm doesn't. It can be carried on your person and stored in you house without anyone knowing it's there. So yeah, I believe the founders didn't give a fuck about bayonet versus musket versus pistollier. They were worried about safeguarding the right to own a personal weapon which has no other usage except as a weapon -- and would not want anyone to tell them what type they are allowed or not allowed to keep on their person or in their family home.

I think the founders wouldn't mind including pulse rifles, drones and personalized microwave DEWs. Don't tread on me means don't tread on me.

If the government is allowed to wield it, so should a well-regulated civilian militia.

[Innocent Bystander]

What do you think "well-regulated" means?

It means proficient.

And gun owners are proving proficiency when?

This is missing. More should be done to promote firearms safety and familiarity. Instead of removing firearm access from citizens, the money should be in training citizens.

Israel does not want it so, so it is not so. Israelis are always more comfortable when everyone else is reduced to rocks.

[Innocent Bystander]

The Reagan-appointed judge got it completely right.

He said the felon's Executive Order was “blatantly unconstitutional”. “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

Slaves had no country to return to. Slaves, after manumission, were THE ONLY group in the United States who could solely claim an American ethnicity. The original hyphenate-Americans remain European Americans. Liberia was an artificial construct, the African equivalent of Australia. The Fourteenth was meant to address that.

As others have stated, if anchor baby advocates want to die on the birthright citizenship hill, then they need to draft an honest amendment to that effect instead of misapplying the 14th.