AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2015 15:38:51 GMT -5
You know what I like about Trump? He does not need to be coached on how to fight. Mitt Romney beat Obama bloody in the first debate, then the consultants got ahold of him and he wussed out. Make no mistake, this is THE appeal of Donald Trump. You might be able to get this notion into the head of some scared-of-their-own-shadow establishment candidate, but unlike those piss ants, Trump knows that there's NO WAY he's ever gonna please Mark Zuckerberg, so there's no point. Might as well go after him, and garner more support from the base-- which any GOP candidate needs to win. Just ask Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain, and Romney. You say this as if Zuckerberg isn't going to oppose whichever candidate gets the GOP nomination? Not only that, but it also demonstrates that Trump knows the issue- and he's not only fearless, but he's a little deeper than a puddle, which is the conventional wisdom.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 19, 2015 15:43:17 GMT -5
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Aug 19, 2015 15:44:27 GMT -5
To be clear, I was saying with, "what is clear about it?" that it does not define the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I believe that phrase to be very relevant. Also, the other paragraphs do not apply to the children of two illegal aliens. That was the meaning there. And how much of the historical debate was on this particular point? Much of it was about the children of slaves.
I know what the ruling in Ark was, and whether you agree with it or not, it again is not specifically on point since the parents were in the country legally and thus had in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States. And yes, it is a matter for the courts, but Congress needs to pass a law to get it there to be challenged. There is no possibility that it will be changed until there is a challenge to it. the legality is not an issue. but even if it WERE, you could still have "birth tourism". a pregnant couple, on vacation, can have their kid here, perfectly legally. US citizen. the Ark case makes that abundantly clear, even if you are hung up on the "legality" of the parents. it is clear because the title of the case, and the summary BOTH state, without any ambivalence, that the fact that the parents are farners is totally irrelevant. Ark is a triumph for jus soli- the idea that if you are born on this soil, you are a citizen of this nation, no matter what the citizenship of your parents is. as to the first paragraph, there are over a dozen examples that indicate what subject to the jurisdiction is, or at least what it is NOT. and what it is NOT is anything to do with the immigration status of the parents, except when the child is born outside the US. I was thinking about the word "domiciled" in a previous quote. I supposed to you could use that to try to put an end to the birth tourism but I wouldn't want to wager on how the Courts would actually rule on it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 16:11:30 GMT -5
the legality is not an issue. but even if it WERE, you could still have "birth tourism". a pregnant couple, on vacation, can have their kid here, perfectly legally. US citizen. the Ark case makes that abundantly clear, even if you are hung up on the "legality" of the parents. it is clear because the title of the case, and the summary BOTH state, without any ambivalence, that the fact that the parents are farners is totally irrelevant. Ark is a triumph for jus soli- the idea that if you are born on this soil, you are a citizen of this nation, no matter what the citizenship of your parents is. as to the first paragraph, there are over a dozen examples that indicate what subject to the jurisdiction is, or at least what it is NOT. and what it is NOT is anything to do with the immigration status of the parents, except when the child is born outside the US. I was thinking about the word "domiciled" in a previous quote. I supposed to you could use that to try to put an end to the birth tourism but I wouldn't want to wager on how the Courts would actually rule on it. you'd have to overturn considerable case law to do that, but that is entirely possible to do, either through legislation, or the courts. the thing about law though is that successive challenges tend to strengthen law. after 150 years, the 14th jus soli is pretty strong.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2015 21:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Aug 19, 2015 22:02:05 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 22:33:05 GMT -5
have you actually READ the Ark case? because it is pretty clear that Levin hasn't.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2015 10:22:43 GMT -5
have you actually READ the Ark case? because it is pretty clear that Levin hasn't. Would the author of the 14th Amendment be a reliable source? Just wondering, because I have some really juicy quotes from him and others from the time period. Look, I am not going to discuss our corrupt and out of control courts and their decisions. You probably think there's such things as a "general welfare clause" and a "commerce clause", so, what really would be the point?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2015 10:45:20 GMT -5
have you actually READ the Ark case? because it is pretty clear that Levin hasn't. Would the author of the 14th Amendment be a reliable source? i know you won't like this- but not really. what a law was INTENDED TO DO is actually not material to the discussion- only how it was implemented.Just wondering, because I have some really juicy quotes from him and others from the time period. Look, I am not going to discuss our corrupt and out of control courts and their decisions. You probably think there's such things as a "general welfare clause" and a "commerce clause", so, what really would be the point? those clauses DO EXIST, and they have a certain COURT INTERPRETATION. that INTERPRETATION changes over time, and we just have to live with it. sorry about that, but that is life in America, bro. it just is.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,333
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 20, 2015 11:10:23 GMT -5
I'm with SDG on the H1B Visa stuff. Its used to hire people from other countries and avoid hiring US citizens for more $$ or doing any training to get them up to speed. Its corporate welfare for corporations.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 20, 2015 11:30:25 GMT -5
Its corporate welfare for corporations
I keep waiting for all of those opposed to welfare for We The People, you know....feeding kids, housing abused women with abusive partners that won't pay child support, to start barking about the billions in corporate welfare that is handed out. I'm even betting that TEA party congresspersons are protective of the dosh that comes into their districts or supports their corporate donors. Imagine that!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2015 14:41:34 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,410
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 20, 2015 14:51:22 GMT -5
Someone deserves a bonus for that headline.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 20, 2015 15:12:31 GMT -5
Not sure that is a good strategy for attracting the Hispanic vote.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2015 17:01:03 GMT -5
In fact, Trump or no Trump- Obama has put the Democratic Party Democratic Party
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Aug 20, 2015 22:23:50 GMT -5
have you actually READ the Ark case? because it is pretty clear that Levin hasn't. Levin is lawyer but his current job is a Rush clone yet angrier. Maybe there is or isn't "case law" in reference to birthright citizenship- but there is the 14th amendment. Pretty solid ground- and we are not talking second amendment prefatory clauses. The only way to turn it around is by amending the Constitution- maybe these goofballs that carry them in their pocket should take a look. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxivAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. No wiggle room- that is it. No semantics, no ambiguity, no bullshit. But I guess Trump can negotiate a better deal with the Supreme Court.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Aug 21, 2015 11:29:18 GMT -5
just to be clear, neither country is socialist. you're welcome. I think we need a new Idiocy movie. I even volunteer to help with it. It will take all the stupid conservative memes, especially those connected with Socalism and Islam and put some facts plus truth on them.
Maybe some conservatives have changed from liberal not because they grew up, but because they became jaded and lost hope. That might be why some really stupid beliefs about socialism and Islam are so popular. They no longer have open minds and hope to look at what is, with open eyes and open hearts.
Or they just got greedier and doesn't cognitive reasoning decline with age?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 21, 2015 18:15:33 GMT -5
have you actually READ the Ark case? because it is pretty clear that Levin hasn't. Levin is lawyer but his current job is a Rush clone yet angrier. Maybe there is or isn't "case law" in reference to birthright citizenship- but there is the 14th amendment. Pretty solid ground- and we are not talking second amendment prefatory clauses. The only way to turn it around is by amending the Constitution- maybe these goofballs that carry them in their pocket should take a look. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxivAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. No wiggle room- that is it. No semantics, no ambiguity, no bullshit. But I guess Trump can negotiate a better deal with the Supreme Court. When was the 14th Amendment proposed, what was its purpose, and who drafted it?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 21, 2015 18:18:26 GMT -5
“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?
“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 21, 2015 18:19:59 GMT -5
“So, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count foreigners, aliens and those born to ambassadors, foreign ministers, as outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s Senator Jacob Howard. He knew, as his reference to natural law indicates that the republican basis for citizenship is consent – consent of the country.
“You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.
“Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those ‘not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.’ Now this was familiar language.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as ‘all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.’ ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’
“It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize (constitutionalize) the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matter of federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus, it was clear, the idea of allegiance, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ was central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 21, 2015 18:26:16 GMT -5
Tell all of that to the Supremes and then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, case closed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 21, 2015 19:33:42 GMT -5
You shouldn't need to amend the Constitution. Just interpret it correctly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2015 19:41:50 GMT -5
You shouldn't need to amend the Constitution. Just interpret it correctly. 2/3 of a person?
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Aug 21, 2015 20:42:56 GMT -5
I cab hardly wait to hear the spin that comes out after his speech in Mobile, AL tonight.
I'd give you a preview but......
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Aug 21, 2015 21:07:27 GMT -5
So I guess Scalia and other conservatives on the court will look at the history surrounding the amendment rather than the plain language this time? I don't see it happening- much like a Trump presidency.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 21, 2015 21:14:35 GMT -5
So I guess Scalia and other conservatives on the court will look at the history surrounding the amendment rather than the plain language this time? I don't see it happening- much like a Trump presidency. Would you please explain for us the meaning of the phrase, "... AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" Thanks. (emphasis mine)
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,281
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 21, 2015 21:24:13 GMT -5
I cab hardly wait to hear the spin that comes out after his speech in Mobile, AL tonight.
I'd give you a preview but...... Trump mostly praised himself as usual. Looked staged when a woman give him his book so he could repeat a previous speech that it's his second favorite book and the Bible is his first. It all looked and sounded like a reality tv show which he knows how to put on. Again no substance.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,281
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 21, 2015 21:32:47 GMT -5
I don't think the 14th Amendment will be up to interpretation. The language is pretty clear. And it won't be overturned. King Trump needs more education then he got at Wharton Business school. And get that silver spoon out of his mouth.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Aug 21, 2015 21:57:37 GMT -5
So I guess Scalia and other conservatives on the court will look at the history surrounding the amendment rather than the plain language this time? I don't see it happening- much like a Trump presidency. Would you please explain for us the meaning of the phrase, "... AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" Thanks. (emphasis mine) Far easier for you to explain who in this country is NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. A couple of diplomats that fires one out in an embassy? It has been through the Supreme Court anyway- so best of luck to the Donald.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5
“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready? “‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’ i found this somewhat interesting, and have been looking into it. thanks for posting. that goes for you too, tall.
|
|