The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Anchor Babies
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship? Of course, birthright citizenship is a massive scam: here’s my 2011 article translating a Chinese birth tourism ad listing seven ways you are being ripped off by random foreigners.

It’s certainly less Constitutionally absurd than Obama’s plot to issue 5 million get-out-of-jail-free cards to “dreamers.” But it’s going to be a tough slog to win on the constitutional issue. I’ve looked into this a few times and never found the constitutional arguments all that persuasive. Of course, that’s what smart boys like Brett Kavanaugh are for.

On the other hand, why not a Constitutional amendment? Why allow ourselves to be relentlessly ripped off by people who don’t give a damn about the Constitution?

But leaving aside the legalistic issues, this is a great issue upon which to contest a democratic election. Whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold this, this is what the electorate should be voting upon in November.

This is democracy.

 
Hide 440 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Best. American. President. Ever.

    What a leader. Inspiring.

    • Agree: Abe
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Maciano

    If he does this.

    , @Lucas McCrudy
    @Maciano

    "Best. American. President. Ever.
    What a leader. Inspiring."


    Only if he actually goes through with this Executive Order...

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Maciano

    Like the other two repliers (so far), I'll believe it when I see it. However, just the bringing up of this idea is something to both get out the vote* and get more Americans in tune with this form of immigration stupidity even more than there are now. Good on President Trump for bringing this up!


    * which, again, doesn't really mean a hill of beans until things are actually being done, not just jibber-jabbed about.

    , @anon
    @Maciano

    A little premature for that praise. Let's see what he does.

    Trump has a habit of talking big then do nothing. He's been talking about ending spousal work permit for H1B workers for the last 2 years, and it's still not done. He's still not doing a dang thing about H1b and OPT. The Optional Practical Training is esp. insidious as it gives employers tax incentives to hire foreign grads ahead of US grads, while giving them crucial entry level job experience that could propel them to higher paying careers. Many employers like Microsoft begin applying for a green card as soon as they hire an OPT or H1b. There is not even a cap on OPT, and the number actually increased after Trump took office. WSJ reported last year alone 265,000 new OPT's were granted.

    The state AG of WA state, Bob Ferguson, has already announced he plans to sue as soon as Trump signs an EO to end birthright citizenship. The mofo is angling for governorship in 2020 and may well get it.

    What Trump needs to do is cancel all EO's on immigration signed by Bushobama, that would end the OPT, H1b, spousal work permit H4A, diversity visa, plus sign the new EO to end birthright for non-citizen parents. He can do a lot just by cancelling existing EOs.

  2. istevefan says:

    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn’t buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn’t signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    • Replies: @MJMD
    @istevefan

    He hasn't signed it, it will take at least a year for it to wind its way to SCOTUS after he does (by which time, hopefully, America will have one more Trump appointee), and he might not have the chance to sign it 2 years from now. This is the window.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @istevefan

    "I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare."

    He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts's personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration -- he's an utterly compromised puppet.

    The EO is a great idea because it forces the Supreme Court to reassess the notion that foreigner invaders can secure US residency for themselves and welfare benefits for their children by hopping the border and plopping out a newborn.

    Put and end to hopping and plopping!

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Eagle Eye

    , @notanon
    @istevefan


    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.
     
    if it was only intended to be for former slaves then it would be a good idea to repeal it

    (although that doesn't mean wait - do the EO as soon as possible and then maybe work on repeal if it's viable)

    , @anon
    @istevefan

    It's not Roberts I'm worried about, it's effing Gorsuck. He's been voting with the libs on immigration. Another effing liberal in sheepskin like Kennedy.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @istevefan


    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.
     
    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you and Buchanan (as you represent him). The records of the Congressional debates over the 14th Amendment reveal that the opponents actually raised the spectre of differently-raced foreign hordes invading our country at the time of the debates. In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians. The result of these debates was that the wording of the current Amendment passed Congressional votes, effectively rejecting the arguments against birth citizenship that were made on the basis of its possible social effects. While I don't know the legal status of parents being specifically discussed, it's obvious that the Amendment's current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @istevefan

  3. I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It’s very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @OP


    I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens
     
    I mostly agree with you, but there needs to be something for children born to legal permanent residents.  Less messy if you don't have to fully naturalize kids of people who are already on the pathway to citizenship, assuming the parents haven't been e.g. deported for being criminals before the kid reaches 18.

    I'd make them apply, though, and not making it automatic would allow the deportation of e.g. Somali kids who commit felonies or get into gangs.  We could clean up a lot of mess if we could just send the worst elements back to their country of ancestry.
    , @Sammler
    @OP

    The existing law pretty clearly covers children of legal permanent immigrants. You’d need another Amendment to change that.

    , @Jim Sweeney
    @OP

    Sorry but SCOTUS has already ruled that the child of legal residents is a birthright citizen. That was back in the later 1800s. Van Ark is the case name as I recall.

    , @e
    @OP

    Lindsay Graham, the POTUS's best supporter once McCain was out of commission, said this morning he's going to write the legislation.

    Paul Ryan, due to exit the House, said he could not support an EO. Ryan is trying to hold whatever job his globalist puppet masters have lined up for him.

    , @sf
    @OP

    In the Wong Kim Ark case, the supreme court found that Mr. Ark's parents were the 19th century equivalent of legal immigrants with a green card, and therefore Mr. Ark was a citizen. Overcoming this would require a supreme court willing to ignore this precedent (unlikely) or a constitutional amendment. The decision had an unspoken implication that if Mr. Ark's parents had entered after the Chinese Exclusion Act, the decision would have gone the other way.

    , @MBlanc46
    @OP

    Yeah, well, ya don’t always get what ya want. But this is a real start. Let him do it and let the electorate have a referendum on it in 2020.

  4. Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get.

    In the meantime, President Trump and anyone else in our government who supports the idea should do everything in their power, use every trick in the book if necessary, to stop birthright citizenship.

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator. I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    Full speed ahead. Thousands of troops to the border, and now this. I’m lovin’ it like a Big Mac with extra cheese.

    • Agree: BenKenobi, jim jones, Bubba
    • Replies: @istevefan
    @Buzz Mohawk


    . I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.
     
    A couple of things to note about this. First, I am amazed that Lindsey Graham is introducing legislation to ban birthright citizenship. Of course with Senator Grahamnesty I need to wait to make sure he is not selling us out with some massive amnesty in exchange.

    Second, on cue Paul "Cuck" Ryan immediately came out against Trump on birthright citizenship. Thank goodness he is leaving. His exit can't come quick enough. With Ryan one can't tell if he really believes the current way the 14th is interpreted, or if he is afraid Trump will rally the base to hold the House.

    Replies: @L Woods

    , @Clyde
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree with all your words. Trump is ramping up and due to Melania in my option. She has been through media denigrating shitsz and gets what the deal is. She is giving Tr the extra that he needs.

    , @Russ
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator.
     
    The move puts the good guys on offense and the bad guys on defense, nominally. It is a good and welcomed move.
    , @Colin Wright
    @Buzz Mohawk

    'Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get...'

    Yeah, but just the fight will be a good thing.

    It could be a phyrric victory for the Left. Every state it's blocked in is another one in which a big chunk of the great middle winds up saying 'hey: I was for that.'

  5. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:

    In fact, the trend amongst the Anglo-Saxon ‘common law’ nations has been the gradual elimination o jus solis and the instatement of jus sanguis.

    This trend has been concomitant with the onset of the modern era of massive third world immigration induced by rapid and cheap communications.

    In the UK, at least, where the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy reigns, it was a trivial matter for the Thatcher government of 1981 to overturn centuries of legal precedent.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    , @LondonBob
    @Anonymous

    Maggie wasn't perfect but she had some real achievements on immigration, essentially freezing it for her term with a variety of reforms. There was no equivalent to Reagan's disastrous amnesty, presumably her mental faculties were both superior and still high functioning.

  6. Anonymous[710] • Disclaimer says:

    Ending b.c. would help the border states. I’m not sure how much social dysfunction results from the birth tourist outfits, though eliminating the moral hazard is always good. However, the U.S. will still be plagued by legal immigration’s tractor beam and multiculturalism generally. It’s open season for rich Chua-category elites to strip-mine everyone else’s country; while aggravating to observe on the evening news and in commuter traffic, the criminal migrant zombie-hordes tend to remain low-class because they start low-class and without the cultural clout of, just to pick a random example, rich/brazen Muslim arrivistes who tone-police all of society and endeavor to destroy any haram way of life, just for spite.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous


    ... the U.S. will still be plagued by legal immigration’s tractor beam... [sorry for ellipses on both ends, but just arguing this point]
     
    I think it helps with the legal sort too. Did you read what Steve wrote (just now or previously) about the Chinese B.C. business? Let me tell you legally, or illegally (and there are loads too), the Chinese do things in a more organized fashion than our Hispanic newcomers.

    I've seen this personally in action, in NYC, where babies are born to Chinese ladies living in some cheap-ass fake hotels (really just some apartment that the landlord in Shanghai may even have no idea about), having come in legally on tourist visas. They know the system, and the illegal and legal means are sometimes very intertwined. Not all of it is just border jumpers.
  7. The more important part of this is that the President is forcing the country to face the issue of the legal gray zone on the one matter that put him above every other republican. Ignoring it for so long has made it the de facto law of the land and that was the aim of open borders extremists from a policy perspective. Now they have to make their arguments out in the open. Donald Trump has given it a name.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, TTSSYF
  8. Why allow ourselves to be relentlessly ripped off by people who don’t give a damn about the Constitution?

    Because the Crusades were bad, or because of the Indians or something. It’s our penance.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Hockamaw



    Because the Crusades were bad

     

    Crusader kingdoms ruling Al-Quds was bad?
    , @Dr. X
    @Hockamaw

    Because the Holocaust.

  9. I tell you what. He’s found the only thing that will stop people talking about murdered jews.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @kihowi


    I tell you what. He’s found the only thing that will stop people talking about murdered jews.
     
    Has it actually done that? if so, it was a stroke of genius. It would be interesting if Stephen Miller were behind it.
  10. Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    • Replies: @Declane
    @The Z Blog

    If it's too late, why do you keep a blog? You should be preparing for the end of civilized society.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    , @Anon
    @The Z Blog

    The only response to a President Harris is the imminent secession of the remaining red states.

    , @Anon
    @The Z Blog

    Nice black pilling , fat boy. Go back to whining about Jews , thats your true talent.

    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @The Z Blog

    Slit your wrists already.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @The Alarmist
    @The Z Blog

    To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions does the SCOTUS have?" It is a co-equal branch that relies on the other two to quake in their boots when it makes its solemn pronouncements. If the Executive and Congress were aligned in their interests, activist courts would be returned in short order to judging rather than legislating.

    , @Old Palo Altan
    @The Z Blog

    He is indeed two generations too late, which is why I won't be happy until he promises to make his law retro-active ... like 100 years retro-active.

    , @Dr. X
    @The Z Blog


    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know.
     
    Whaaat???? You mean the purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was freed slaves and not illegal aliens, anal sex, gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion???

    Sheesh... who knew? SMDH...
    , @ben tillman
    @The Z Blog


    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.
     
    Besser spät als nie, and dum spiro spero!
    , @ben tillman
    @The Z Blog


    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme.
     
    Literalism favors us.

    Relevant language:

    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.
     
    "Born" and "naturalized" are participles, verb forms used as adjectives. The relative pronoun and relevant auxiliary verb are elided. The relevant pronoun must be "who", but the elided verb could be "are" or "were" or "have been" or, perhaps one might argue, something else. And then think about the implications of "are" instead of the usual "shall be".
  11. Upholding Trump’s exec order banning anchor baby citizenships is what Brett Kav was put there for, not striking down Roe.

    BTW, if you find yourself arguing with a liberal on this issue, spin their story of living constitution back on them, the original 14th amendment was meant to protect slaves, not super rich Chinese woman coming over to give birth to babies in this country.

    • Replies: @lhtness
    @indocon

    The 14th amendment was passed by people who never imagined travel by automobile, and certainly not travel by airplane. Or a giant welfare state that gives trillions of dollars to illegal immigrants and their anchor babies.

  12. If Trump follows through with his promised order, there could be two foreseeable outcomes in the US Supreme Court :

    Roberts joins four conservative justices and Trump’s order wins 5-4.

    Roberts goes with the four Left-wing judges, writing the winning decision which states only Congress has the power to amend naturalization law, not the President. Conservatives lose, 4-5.

    Option No. 3 : Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer with us in 2 years time, thus making things much more interesting. But increased alcohol intake could mean that RBG lives to 90.

    US vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) decided in 1898, 6-2, that a child of LEGAL Chinese immigrants was a US citizen at birth. They’ll forget to tell you that on CNN.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

  13. Can we make it retroactive 25 years or so?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  14. @Anonymous
    In fact, the trend amongst the Anglo-Saxon 'common law' nations has been the gradual elimination o jus solis and the instatement of jus sanguis.

    This trend has been concomitant with the onset of the modern era of massive third world immigration induced by rapid and cheap communications.

    In the UK, at least, where the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy reigns, it was a trivial matter for the Thatcher government of 1981 to overturn centuries of legal precedent.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @LondonBob

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn’t like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It’s a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    • Agree: J
    • Replies: @John Derbyshire
    @Steve Sailer


    Blair redrew all the county lines in England.
     
    That was Ksissy
    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Ken Livingstone - the Marxist leader of the former GLC, (Greater London Council), really raised the ire of Mrs Thatcher by inviting the Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA leadership to County Hall, the GLC headquarters for pointless, useless, stunt 'talks'.

    The IRA had murdered Thatcher's close friends and allies Airey Neave and Ross McWhirter - the Guinness Book of Records twin, not to mention Lord Louis Mountbatten.

    Bullshit Blair kept all the anti-socialist bits of Thatcherism, but in true Economist style ripped up the bits that *really* mattered, the REAL Conservatism, namely the anti-immigrationism.

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy.

    The story of the establishment of the English parliament by de Montfort, of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the 'Glorious Revolution' etc is really the story of the usurpation of supreme power from the King and to parliament.

    As often said, the UK has no written constitution, and thus its system of governance is always evolving and adapting. Stripping the House of Lords of hereditary peers was only a recent development.'Brexit' - if it happens, that is, giving supremacy back to Westminster, was a 'spur of the moment' thing.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @J.Ross

    , @notanon
    @Steve Sailer

    yes - one (accidental) way to have a free country despite an all-powerful state is if that state is always off fighting a war somewhere else.

    , @CMC
    @Steve Sailer

    Why not do both?

    Write the order right now —because war-like conditions. And also immediately moan and groan that you would prefer that it be done by an amendment but ‘what can I do; i’m only president’ or something of Trumpian brilliance.

    What happens? Immediately the order will get challenged in the courts. So what? It’s great. Put a bunch of our attorneys on it —another way to find out who is on our side, both attorneys and judges. If anyone makes any ancillary complaints, like, say, that we’re dedicating too much legal talent to this case, then answer that the question of how to become an American is pretty important. Meanwhile it’s in the news on a regular basis.

    Obviously it’s going to end up in the Supreme Court. Our turn now?

    Worst case scenario even the Kavanaugh Court says, yeah, we need an amendment bros. Ok, so now we know. It’s not like we would be in a worse position than we are now. Now it’s like we’re not even asking. It’s like that sales thing. Not even asking is a no. At least ask and get the ‘no.’ If the grass-roots local amendment legwork hasn’t begun by the time it rolls into the Supreme Court, it should really take off by then.

  15. I’m not a lawyer but I assume the EO is a path to get the issue before the Supreme Court – a Hawaii judge will shoot down the EO and it’ll be pushed to the SC. However, news is coming out that Lindsey Graham wants to introduce legislation to abolish birthright citizenship so I’m afraid it’ll get tied to an amnesty. All in all, it’s a good bombshell to drop and it gets the topic before the nation. It also gets Pittsburgh out of the news cycle and fires up the base, though I believe the majority of Americans are against anchor babies anyway.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    @AnonAnon

    If you consider it in terms of coalition Krazy Glue it also works for trump because blacks are rightfully protective of their place in the victim hierarchy and the 14th amendment was so clearly meant by its framers as protection for slaves that throwing this whole issue out there means the left yet again is going to be co-opting African American pain for the service of Hispanics.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @AnonAnon


    I believe the majority of Americans are against anchor babies anyway.
     
    Barring hard-core ctrl-left types that want to destroy America, I'm sure they are, AA. However, many people just don't keep up, and of those that do, many are still pretty damn innumerate. They'll hear some numbers and not realize the true scope of the problem*. I wish President Trump would talk numbers more, especially in percentages. That's what scares people or gets them riled up.

    * with the exception of those living in California, the other border states (and near the border) and any big city where this stuff can be seen to go on.
    , @GeologyAnon
    @AnonAnon

    The Lindsey Graham redemption arc is for me, the most unexpected part of this entire awesome timeline.

  16. Prediction: ending birthright citizenship completely is the initial offer for discussion, the final policy will be much milder, for example to end automatic citizenship for children born to a mother here on a tourist visa.

    This would literally be about “birth tourism” and forcing Democrats to defend it would be politically effective. It would be especially ironic if the Democrats fall into the trap of attacking this initial step by calling it “the thin end of the wedge”, because then Trump would reply “Thin end of the wedge? That’s what an anchor baby is!”

    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges. Legislation would be the right way to do it and that’s the other trap for the Democrats, if the ones who are running criticize Trump for using an executive order he can say “so if it comes before you as a member of Congress which way will you vote on it?”.

    An alternative way to handle it which would drive Democrats even more nuts is simply to say “tourist visas automatically extend to unborn children of the pregnant woman, they are already existing people who share her citizenship so do not become US citizens just by exiting the womb. If they are conceived here, it’s different, and by the way all tourist visas going forward are hereby limited to a period of two trimesters um I mean 6 months”.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    @Polymath


    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges.
     
    Wouldn't a tourist with a valid visa be more subject to 'the jurisdiction thereof' than an illegal whom the government has no idea is even here?

    Replies: @SF

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Polymath


    If they are conceived here, it’s different, and by the way all tourist visas going forward are hereby limited to a period of two trimesters um I mean 6 months”.
     
    Haha, I get the humor, Polymath, but it's less funny that there are non-immigration, tourist ones are the ones I know of, that are for 10 years! Now, that's not 10 years in a row - each period may be limited to 2, 3 or 6 months, what have you. That might make one think it's OK, per your excerpted sentence, but the "tourist" can come right back in, and up through a period of 10 years.

    That's a deal that is going on between the US and China on tourist visas. Think about this, which is unrelated to the B.C. topic of the post. How are you going to be able to find a Chinaman that decides to finally stay in Chinatown, Any State, for good? If there were 10,000 Chinese people at one time, spread out fairly thin, it would be possible. Are you gonna find that guy in Chinatown among 50,000 of his own, when they all stick together on this? Good luck ICE!
  17. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means what “subject” used to mean. If you’re a tourist or an illegal, you’re not a subject of the United States. If you’re a citizen or permanent resident, you are a subject. This argument is more solid than arguments based on vague penumbrae or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment that the left used to justify supposed rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Seneca44
    @HI

    That is a smart argument that I had not previously heard. Of course, just because something makes sense does not mean it will be upheld.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @HI

    No. Green card holders (permanent residents) are still guests here and their children should not qualify anymore than any other foreigner.


    You must be a citizen of the US. The jurisdiction attend applies to US citizens overseas as tourists or, employed overseas for private or federal service.


    The Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable to "permanent residents".

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    , @Prester John
    @HI

    This explanation is as good as any, but the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" amounts to weasel words and is needlessly ambiguous, this in contrast to the clarity of the remainder of Section 1, to wit, "ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES ...ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES" (emphasis mine). If they didn't intend "birth citizenship" (a phrase which was probably not even in use at the time the amendment was enacted), then why doesn't the amendment explicitly forbid birth citizenship, or were the architects of this amendment trying to split the baby?

    Totally agree with Buzz Mohawk. The only way around this conundrum is to amend the Constitution accordingly.

  18. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    If it’s too late, why do you keep a blog? You should be preparing for the end of civilized society.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Declane

    Eeyore LARP is the saddest LARP.

  19. @Maciano
    Best. American. President. Ever.

    What a leader. Inspiring.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Lucas McCrudy, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    If he does this.

    • Agree: vinteuil
  20. If he abolishes it, and let’s presume that SCOTUS upholds it, can another president cancel his executive order in a later term? If so, then it would almost be guaranteed to fail once/when America turns into California 2.0 politically, with a democratic one-party state.

    P.S. Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

    • Replies: @peterike
    @Thulean Friend


    Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

     

    I bet McCain had something on him. He was certainly a vile enough person to use it, if he did.
    , @Detective Club
    @Thulean Friend

    Even while he was on his deathbed, John McCain kept Miss Lindsey's brain in a cage and within reach.

    , @TTSSYF
    @Thulean Friend

    As far as I'm concerned, Lindsay's more than made up for any shortcomings he had in the past. I think he finally saw the light with the antics the 'rats pulled during the Kavanaugh hearings, just as Trump began seeing the light after he was elected. Both have become more conservative than they ever were in the past. Kavanaugh may turn out to be similarly affected (as Thomas likely was after what he was put through). The sheer outrageousness of it all is enough to drive otherwise moderate Republicans to the hard Right.

  21. If the Dems don’t win a majority of seats next Tuesday in the US House of Representatives.

    Hell, it may happen anyway.

  22. Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible…

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    @Ron Unz

    Were you ever curious why 20 years ago or so a new controversy around the issue arose? I know you might have been busy gutting attempts to curtail illegal immigration during that time (by the way how did your attempt to fight bilingualism turn out?) but the reason a new controversy arose was because the issue had never been adjudicated in respects to illegal immigration. After all the landmark case around the 14th amendment arose from the first large scale attempt to stem oligarchic open borders. If you are genuinely curious I can recommend you some good sources on the original case.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon

    , @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    Maybe it's because the issue of anchor babies was not on people's radar a few decades ago. According to Pew there were 30K anchor babies born in the USA in 1980. By 2007, that number had grown to 370K. It was still as high as 295K in 2013 which is the last year of their statistics.

    So maybe in the 60's and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Ron Unz

    , @HI
    @Ron Unz

    Wong Kim Ark held that the kids of permanent residents are citizens. There hasn't been a case on the children of illegals or tourists.

    , @Declane
    @Ron Unz


    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.
     
    Nice snide comment, faggot.
    , @Federalist
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    No.
    , @Rosie
    @Ron Unz


    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible…
     
    Indeed. It's a "living document," remember?
    , @Wilkey
    @Ron Unz

    "If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me"

    But overturning 10,000 years of legal precedent to require gay marriage? No big deal.

    Why is it invalid to interpret the 14th A. as not requiring birthright citizenship? How many new rights are constantly being discovered in it that weren't noticed when it was ratified 150 years ago? Shouldn't those have been noticed at the time, too?

    , @Desiderius
    @Ron Unz

    What’s 130 years of precedent against Decius Mus?

    , @J.Ross
    @Ron Unz

    Is it your belief that the Democrats can defend this, at the Supreme Court or in a drawn out campaign, without unintentionally redpilling massive numbers of white normies?

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.
     
    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It's hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    , @vinteuil
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue
     
    No kidding?

    Who would ever have noticed?

    , @Anon
    @Ron Unz


    until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    What would be accomplished is:

    (1) Once again the fact that judges are undemocratically in charge of the country would be highlighted for voters, a fact to be filed away in their heads for consideration when voting for candidates in future elections.

    (2) Politicians would be put on the spot and would have to take a clear public position on the issue, another set of facts for voters to consider.

    (3) There would be news coverage of birthright citizenship. It may include coverage of wonderful immigrant citizens who pay taxes and established businesses that employ Americans. It doesn't really matter what the content of the reports are: they will piss off a good portion of the electorate who never really thought that much about the issue and didn't know about the problem.

    Whether the executive order works or not (and of course, it will be nullified by a future Democratic administration), it will have these positive effects.
    , @Anonymous
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    Has the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) ever decided the question whether a child born to illegal infiltrators of the United States is a United States citizen by operation of the Constitution?

    Did the drafters of the amendment really mean by the language that people could invade our country and give birth and have their children have equal rights in our country as our own? Imagine if Russia invaded Alaska. Would Russian children born to the invading forces be American citizens? The thought is absurd.

    As for legal scholars, since when does Ron Unz rely upon mainstream "consensus" and why should we expect "legal scholars" to diverge from the views on immigration of the powers that be, the media, etc.? What would happen to a "legal scholar's" career prospects if he came out strongly against birthright citizenship?
  23. @Thulean Friend
    If he abolishes it, and let's presume that SCOTUS upholds it, can another president cancel his executive order in a later term? If so, then it would almost be guaranteed to fail once/when America turns into California 2.0 politically, with a democratic one-party state.


    P.S. Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

    Replies: @peterike, @Detective Club, @TTSSYF

    Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

    I bet McCain had something on him. He was certainly a vile enough person to use it, if he did.

    • Agree: Buck Ransom
  24. Your,

    2011 article, is in my view,

    a slam dunk.

    I would echo the voices of those that contend the 14th Amendment is being misapplied.

    Dare I say,

    Because context matters.

  25. @Detective Club
    If Trump follows through with his promised order, there could be two foreseeable outcomes in the US Supreme Court :

    Roberts joins four conservative justices and Trump's order wins 5-4.

    Roberts goes with the four Left-wing judges, writing the winning decision which states only Congress has the power to amend naturalization law, not the President. Conservatives lose, 4-5.

    Option No. 3 : Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer with us in 2 years time, thus making things much more interesting. But increased alcohol intake could mean that RBG lives to 90.

    US vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) decided in 1898, 6-2, that a child of LEGAL Chinese immigrants was a US citizen at birth. They'll forget to tell you that on CNN.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    That diagnosis has a quick death rate. A friend not even 70 died of that after only a couple months.

    , @Wilkey
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    That seems rather unlikely. Pancreatic cancer, in every case that I've known, is basically a death sentence. If Ginsburg had it at her age it would probably already be affecting her work. Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.

    Replies: @Tulip, @Jack D

    , @tyrone
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Hurry, buy your popcorn now,it's going to be a dousy.

    , @Paul Yarbles
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Hot off the presses... 9 years ago!

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-ginsburg-has-pancreatic-cancer/

    Your reliable source is reliable, but slow.

    Unless your source means that the cancer has recurred.

    RBG wants to destroy this country. But she has the best intentions and wouldn't think of it this way, so I don't wish this on her. If she'd just get sick enough to cause her to resign and then get better. That would be nice.

    , @jon
    @Jim Bob Lassiter


    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.
     
    And I have it from a 100% reliable source that she will be 86 in March. That seat is Trump's :)
    , @Clyde
    @Jim Bob Lassiter


    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.
     
    She is super tight and super disciplined like Steve Jobs. She ties her hair back severely. So I will give your post lots of probability.
    , @Bubba
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I think RBG has been dead for years was replaced with a body double from The Walking Dead or a really crappy Japanese robot. Same with Diane Feinstein.

  26. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    The only response to a President Harris is the imminent secession of the remaining red states.

  27. istevefan says:
    @Polymath
    Prediction: ending birthright citizenship completely is the initial offer for discussion, the final policy will be much milder, for example to end automatic citizenship for children born to a mother here on a tourist visa.

    This would literally be about “birth tourism” and forcing Democrats to defend it would be politically effective. It would be especially ironic if the Democrats fall into the trap of attacking this initial step by calling it “the thin end of the wedge”, because then Trump would reply “Thin end of the wedge? That’s what an anchor baby is!”

    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges. Legislation would be the right way to do it and that’s the other trap for the Democrats, if the ones who are running criticize Trump for using an executive order he can say “so if it comes before you as a member of Congress which way will you vote on it?”.

    An alternative way to handle it which would drive Democrats even more nuts is simply to say “tourist visas automatically extend to unborn children of the pregnant woman, they are already existing people who share her citizenship so do not become US citizens just by exiting the womb. If they are conceived here, it’s different, and by the way all tourist visas going forward are hereby limited to a period of two trimesters um I mean 6 months”.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Achmed E. Newman

    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges.

    Wouldn’t a tourist with a valid visa be more subject to ‘the jurisdiction thereof’ than an illegal whom the government has no idea is even here?

    • Replies: @SF
    @istevefan

    In the Wong Kim Ark case, the court made a point of noting that not only had his parents entered the US legally, but they were engaged in a business with the intent to stay here; i.e., they were not tourists. The implication was that otherwise the court might have ruled against Mr. Ark.

  28. If Bob has four pencils, then why is there a car parked at the school Saturday? You should be ordering lunch.

    Seriously, how did you make it to adulthood?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @The Z Blog

    Uh ... what?

  29. @HI
    "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means what "subject" used to mean. If you're a tourist or an illegal, you're not a subject of the United States. If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you are a subject. This argument is more solid than arguments based on vague penumbrae or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment that the left used to justify supposed rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.

    Replies: @Seneca44, @EliteCommInc., @Buzz Mohawk, @Prester John

    That is a smart argument that I had not previously heard. Of course, just because something makes sense does not mean it will be upheld.

  30. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Nice black pilling , fat boy. Go back to whining about Jews , thats your true talent.

    • Troll: Federalist
  31. NEWS FLASH : MOBSTER WHITEY BULGER MURDERED IN PRISON!

    Hillary is getting ready to run again in 2020 – – – she is starting to clear the field. Advice to Kamala Harris : Watch your back! In other news, Hillary claims that all Blacks look alike . . . Hillary and RBG have already gotten drunk together! In vino veritas!

  32. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Were you ever curious why 20 years ago or so a new controversy around the issue arose? I know you might have been busy gutting attempts to curtail illegal immigration during that time (by the way how did your attempt to fight bilingualism turn out?) but the reason a new controversy arose was because the issue had never been adjudicated in respects to illegal immigration. After all the landmark case around the 14th amendment arose from the first large scale attempt to stem oligarchic open borders. If you are genuinely curious I can recommend you some good sources on the original case.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Lot
    @Sam Haysom

    It comes down to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.

    That phrase includes legal permanent immigrants like Wong Kim Ark according to the Supreme Court 130 years ago.

    That doesn't include children of diplomats.

    Indians born on reservations used to be excluded from birthright citizenship, now they are not.

    The children of illegal aliens are like Indians in that it is up to Congress or the President to decide the issue.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/fourteenth-amendment-debate.html

    Replies: @D. K., @Chrisnonymous

    , @anon
    @Sam Haysom

    Please give us some good sources.

  33. What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?

    Such a shame that Reagan didn’t think to do this.

    Or Nixon.  Would likely have been very popular even then, might have saved his skin.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    @Mr. Rational

    The great "Dutch" Reagan was a cuck on immigration. The Irish amnesty lobby got their hooks into him during his 1984 visit to some shitty pub in Ballydumbfookery and convinced him that amnesty was the way to go, because he owed his cousins in Ireland. Reagan complied.

  34. istevefan says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    Maybe it’s because the issue of anchor babies was not on people’s radar a few decades ago. According to Pew there were 30K anchor babies born in the USA in 1980. By 2007, that number had grown to 370K. It was still as high as 295K in 2013 which is the last year of their statistics.

    So maybe in the 60’s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    @istevefan

    Ron just wants to be a caudillo before he dies surely you are willing to have your culture overrun so that Ron can get his revenge against Pete Wilson.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

  35. @HI
    "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means what "subject" used to mean. If you're a tourist or an illegal, you're not a subject of the United States. If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you are a subject. This argument is more solid than arguments based on vague penumbrae or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment that the left used to justify supposed rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.

    Replies: @Seneca44, @EliteCommInc., @Buzz Mohawk, @Prester John

    No. Green card holders (permanent residents) are still guests here and their children should not qualify anymore than any other foreigner.

    You must be a citizen of the US. The jurisdiction attend applies to US citizens overseas as tourists or, employed overseas for private or federal service.

    The Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable to “permanent residents”.

  36. Ok, but it’s unfair to punish children for a crime committed by their parents. I mean, if I rob a bank, I go to jail, fine, but my kids still get to keep the loot, don’t they?

    • LOL: ic1000, Lowe
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @International Jew

    No.

    The property is either returned to the rightful owner or auctioned.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Lowe

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @International Jew

    Excuse me for missing your sarcasm . . .

    Replies: @International Jew

  37. Green card holders (permanent residents) are still guests here and their children should not qualify anymore than any other foreigner.

    You must be a citizen of the US. The jurisdiction attend applies to US citizens overseas as tourists or, employed overseas for private or federal service.

    The Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable to “permanent residents”.

  38. @International Jew
    Ok, but it's unfair to punish children for a crime committed by their parents. I mean, if I rob a bank, I go to jail, fine, but my kids still get to keep the loot, don't they?

    Replies: @EliteCommInc., @EliteCommInc.

    No.

    The property is either returned to the rightful owner or auctioned.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @EliteCommInc.

    Woosh.

    , @Lowe
    @EliteCommInc.

    He was joking.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

  39. @AnonAnon
    I’m not a lawyer but I assume the EO is a path to get the issue before the Supreme Court - a Hawaii judge will shoot down the EO and it’ll be pushed to the SC. However, news is coming out that Lindsey Graham wants to introduce legislation to abolish birthright citizenship so I’m afraid it’ll get tied to an amnesty. All in all, it’s a good bombshell to drop and it gets the topic before the nation. It also gets Pittsburgh out of the news cycle and fires up the base, though I believe the majority of Americans are against anchor babies anyway.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Achmed E. Newman, @GeologyAnon

    If you consider it in terms of coalition Krazy Glue it also works for trump because blacks are rightfully protective of their place in the victim hierarchy and the 14th amendment was so clearly meant by its framers as protection for slaves that throwing this whole issue out there means the left yet again is going to be co-opting African American pain for the service of Hispanics.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Sam Haysom

    And rich Chinamen. Not that that is the preferred nomenclature dude.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wu598ENenk

  40. @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    Maybe it's because the issue of anchor babies was not on people's radar a few decades ago. According to Pew there were 30K anchor babies born in the USA in 1980. By 2007, that number had grown to 370K. It was still as high as 295K in 2013 which is the last year of their statistics.

    So maybe in the 60's and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Ron Unz

    Ron just wants to be a caudillo before he dies surely you are willing to have your culture overrun so that Ron can get his revenge against Pete Wilson.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Sam Haysom

    Like Kevin Leon —> De Leon and Tony Villa —> Antonio Villaraigoza, Ron may need to Hispanicize his name a bit, before he can make a credible bid for Caudillo. Something like "Ronaldo Uñez".

  41. @OP
    I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It's very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Sammler, @Jim Sweeney, @e, @sf, @MBlanc46

    I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens

    I mostly agree with you, but there needs to be something for children born to legal permanent residents.  Less messy if you don’t have to fully naturalize kids of people who are already on the pathway to citizenship, assuming the parents haven’t been e.g. deported for being criminals before the kid reaches 18.

    I’d make them apply, though, and not making it automatic would allow the deportation of e.g. Somali kids who commit felonies or get into gangs.  We could clean up a lot of mess if we could just send the worst elements back to their country of ancestry.

  42. @Thulean Friend
    If he abolishes it, and let's presume that SCOTUS upholds it, can another president cancel his executive order in a later term? If so, then it would almost be guaranteed to fail once/when America turns into California 2.0 politically, with a democratic one-party state.


    P.S. Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

    Replies: @peterike, @Detective Club, @TTSSYF

    Even while he was on his deathbed, John McCain kept Miss Lindsey’s brain in a cage and within reach.

  43. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Wong Kim Ark held that the kids of permanent residents are citizens. There hasn’t been a case on the children of illegals or tourists.

  44. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:

    How hard would it be to write a law that charges the mothers of anchor babies with defrauding the Unites States government?

    Anyone who helped her, especially a father, could be charged with conspiracy of the act.

    In the era of the Mueller Russian troll indictments, precedent says it should be rather easy.

  45. Courts will strike it down. We all wish the drafter’s of the 14th Amendment had anticipated something like this and included the appropriate language—and yet how could they? They couldn’t possibly have anticipated there would be a day when ~23-million people would be in the U.S. illegally, many of them squirting out babies, let alone that there would be a “birth tourism” industry. (Let alone a welfare state, let alone that there would be a sizable group that out-and-out hates America and its WASP origins & culture).

  46. Children born to foreign diplomats are already exempt from birthright citizenship. Making another exception for those not legally present seems possible.

    The nest step is revoking citizenship awarded to scammers like Chinese birth tourists and people sneaking across to give birth in U.S. hospitals.

    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.

    I think this will be particularly strong with African-Americans. They value their citizenship more than a lot of whites, Prog whites especially.

    Progs hate citizenship because it is valuable and their citizenship isn’t worth more than the deplorables.’ They want it to be like a library card, available to all, a bit of a joke, and worthless except when it comes to winning elections for Democrats.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.
     
    I've been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    So even on this issue, the left will try to put their spin onto it by making it seem whites abuse this loophole.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @Anon

    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    Progs hate citizenship because it is valuable and their citizenship isn’t worth more than the deplorables.’ They want it to be like a library card, available to all, a bit of a joke, and worthless except when it comes to winning elections for Democrats.

     

    This is a very insightful comparison; I think you've got it just right.
  47. @HI
    "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means what "subject" used to mean. If you're a tourist or an illegal, you're not a subject of the United States. If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you are a subject. This argument is more solid than arguments based on vague penumbrae or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment that the left used to justify supposed rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.

    Replies: @Seneca44, @EliteCommInc., @Buzz Mohawk, @Prester John

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…

    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country’s laws while that baby is there? Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    • Replies: @HI
    @Buzz Mohawk

    There's not supposed to be any redundant language. No one, not even the proponents of birthright citizenship, suggests that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is just a redundancy. In Wong Kim Ark the majority said that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only the children of diplomats and occupying soldiers. The majority dismissed as dictum language from the earlier Slaughterhouse cases that said the children of foreigners are not citizens. But this reasoning goes both ways--the extension of Wong Kim Ark beyond permanent residents is also dicta. Also, the dissent pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which referred to "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Drake
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?
     
    No. Historically there have been three categories of people who are understood to owe allegiance to other nations, and hence subject to foreign jurisdiction, even if they are born in US territory: children of diplomats, children of foreign soldiers, and children of Native Americans before they became citizens.

    There's no reason why Congress can't decide that children of illegal immigrants should be understood to owe allegiance to their parents' country, just as with the examples above.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Federalist
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country’s laws while that baby is there? Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

     

    The short answer is that the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship. This is the most complete explanation that I have seen:
    https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/


    I am interested in these kinds of Constitutional issues, but it is really just intellectual curiosity. The courts can just make something up with no regard whatsoever to the actual Constitution. To take just the most obvious examples, our "Constitutional rights" to abortion and gay marriage are wholly contrived. Practically speaking, it is not a question of what the 14th Amendment means. It comes down to whether five or more Supreme Court justices want birthright citizenship. If so, they will just pretend that the Constitution required that result.

    It's not much different from a cult leader saying, "God told me so." Well, if God (or the Constitution) says so, there's nothing else to say.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Buzz Mohawk



    No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

     

    A Chinese woman, 8 months pregnant, vacations to Disneyland, gives birth prematurely there, then returns back to China.

    When the child grows up in China, does he:

    1. Pay US income tax on income earned abroad?

    2. Register for the selective service?

    3. Vote in US presidental elections?

    Replies: @PiltdownMan

    , @Redman
    @Buzz Mohawk

    If that were the case. Why didn’t they just stop at “born in the United States”? The modifying clause would be superfluous.

    , @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country’s laws while that baby is there? Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?
     
    Do you really think that the drafters intended to grant citizenship automatically to the offspring of an invading army?
    , @Svigor
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's contextual. Obviously "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is everyone in the world, if we interpret as broadly as possible. We arrest people in other countries, we invade other countries, etc.

    So by your interpretation, it would seem that anyone born on Earth or Moon is a US citizen, no?

    In proper context, it means "US subjects," basically. Not foreigners or the like. It was intended to make citizens of slaves and their descendants.

    , @S. Verdad
    @Buzz Mohawk

    a child of Mexican (Russian, Israeli, Nigerian) citizens unlawfully present in the U.S., is a citizen of Mexico, and also of the U.S. if the person later commits a crime and flees to Mexico (etc), he can avail himself of the protection of Mexico (Russia, etc) and avoid extradition. A plain vanilla U.S. citizen enjoys no such luxury.

  48. I keep saying, but nobody listens:

    Require landlords to use e-verify for citizens and legal alien status. This would immediately hamper illegal aliens alone, and with anchor babies, which would encourage them to self-deport immediately. It’s an obstruction that would keep on giving, and would also make forced mandated “affordable housing” and HUD grants less urgent, and settle out the rising rents in Los Angeles, as it would open up hundreds of thousands of rentals within a year.

    I’m acquainted with one landlord in the Los Angeles area who owns over 10 different properties, last I checked, NEVER advertises when one of his many rentals becomes available. He rents it to illegal immigrants almost exclusively, and when a unit opens up, he alerts all his tenants, and they bring him armloads of illegal alien applicants.

    He prefers illegals because they do their own repairs and yard work for free, so he doesn’t have to deal with any of his many properties most of the time except to go to his mailbox to get his rental checks. They also NEVER take him to court over ANYthing, unlike a legal tenant might.

    He has his operation running like a well-oiled machine, and there are MANY just like him in the Los Angeles area. I’ve spoke with him a few times, as I own a property near him, and he is a complete piece of shit. If he laid down and died, it would be a boon for humanity. He doesn’t care a whit about the Mexicans he exploits, or the community he owns properties in which his properties degrades. The world would be right if he’d just die, sitting up on his likely expensive toilet.

    He’s well-to-do, but human garbage just the same. I regard him as I would a swarm of pestilence, even though that’s an insult to virulent locusts.

    E-Verify would screw him up.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Lordy

    My guess is he's an immigrant himself. I had an Indian boss who owned a property that he only rented to Indian immigrants, who returned all favors to him. Another Chinese guy did the same thing: only Chinese immigrant renters who wouldn't mess with him. They were very open about this behavior that was totally tribal. They made it sound as though these new immigrants were legal, though.

    Replies: @Lordy

    , @bomag
    @Lordy

    The guy you describe here is basically a criminal.

    We used to draft and enforce laws that would curtail criminal behavior.

    Ahh, the good old days.

    A reminder that society runs on basic trust issues. There are so many ways to "hack" the system, that basic trust is needed at the base level. But we seem to import/breed/enable the untrustworthy more and more, thus we get the surveillance state and other shabbier stuff to accommodate the grifters amongst us.

  49. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Nice snide comment, faggot.

  50. I, for one, can’t wait until TINY DUCK submits his legal brief to the US Supreme Court on this weighty matter.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Detective Club

    R.U. is gonna do it for him.

  51. Relax. Nothing will happen. This is just Trump trying to jazz up and distract his base in advance of his letting the invading ‘caravan’ cross the border.

    The rich want cheap labor too badly. Nothing that might in any way limit the flow of cheap third-world labor will be allowed to take effect, the entire elite is united on this. End of story.

  52. I’m sure most voters don’t even know about birthright citizenship. So putting it out there is bound to jar some reflexive, life-long, Dems to stop and think, “Whoah, this ain’t right!”…and maybe join us.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @International Jew


    I’m sure most voters don’t even know about birthright citizenship. So putting it out there is bound to jar some reflexive, life-long, Dems to stop and think, “Whoah, this ain’t right!”…and maybe join us.
     
    Important point!
    , @TTSSYF
    @International Jew

    The average citizen doesn't know about it, much less the extent to which it is formalized and exploited by foreigners, because no one in the media, save for a few websites like this one, talks about it. The media cover up this issue, just as they do many other dysfunctionalities that otherwise might hinder the Leftist agenda. So whether Trump pulls this off or not, it's good that he brought it up now, before the election. Let's make it part of the vote.

  53. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    There’s not supposed to be any redundant language. No one, not even the proponents of birthright citizenship, suggests that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is just a redundancy. In Wong Kim Ark the majority said that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes only the children of diplomats and occupying soldiers. The majority dismissed as dictum language from the earlier Slaughterhouse cases that said the children of foreigners are not citizens. But this reasoning goes both ways–the extension of Wong Kim Ark beyond permanent residents is also dicta. Also, the dissent pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which referred to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI

    Got it. So if the ambassador from Freedonia has a baby in Washington, that baby is subject to the jurisdiction of Freedonia, not the US. Makes sense. Unfortunately for our cause, it also seems obvious that this exception does not apply to ordinary people who come here and have babies.

    Or does it? Is a foreign national not subject to his own country's jurisdiction while he is here? An example might be Americans who make money overseas but still must pay federal income tax on that money. They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

    I would love it if somebody could convince a Supreme Court majority that any citizen of a foreign country is "subject to the jurisdiction" of that country while they are here. End of anchor babies.

    Replies: @D. K., @Jim Sweeney

  54. istevefan says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Children born to foreign diplomats are already exempt from birthright citizenship. Making another exception for those not legally present seems possible.

    The nest step is revoking citizenship awarded to scammers like Chinese birth tourists and people sneaking across to give birth in U.S. hospitals.

    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.

    I think this will be particularly strong with African-Americans. They value their citizenship more than a lot of whites, Prog whites especially.

    Progs hate citizenship because it is valuable and their citizenship isn't worth more than the deplorables.' They want it to be like a library card, available to all, a bit of a joke, and worthless except when it comes to winning elections for Democrats.

    Replies: @istevefan, @The Last Real Calvinist

    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.

    I’ve been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    So even on this issue, the left will try to put their spin onto it by making it seem whites abuse this loophole.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @istevefan

    Here in Miami Russian birth tourism is a real thing. I guess while their husbands are busy meddling with elections or whatever.

    If lefties want to whine about Russian birth tourism, that's fine. Whatever gets their dupes and followers on board is okay with me.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    @istevefan

    Even better. We don't want Russians or anyone else dropping anchors either. Agree with them, then what do they do?

    This is a real issue that fits Sailer's concept of 'citizenism.' This is about protecting American citizens from what is essentially theft.

    Hell, you'll get support from not a few naturalized citizens, who did the work to become American and often resent illegals and birth tourists who game the system.

    , @Anon
    @istevefan


    I’ve been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.
     
    Do you have a cite?
  55. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    No.

  56. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    That was Ksissy

  57. @Sam Haysom
    @istevefan

    Ron just wants to be a caudillo before he dies surely you are willing to have your culture overrun so that Ron can get his revenge against Pete Wilson.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Like Kevin Leon —> De Leon and Tony Villa —> Antonio Villaraigoza, Ron may need to Hispanicize his name a bit, before he can make a credible bid for Caudillo. Something like “Ronaldo Uñez”.

    • LOL: Luke Lea
  58. I’d like to see a poll of where Democratic voters stand on anchor babies.

    It’s not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies. (I know, I know, people are going to say that of course Dems are in favor of anchor babies, but that is history and the political landscape is changing fast for both parties. What matters is what voters think not pundits and politicians.)

    I suspect most voters have no idea what anchor babies are and that simply educating them, if that’s possible, would change the politics of the issue.

    • Replies: @jon
    @Mookie


    It’s not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies.
     
    If Dems come out in opposition to anchor babies, then we can push for actual legislation. If they won't agree to that, then it's still a good campaign issue (and if they go along with it, then that's the whole point). There's really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    , @res
    @Mookie


    I’d like to see a poll of where Democratic voters stand on anchor babies.
     
    So would I. I am having trouble finding anything recent, but this 2010 poll shows a fairly even split for Democrats: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-americans-split-over-birthright-citizenship/
    But 2010 predates the 2012-2013 changes Steve has been discussing recently. So who knows how that maps to the current reality. Another link about the same poll: https://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2010/06/03/rasmussen-poll-58-reject-anchor-baby-citizenship/

    Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats think children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become U.S. citizens. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party disagree.
     
    This June poll has a different focus, but might cast some light: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/06/03/majority-likely-voters-2018-swing-districts/

    Some interesting crosstabs:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DezAvxhU0AAfsIB.jpg

    I find the difference between Democrat and Liberal interesting. That sixth (see weighted Ns) of the Democrat group has to be pretty heavily choosing worse to make the numbers work.

    I think this birthright citizenship backgrounder is useful (and very well referenced): https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-United-States

  59. @Sam Haysom
    @Ron Unz

    Were you ever curious why 20 years ago or so a new controversy around the issue arose? I know you might have been busy gutting attempts to curtail illegal immigration during that time (by the way how did your attempt to fight bilingualism turn out?) but the reason a new controversy arose was because the issue had never been adjudicated in respects to illegal immigration. After all the landmark case around the 14th amendment arose from the first large scale attempt to stem oligarchic open borders. If you are genuinely curious I can recommend you some good sources on the original case.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon

    It comes down to “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.

    That phrase includes legal permanent immigrants like Wong Kim Ark according to the Supreme Court 130 years ago.

    That doesn’t include children of diplomats.

    Indians born on reservations used to be excluded from birthright citizenship, now they are not.

    The children of illegal aliens are like Indians in that it is up to Congress or the President to decide the issue.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/fourteenth-amendment-debate.html

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Lot

    No, it is up to the courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, to interpret what the actual language of the 14th Amendment actually means, as a matter of constitutional law. In interpreting its language, the Supreme Court would resort to considering legislative intent only if the Court first found that that language itself is legally ambiguous. As an erstwhile attorney who formally studied Constitutional Law, in my ill-spent youth, and who had majored in both English and History as an undergraduate, before that, it is my considered opinion that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, would consider the clause at issue to be legally unambiguous. If so, an amendment would be needed to limit birthright citizenship beyond its current interpretation. (N.B.: Indians were excluded, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, because they were considered members of their respective tribes, which were recognized as sovereign nations that existed within the sovereign borders of the United States; that exception changed when the Congress explicitly granted American citizenship to American-born Indians.) Even if the Supreme Court did not hold as I expect that it would, I find it exceedingly likely that it would declare any such presidential executive order to be powerless to change a person's citizenship status, vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment's own language, and thus null and void on its face.

    Replies: @Anon, @Lot

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Lot

    I appreciate the work of NumbersUSA, but on this issue of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they are mistaken, and that article you linked is too shallow--see, for example, this post on the language that is quoted in the NumbersUSA article: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39284

    As I tried to point out in a comment on that site, the only real wiggle room we have from a legal perspective is the fact that Indians were excluded along with diplomats' families despite not having complete diplomatic immunity from US law, and this exclusion was based on Congressional legislation.

    As a legal matter, other than passing another Amendment to clarify the 14th, the best way for Congress to overturn birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law, thus making them not entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

  60. If we are talking about this November’s election, I’m confused. How can the midterms affect whether Trump issues an executive order or what the supreme court will decide about it?

  61. It’s long, very long, past time that birthright citizenship be ended.

    Half of the magnet drawing illegal aliens consists in welfare handouts to them along with free schooling, free health care, and such – and the other half of that magnet is birthright citizenship for the children born here of illegally-entered foreign parents.

    Ending birthright citizenship will also make it easier to deport illegal alien parents of children born on U.S. soil, because it will pull the plug on the organist of the “but you can’t separate families!” choir.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  62. Ann Coulter is a baby boomer broad from Connecticut with a law degree.

    Listen to Ann Coulter:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Charles Pewitt

    Thank you, Mr. Pewitt. Now, does everyone understand why we need her on the Supreme Court next? She had written a column a few years back (I read it on VDare) about her reasoning explaining how the 14th Amendment DOES NOT provide for birthright citizen. I could not follow it completely, just because I'm no lawyer. Miss Coulter is. Imagine her in a Senate confirmation hearing!! I think most of the D's would call in sick out of fright.

  63. Birthright citizenship is obviously ridiculous; it cheapens the value of citizenship. I’d like it gone. Its purpose to give citizenship for the children of slaves is long over.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @L Woods
    @Daniel Chieh


    it cheapens the value of citizenship.
     
    That’s the point.
  64. @istevefan
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.
     
    I've been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    So even on this issue, the left will try to put their spin onto it by making it seem whites abuse this loophole.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @Anon

    Here in Miami Russian birth tourism is a real thing. I guess while their husbands are busy meddling with elections or whatever.

    If lefties want to whine about Russian birth tourism, that’s fine. Whatever gets their dupes and followers on board is okay with me.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

  65. @istevefan
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.
     
    I've been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    So even on this issue, the left will try to put their spin onto it by making it seem whites abuse this loophole.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @Anon

    Even better. We don’t want Russians or anyone else dropping anchors either. Agree with them, then what do they do?

    This is a real issue that fits Sailer’s concept of ‘citizenism.’ This is about protecting American citizens from what is essentially theft.

    Hell, you’ll get support from not a few naturalized citizens, who did the work to become American and often resent illegals and birth tourists who game the system.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  66. Going against the letter of the Constitution seems like a horrible idea to me. Once you let go of that, Roberts’s “actually it’s a tax” move on the ACA will seem like nothing.

    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @CTD

    If that were the case, there would be no need for the jurisdiction language.

    , @The Alarmist
    @CTD


    "Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them."
     
    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Replies: @D. K., @anon, @eddy wobegon

    , @Anonymous
    @CTD


    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them.
     
    No drafter in his right mind would have made the offspring of illegals immediately eligible for citizenship.
  67. @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?
     
    Maybe it's because the issue of anchor babies was not on people's radar a few decades ago. According to Pew there were 30K anchor babies born in the USA in 1980. By 2007, that number had grown to 370K. It was still as high as 295K in 2013 which is the last year of their statistics.

    So maybe in the 60's and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Ron Unz

    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.

    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they’ve been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for “hate speech”…

    • Replies: @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    During the debate of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, a member of the committed that drafted the 14th Amendment in 1866 stated this:

    Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed int his body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country
     

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @D. K.

    , @Federalist
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    Can you cite the holding that established the birthright interpretation "tradition"?

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for “hate speech”…
     
    Maybe but the First Amendment is actually part of the Constitution. Birthright citizenship is not.
    , @anon
    @Ron Unz


    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they’ve been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    As to the former, has there been legislation (in contrast to constitutional text) that has conferred citizenship? If so, that negates the inference that the Constitution is doing the work.

    Has the issue of offspring of illegal infiltrators or tourists ever been raised as a constitutional matter? If not, you can't really say that a "traditional interpretation" of the Constitution has ever existed.
    , @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    Good argument. "No one argued this before, therefore, its not a valid argument." I see the argumentum ad antiquitatem
    fallacy lives on.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Appeal_to_tradition

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Anonymous
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    If there’s been a statute in place:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    8 USC 1401(a).


    Then what need has there been to have an interpretation of the birthright provision in the 14th Amendment?

    (I do not know how long the statute has been in effect.)

    Replies: @res

  68. I wrote this in September 2018:

    The United States must abandon the Anchor baby scam by properly interpreting the law. That means no bullshit from that dead slob William Brennan about anything to do with citizenship.

    I am the only one making the link between the Leprechaun William Brennan and the Anchor Baby scam. Maybe others are, but they ain’t calling a Leprechaun a Leprechaun like I am. I love the Irish people, I just don’t like Leprechauns.

    John Brennan the former CIA Head Rat and that dead dope Supreme Court clod William Brennan are not making me feel so kindly towards Leprechauns named Brennan.

    Ain’t there any decent people named Brennan? DAMMIT!

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    Why don't you like Brennan ?
    He hates Jews/Israel and loves Iran/Muslims.
    He's just like you , only more so.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Another Canadian
    @Charles Pewitt

    "Ain't there any decent people named Brennan? DAMMIT!"

    https://youtu.be/cL3AprNrg6c

  69. Washington Post not allowing comments on this issue here (except for 4 they approved):

    https://goo.gl/cgndM2

  70. @HI
    @Buzz Mohawk

    There's not supposed to be any redundant language. No one, not even the proponents of birthright citizenship, suggests that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is just a redundancy. In Wong Kim Ark the majority said that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only the children of diplomats and occupying soldiers. The majority dismissed as dictum language from the earlier Slaughterhouse cases that said the children of foreigners are not citizens. But this reasoning goes both ways--the extension of Wong Kim Ark beyond permanent residents is also dicta. Also, the dissent pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which referred to "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Got it. So if the ambassador from Freedonia has a baby in Washington, that baby is subject to the jurisdiction of Freedonia, not the US. Makes sense. Unfortunately for our cause, it also seems obvious that this exception does not apply to ordinary people who come here and have babies.

    Or does it? Is a foreign national not subject to his own country’s jurisdiction while he is here? An example might be Americans who make money overseas but still must pay federal income tax on that money. They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

    I would love it if somebody could convince a Supreme Court majority that any citizen of a foreign country is “subject to the jurisdiction” of that country while they are here. End of anchor babies.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Dual citizens, like my priestly brother down in El Salvador, are subject to the jurisdiction of multiple countries. Green-card holders in this country are subject to American jurisdiction, despite their being subject to the jurisdictions of their respective countries of citizenship, as well. Furthermore, under the language of the 14th Amendment, it is the subjectivity of the anchor babies themselves that is at issue, not whether their illegal-alien parents are subject to American jurisdiction-- which, of course, they are! Children of diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity; anchor babies of illegal aliens may be treated by the American government, at whatever level, as any other babies born in America may be treated. In what sense are illegal aliens who are present in the United States not subject to American jurisdiction themselves? Even illegal-alien young men are required to register with Selective Service!

    Replies: @Lucas McCrudy

    , @Jim Sweeney
    @Buzz Mohawk

    People conflate jurisdiction with police power which is not what it means. It refers to one's allegiance. Everybody in any place is subject to the jurisdiction of the local police but are not subject to the duties imposed by citizenship, i.e., allegiance. Those are legally distinguishable and, without that distinction, this argument is not possible.

    Replies: @D. K.

  71. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible…

    Indeed. It’s a “living document,” remember?

  72. Anonymous [AKA "The original Jim Jones"] says:

    I think constitutionally there is a good argument for it. The child of a legal resident is a U.S. citizen, no question (Kim Wong Ark). On the other hand, the child of an invading army is not (there is no explicit authority for this but it was understood in English common law). The question is whether anchor babies are more similar to the children of an invading army than to children of a legal resident.

  73. @istevefan
    I've always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn't buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn't signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    Replies: @MJMD, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @notanon, @anon, @Chrisnonymous

    He hasn’t signed it, it will take at least a year for it to wind its way to SCOTUS after he does (by which time, hopefully, America will have one more Trump appointee), and he might not have the chance to sign it 2 years from now. This is the window.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @MJMD

    He should sign it ASAP so that an injunction by a low-level Federal judge can be used to get out the vote.

  74. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    In 2010 Viktor Orban’s Fidesz Party won the election with 53% of the vote, which translated into 2/3rds of the seats in Parliament. A new constitution was drawn up.

    Also in 2010, the GOP received 52% of the vote for the House, and got way less than 2/3 of the seats. So the GOP can’t simply amend the Constitution to remove jus soli. The GOP also doesn’t have the 37 state legislatures needed to ratify.

    The departure of several bicoastal blue states, and partitioning Chicago from Downstate, along with the indpendence of the Territories; might be able to give the GOP the numbers to transform the remaining country into an illiberal state.

    • Replies: @Lowe
    @Anon

    In other words, we just have to goad California into seceding, and then before we reconquer it, we amend the Constitution.

  75. @istevefan
    @Polymath


    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges.
     
    Wouldn't a tourist with a valid visa be more subject to 'the jurisdiction thereof' than an illegal whom the government has no idea is even here?

    Replies: @SF

    In the Wong Kim Ark case, the court made a point of noting that not only had his parents entered the US legally, but they were engaged in a business with the intent to stay here; i.e., they were not tourists. The implication was that otherwise the court might have ruled against Mr. Ark.

  76. @Lot
    @Sam Haysom

    It comes down to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.

    That phrase includes legal permanent immigrants like Wong Kim Ark according to the Supreme Court 130 years ago.

    That doesn't include children of diplomats.

    Indians born on reservations used to be excluded from birthright citizenship, now they are not.

    The children of illegal aliens are like Indians in that it is up to Congress or the President to decide the issue.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/fourteenth-amendment-debate.html

    Replies: @D. K., @Chrisnonymous

    No, it is up to the courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, to interpret what the actual language of the 14th Amendment actually means, as a matter of constitutional law. In interpreting its language, the Supreme Court would resort to considering legislative intent only if the Court first found that that language itself is legally ambiguous. As an erstwhile attorney who formally studied Constitutional Law, in my ill-spent youth, and who had majored in both English and History as an undergraduate, before that, it is my considered opinion that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, would consider the clause at issue to be legally unambiguous. If so, an amendment would be needed to limit birthright citizenship beyond its current interpretation. (N.B.: Indians were excluded, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, because they were considered members of their respective tribes, which were recognized as sovereign nations that existed within the sovereign borders of the United States; that exception changed when the Congress explicitly granted American citizenship to American-born Indians.) Even if the Supreme Court did not hold as I expect that it would, I find it exceedingly likely that it would declare any such presidential executive order to be powerless to change a person’s citizenship status, vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment’s own language, and thus null and void on its face.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @D. K.

    Congress has the power to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We can simply bar the SCOTUS from making any rulings on immigration, as was done by the Radicals with regard to the Reconstruction Bills.

    If the voters don't like it, a new Congress and President can be elected to repeal the law.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Lot
    @D. K.

    The Court will state what the 14th requires. The President will use his authority to implement the laws subject to that restriction. And the restriction unlikely covers illegal aliens.

    Replies: @D. K.

  77. @CTD
    Going against the letter of the Constitution seems like a horrible idea to me. Once you let go of that, Roberts's "actually it's a tax" move on the ACA will seem like nothing.

    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction - that's why we can (occasionally) deport them.

    Replies: @Flip, @The Alarmist, @Anonymous

    If that were the case, there would be no need for the jurisdiction language.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  78. @Charles Pewitt
    I wrote this in September 2018:

    The United States must abandon the Anchor baby scam by properly interpreting the law. That means no bullshit from that dead slob William Brennan about anything to do with citizenship.

     


    I am the only one making the link between the Leprechaun William Brennan and the Anchor Baby scam. Maybe others are, but they ain’t calling a Leprechaun a Leprechaun like I am. I love the Irish people, I just don’t like Leprechauns.

     

    John Brennan the former CIA Head Rat and that dead dope Supreme Court clod William Brennan are not making me feel so kindly towards Leprechauns named Brennan.

    Ain't there any decent people named Brennan? DAMMIT!

    Replies: @Anon, @Another Canadian

    Why don’t you like Brennan ?
    He hates Jews/Israel and loves Iran/Muslims.
    He’s just like you , only more so.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon

    Neocons, Ikhwan, Nazis, and traditionalists are all the same group.

    Wow. Much incisive, so research. Psychiatry (psychiatry). Wow.

    https://postimg.cc/mt8YDKCm

  79. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    Right now the policy is to forbid even asking women tourists if they are pregnant. Its clear that their are some exceptions now…eg children of diplomats. It seems possible that some sort of EO could be upheld by the SC.

    Birthright Citizenship is absurd, given the intent of the 14th amendment.

    Note that non-resident Foreign Nationals are subject to some US law. For example, taxes.

    Regardless, the counter arguments floated opposing Trump’s Tweet are extreme and counter intuitive. Having these opinions on the record is invaluable.

  80. OT The mainstream media attempts to comprehend the Sailer strategy. I predict orange alert imminent for Greer or Prabhu.

    As you’ve probably noticed, bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days.
    You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or “The View”, read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.
    It’s become often enough that it is seemingly now normal to just casually attack [I apologize for this sentence].
    What is happening is that everyone’s id is now not just out in the open, it has gone berserk.
    I do not want to be a party to the bashing of Caucasian men [see what Prabhu did there?].
    But the need of the hour is not crude attacks or divisive rhetoric; it’s skillful, statesmanlike management of huge demographic changes, and the emotions they unleash.
    Today’s Democratic Party is predicated on having and expressing open hostility toward white citizens. They are making the dangerous bet that most minorities and immigrants will jump on the white-male-bashing bandwagon.
    Not to mention, the guns are all on the other side, but I’m just kidding [no really they are, come at us son].
    Today’s social justice warriors would do better to work toward more social and economic justice without exacerbating dangerous racial divisions, and fomenting violence.

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/

    http://archive.is/4mnzM

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @J.Ross

    The "Sailer Strategy" as understood by me just means that it is better to get a few more percent of the White vote than the non-White vote because the White vote as a bloc is bigger.

    Sailer also talked about some college football conference out there in the Midwest or something.

    Since I'm innumerate, I ain't going for that. I understand it, but I ain't going JUST for that. I gots to add an ethnic component to it.

    The GERMAN STRATEGY is what I push.

    Trump used the GERMAN STRATEGY to win the White House.

    The GERMAN STRATEGY is to win the votes of German Americans in the Great Lakes states in combination with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Southern states. Trumpy put the cherry on top of the GERMAN STRATEGY by winning Florida with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Northern portion of Florida in combination with the votes of the snowbirds from the Great Lakes states and the Northeast.

  81. The Constitutional arguments offered for “birthright citizenship” are not persuasive. An EO would ordinarily be sufficient, but someone is going to have to put the inferior courts back in the box, and thus far the Administration crawls into a fetal position and cries “Oh yeah! We’ll see you in a higher court,” rather than declaring contra-legal rulings and stays to be ultra vires and letting SCOTUS decide to weigh in, or not, while the Executive Branch uses any means authorised by statute to faithfully execute the relevant statutes.

  82. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @Lot

    No, it is up to the courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, to interpret what the actual language of the 14th Amendment actually means, as a matter of constitutional law. In interpreting its language, the Supreme Court would resort to considering legislative intent only if the Court first found that that language itself is legally ambiguous. As an erstwhile attorney who formally studied Constitutional Law, in my ill-spent youth, and who had majored in both English and History as an undergraduate, before that, it is my considered opinion that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, would consider the clause at issue to be legally unambiguous. If so, an amendment would be needed to limit birthright citizenship beyond its current interpretation. (N.B.: Indians were excluded, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, because they were considered members of their respective tribes, which were recognized as sovereign nations that existed within the sovereign borders of the United States; that exception changed when the Congress explicitly granted American citizenship to American-born Indians.) Even if the Supreme Court did not hold as I expect that it would, I find it exceedingly likely that it would declare any such presidential executive order to be powerless to change a person's citizenship status, vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment's own language, and thus null and void on its face.

    Replies: @Anon, @Lot

    Congress has the power to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We can simply bar the SCOTUS from making any rulings on immigration, as was done by the Radicals with regard to the Reconstruction Bills.

    If the voters don’t like it, a new Congress and President can be elected to repeal the law.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Anon

    So, you think that the current Republican-majority Congress could manage to put a bill on the president's desk that would, if signed into law by the president, strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction on the singular subject of immigration, but that the same Republican-majority Congress could not manage to put a bill on the president's desk that would, if signed into law by the president, limit birthright citizenship to exclude the American-born children of illegal aliens (or an even broader category of aliens)?!? I find that legislative juxtaposition highly implausible....

    Replies: @Space Ghost

  83. @Mookie
    I'd like to see a poll of where Democratic voters stand on anchor babies.

    It's not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies. (I know, I know, people are going to say that of course Dems are in favor of anchor babies, but that is history and the political landscape is changing fast for both parties. What matters is what voters think not pundits and politicians.)

    I suspect most voters have no idea what anchor babies are and that simply educating them, if that's possible, would change the politics of the issue.

    Replies: @jon, @res

    It’s not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies.

    If Dems come out in opposition to anchor babies, then we can push for actual legislation. If they won’t agree to that, then it’s still a good campaign issue (and if they go along with it, then that’s the whole point). There’s really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @jon

    The initial election of Trump caused a deterrent effect on illegal border crossings. The same occurred when Arizona passed a law for additional enforcement in 2010.

    Foreign press follows US politics, but they don't often have a good understanding of it. Legislatures are much less powerful in Latin America (legacy of Bolivar), so there is an impression that the US president can be as authoritarian in domestic policy as they are in foreign policy.

    Will these declarations by Trump carry a deterrent, or are we running into the law of diminishing returns. We are stuck right now with a Congress determined to either wait out of impeach the President, and then pass an amnesty bill. Should the GOP somehow retain the House (I'm guessing a 40 seat loss), then some restrictions might be passed next year.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Anonymous
    @jon


    There’s really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.
     
    Yep. I know a lot of Democrats who don't like the practices of birth tourism and anchor babies.
  84. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI

    Got it. So if the ambassador from Freedonia has a baby in Washington, that baby is subject to the jurisdiction of Freedonia, not the US. Makes sense. Unfortunately for our cause, it also seems obvious that this exception does not apply to ordinary people who come here and have babies.

    Or does it? Is a foreign national not subject to his own country's jurisdiction while he is here? An example might be Americans who make money overseas but still must pay federal income tax on that money. They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

    I would love it if somebody could convince a Supreme Court majority that any citizen of a foreign country is "subject to the jurisdiction" of that country while they are here. End of anchor babies.

    Replies: @D. K., @Jim Sweeney

    Dual citizens, like my priestly brother down in El Salvador, are subject to the jurisdiction of multiple countries. Green-card holders in this country are subject to American jurisdiction, despite their being subject to the jurisdictions of their respective countries of citizenship, as well. Furthermore, under the language of the 14th Amendment, it is the subjectivity of the anchor babies themselves that is at issue, not whether their illegal-alien parents are subject to American jurisdiction– which, of course, they are! Children of diplomats share their parents’ diplomatic immunity; anchor babies of illegal aliens may be treated by the American government, at whatever level, as any other babies born in America may be treated. In what sense are illegal aliens who are present in the United States not subject to American jurisdiction themselves? Even illegal-alien young men are required to register with Selective Service!

    • Replies: @Lucas McCrudy
    @D. K.

    Then explain why it took an act of Congress in the 1920s to give Native Americans citizenship; even if they happened to birth their babies outside of the respective tribal "nations" (i.e. Reservations) that wasn't enough to automatically confer US citizenship.

    Replies: @D. K.

  85. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    That diagnosis has a quick death rate. A friend not even 70 died of that after only a couple months.

  86. @CTD
    Going against the letter of the Constitution seems like a horrible idea to me. Once you let go of that, Roberts's "actually it's a tax" move on the ACA will seem like nothing.

    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction - that's why we can (occasionally) deport them.

    Replies: @Flip, @The Alarmist, @Anonymous

    “Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them.”

    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @D. K.
    @The Alarmist

    So, you think that the fact that illegal aliens are entitled, in a limited regard, to a lesser level of due process, as a matter of law-- thus making their deportation by the federal government both easier and quicker than it otherwise might be-- demonstrates that our government does NOT have jurisdiction, to begin with, over those selfsame aliens who are present illegally in the United States?!? Sigh....

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    , @anon
    @The Alarmist

    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Is an invading army subject to the jurisdiction? Would its offspring be U.S. citizens?

    , @eddy wobegon
    @The Alarmist

    Kudos to you for finding the following resource which really fleshes out the nuances regarding the "subject to the jurisdiction" aspect which distinguishes the 14th Amendment from common law citizenship.

    It is indispensable reading:

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

  87. OT MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONFESSES: Greedheads and slaves are gutting our standard of living. Not V-Dare but USA Today.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/10/30/jobs-62-percent-fall-short-middle-class-standard-us/1809629002/
    http://archive.is/R0GIb

    Sixty-two percent of jobs fall short of that middle-class standard when factoring in both wages and the cost of living in the metro area where the job is located, according to the study by Third Way, a think tank that advocates center-left ideas.

    Some areas, such as Myrtle Beach, fall short because of a scarcity of good-paying jobs. Among the biggest cities, Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco were ranked fairly low (172nd, 168th and 174th, respectively) despite thriving economies because of their high cost of living.

    A big reason for the dearth of middle-class jobs is the offshoring of millions of middle-income factory positions to countries with lower labor costs, such as China, in recent decades and the spread of lower-paying service jobs.

  88. The two migrant caravans have both proven violent — one shot at its federale escort with a pistol, one threw Molotovs. This is at Breitbart. But CBC radio 1 has a Lee Child interview and NPR has “the latest from Pittsburgh.”

  89. @Daniel Chieh
    Birthright citizenship is obviously ridiculous; it cheapens the value of citizenship. I'd like it gone. Its purpose to give citizenship for the children of slaves is long over.

    Replies: @L Woods

    it cheapens the value of citizenship.

    That’s the point.

  90. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    Democrats could “adopt” the most popular Republican positions on immigration. Like Clinton pushed Welfare reform. Republicans were enraged by this.

    The problem is that a lot of people oppose immigration but make an exception for Red State, rural agricultural workers. Large businesses frequently have pricing power and can simply pass on higher costs. They don’t care so much about the impact on wages, even if they like any increase in GDP, which increases demand for consumer staples, regardless of negative externalities.

    I would vote for any party that scales back our military and reduces immigration. Just saying. This is actually closer to popular sentiments of the fringe party rather than the stupid party.

    • Replies: @Altai
    @anon

    That's what real victory in a democracy looks like. You change the overton window so no matter who wins, your policy prevails.

  91. @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    Why don't you like Brennan ?
    He hates Jews/Israel and loves Iran/Muslims.
    He's just like you , only more so.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Neocons, Ikhwan, Nazis, and traditionalists are all the same group.

    Wow. Much incisive, so research. Psychiatry (psychiatry). Wow.

    https://postimg.cc/mt8YDKCm

  92. @Lordy
    I keep saying, but nobody listens:

    Require landlords to use e-verify for citizens and legal alien status. This would immediately hamper illegal aliens alone, and with anchor babies, which would encourage them to self-deport immediately. It’s an obstruction that would keep on giving, and would also make forced mandated "affordable housing" and HUD grants less urgent, and settle out the rising rents in Los Angeles, as it would open up hundreds of thousands of rentals within a year.

    I’m acquainted with one landlord in the Los Angeles area who owns over 10 different properties, last I checked, NEVER advertises when one of his many rentals becomes available. He rents it to illegal immigrants almost exclusively, and when a unit opens up, he alerts all his tenants, and they bring him armloads of illegal alien applicants.

    He prefers illegals because they do their own repairs and yard work for free, so he doesn’t have to deal with any of his many properties most of the time except to go to his mailbox to get his rental checks. They also NEVER take him to court over ANYthing, unlike a legal tenant might.

    He has his operation running like a well-oiled machine, and there are MANY just like him in the Los Angeles area. I’ve spoke with him a few times, as I own a property near him, and he is a complete piece of shit. If he laid down and died, it would be a boon for humanity. He doesn’t care a whit about the Mexicans he exploits, or the community he owns properties in which his properties degrades. The world would be right if he’d just die, sitting up on his likely expensive toilet.

    He’s well-to-do, but human garbage just the same. I regard him as I would a swarm of pestilence, even though that’s an insult to virulent locusts.

    E-Verify would screw him up.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @bomag

    My guess is he’s an immigrant himself. I had an Indian boss who owned a property that he only rented to Indian immigrants, who returned all favors to him. Another Chinese guy did the same thing: only Chinese immigrant renters who wouldn’t mess with him. They were very open about this behavior that was totally tribal. They made it sound as though these new immigrants were legal, though.

    • Replies: @Lordy
    @stillCARealist


    My guess is he’s an immigrant himself. I had an Indian boss who owned a property that he only rented to Indian immigrants, who returned all favors to him. Another Chinese guy did the same thing: only Chinese immigrant renters who wouldn’t mess with him. They were very open about this behavior that was totally tribal. They made it sound as though these new immigrants were legal, though.
     
    Nope. He’s a bald, middle-aged mean little Irish American.
  93. Frankly I don’t think the authors of the 14th Amendment, if allowed to peer into the future at our current predicament, would agree with the idea that their amendment was meant to give citizenship to the child of any random woman who happens to be on American soil when she gives birth. They could not have imagined the ease with which travel now occurs, and the degree to which people are drawn to this counrry, temporarily (for travel or schooling) or permanently. Tens of millions of foreigners come to the US temporarily every single year.

    The whole leftist argument about a “living Constitution” is based in the reality that our government needs to adapt to major changes in technology and culture. One can argue the particulars, but between that and that interesting little “subject to the jurisdiction” clause gives the government plenty of room to say that it makes no sense whatsoever to grant citizenship to the children of people who aren’t citizens or legal residents.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @Wilkey

    " They could not have imagined the ease with which travel now occurs, and the degree to which people are drawn to this country, temporarily (for travel or schooling) or permanently. "


    Just a cursory look at the history of immigration legislation suggests that you are incorrect here.

    Before we were the US, here's a glimpse of what they considered as to immigration.


    A snippet,

    A Study of the Regulation of Immigration by the English Colonies in America, 1900


    1637 - Massachusetts Requires Permission to Host Aliens

    In May of 1637, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered that no town or person in the colony should receive or host any alien without permission from the authorities. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, defended the 1637 court order as follows:

    "...If we heere be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath a right to come into us without our consent... If we are bound to keep off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us."

    https://immigration.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000023
    https://archive.org/stream/colonialimmigrat00proprich/colonialimmigrat00proprich_djvu.txt

    A look at the actual research indicates they knew all too well about the potentials here and for a time encouraged it. If they could looked at the flow today, they would dismayed that not more prohibitions be in place - based on that very same ease. No colony, no state intended, the country's founders had any intention of making immigration a "free for all." \

    Anything but, and understanding that then -- helps understand why we engage it today -- the potential ruin.

    The chief executive does not need an executive order to enforce the laws on immigration.

  94. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    Ken Livingstone – the Marxist leader of the former GLC, (Greater London Council), really raised the ire of Mrs Thatcher by inviting the Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA leadership to County Hall, the GLC headquarters for pointless, useless, stunt ‘talks’.

    The IRA had murdered Thatcher’s close friends and allies Airey Neave and Ross McWhirter – the Guinness Book of Records twin, not to mention Lord Louis Mountbatten.

    Bullshit Blair kept all the anti-socialist bits of Thatcherism, but in true Economist style ripped up the bits that *really* mattered, the REAL Conservatism, namely the anti-immigrationism.

  95. @J.Ross
    OT The mainstream media attempts to comprehend the Sailer strategy. I predict orange alert imminent for Greer or Prabhu.

    As you’ve probably noticed, bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days.
    You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.
    It’s become often enough that it is seemingly now normal to just casually attack [I apologize for this sentence].
    What is happening is that everyone’s id is now not just out in the open, it has gone berserk.
    I do not want to be a party to the bashing of Caucasian men [see what Prabhu did there?].
    But the need of the hour is not crude attacks or divisive rhetoric; it’s skillful, statesmanlike management of huge demographic changes, and the emotions they unleash.
    Today’s Democratic Party is predicated on having and expressing open hostility toward white citizens. They are making the dangerous bet that most minorities and immigrants will jump on the white-male-bashing bandwagon.
    Not to mention, the guns are all on the other side, but I'm just kidding [no really they are, come at us son].
    Today’s social justice warriors would do better to work toward more social and economic justice without exacerbating dangerous racial divisions, and fomenting violence.

     

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/

    http://archive.is/4mnzM

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    The “Sailer Strategy” as understood by me just means that it is better to get a few more percent of the White vote than the non-White vote because the White vote as a bloc is bigger.

    Sailer also talked about some college football conference out there in the Midwest or something.

    Since I’m innumerate, I ain’t going for that. I understand it, but I ain’t going JUST for that. I gots to add an ethnic component to it.

    The GERMAN STRATEGY is what I push.

    Trump used the GERMAN STRATEGY to win the White House.

    The GERMAN STRATEGY is to win the votes of German Americans in the Great Lakes states in combination with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Southern states. Trumpy put the cherry on top of the GERMAN STRATEGY by winning Florida with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Northern portion of Florida in combination with the votes of the snowbirds from the Great Lakes states and the Northeast.

  96. The vast majority of countries in the world – including most or even all European countries (the ones which leftists like to tell us we need to emulate) – do not have birthright citizenship. Somehow I’m guessing that the left is suddenly going to start talking about American exceptionalism rather than pointing to Europe when the debate begins.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Wilkey

    Infantration(infant-infiltration) is wrong.

  97. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @jon
    @Mookie


    It’s not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies.
     
    If Dems come out in opposition to anchor babies, then we can push for actual legislation. If they won't agree to that, then it's still a good campaign issue (and if they go along with it, then that's the whole point). There's really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    The initial election of Trump caused a deterrent effect on illegal border crossings. The same occurred when Arizona passed a law for additional enforcement in 2010.

    Foreign press follows US politics, but they don’t often have a good understanding of it. Legislatures are much less powerful in Latin America (legacy of Bolivar), so there is an impression that the US president can be as authoritarian in domestic policy as they are in foreign policy.

    Will these declarations by Trump carry a deterrent, or are we running into the law of diminishing returns. We are stuck right now with a Congress determined to either wait out of impeach the President, and then pass an amnesty bill. Should the GOP somehow retain the House (I’m guessing a 40 seat loss), then some restrictions might be passed next year.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon


    Foreign press follows US politics, but they don’t often have a good understanding of it.

     

    This is so true. A few weeks ago BBC radio had a halfway decent piece on the 2008 debacle by an economics professor who ner the end confidently asserted that the Tea Party elected Trump. And there's the exasperation at our bitter clinging to the Constitution, and those with different electoral systems complaining about flyover country holding back the gobalist vision.
  98. OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a ‘historic’ sexual assault problem

    Lengthy article with horrific tales:

    https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/10/30/jamaica-resorts-tripadvisor-sexual-assault/1520587002/

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @Ripple Earthdevil

    @98 Ripple Earthdevil: "OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a ‘historic’ sexual assault problem"

    Jamaica has been a dangerous shithole for decades. The all-inclusive resorts give clueless tourists a false image of the country and a false sense of security. Plus, American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually 'liberated' and open to interracial sex). If I had a couple of bucks for every blonde who came to the embassy for a fiance visa for her dreadlocked fiance whose acquaintance she'd made a week ago . . .

    Sorry, but regarding ignorant tourists partying in the Caribbean - particularly non-White tourists from Michigan - ZFG. Natural culling long overdue.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @YetAnotherAnon

    , @CrunchybutRealistCon
    @Ripple Earthdevil

    Yeah, the topic of Jamaica's association with criminality came up in a tangential thread earlier this month. It astonishes me that people are so bloody naive when in tourist mode in the Caribbean. The veneer of civilization is razor thin in these places where it exists at all. Jamaica, the Bahamas, St Lucia, even more obscure parts of the Windward Islands....danger lurks. One wonders if gullible tourists have had one too many viewings of Tom Cruise's "Cocktail" flic and left their brains back home.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous, @Corvinus

  99. @Anon
    @D. K.

    Congress has the power to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We can simply bar the SCOTUS from making any rulings on immigration, as was done by the Radicals with regard to the Reconstruction Bills.

    If the voters don't like it, a new Congress and President can be elected to repeal the law.

    Replies: @D. K.

    So, you think that the current Republican-majority Congress could manage to put a bill on the president’s desk that would, if signed into law by the president, strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction on the singular subject of immigration, but that the same Republican-majority Congress could not manage to put a bill on the president’s desk that would, if signed into law by the president, limit birthright citizenship to exclude the American-born children of illegal aliens (or an even broader category of aliens)?!? I find that legislative juxtaposition highly implausible….

    • Replies: @Space Ghost
    @D. K.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

    Replies: @D. K.

  100. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy.

    The story of the establishment of the English parliament by de Montfort, of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the ‘Glorious Revolution’ etc is really the story of the usurpation of supreme power from the King and to parliament.

    As often said, the UK has no written constitution, and thus its system of governance is always evolving and adapting. Stripping the House of Lords of hereditary peers was only a recent development.’Brexit’ – if it happens, that is, giving supremacy back to Westminster, was a ‘spur of the moment’ thing.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Anonymous


    "England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy."
     
    Nonsense. English kings always sat in some form of parliament with the most powerful nobles of the land, otherwise they never would find the money or troops to carry out their wishes. The closest they got to absolute was William the Conqueror, and even he operated essentially as a capo di tutti capi.
    , @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    I don't think English common law tradition was an ad hoc epileptic fit, and the idea that a king is not an emperor seems to go back quite a ways. I see English legal tradition being pretty consistent for centuries and then succumbing very recently to an international mania with clear representation elsewhere. Not only at one time but for generations, the idea of disarmed and gun-fearing Englishmen would have been laughable.
    Brexit, far from a head fake, is better characterized as a lurch back to very well-established ideas. It is a mistake to think it came out of nowhere.

  101. @Wilkey
    The vast majority of countries in the world - including most or even all European countries (the ones which leftists like to tell us we need to emulate) - do not have birthright citizenship. Somehow I'm guessing that the left is suddenly going to start talking about American exceptionalism rather than pointing to Europe when the debate begins.

    Replies: @Anon

    Infantration(infant-infiltration) is wrong.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  102. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    “If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me”

    But overturning 10,000 years of legal precedent to require gay marriage? No big deal.

    Why is it invalid to interpret the 14th A. as not requiring birthright citizenship? How many new rights are constantly being discovered in it that weren’t noticed when it was ratified 150 years ago? Shouldn’t those have been noticed at the time, too?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  103. What was the law or tradition before the 14th amendment was ratified?

  104. @D. K.
    @Lot

    No, it is up to the courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, to interpret what the actual language of the 14th Amendment actually means, as a matter of constitutional law. In interpreting its language, the Supreme Court would resort to considering legislative intent only if the Court first found that that language itself is legally ambiguous. As an erstwhile attorney who formally studied Constitutional Law, in my ill-spent youth, and who had majored in both English and History as an undergraduate, before that, it is my considered opinion that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, would consider the clause at issue to be legally unambiguous. If so, an amendment would be needed to limit birthright citizenship beyond its current interpretation. (N.B.: Indians were excluded, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, because they were considered members of their respective tribes, which were recognized as sovereign nations that existed within the sovereign borders of the United States; that exception changed when the Congress explicitly granted American citizenship to American-born Indians.) Even if the Supreme Court did not hold as I expect that it would, I find it exceedingly likely that it would declare any such presidential executive order to be powerless to change a person's citizenship status, vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment's own language, and thus null and void on its face.

    Replies: @Anon, @Lot

    The Court will state what the 14th requires. The President will use his authority to implement the laws subject to that restriction. And the restriction unlikely covers illegal aliens.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Lot

    If President Trump issues such an executive order, it will be enjoined faster than the first travel-ban order was-- and that was patently constitutional, and also explicitly authorized by an act of Congress! So, yes, the Supreme Court of the United States would decide the legality of such an executive order, before it ever actually was applied to any anchor baby by the federal Executive Branch-- which is the only portion of the national government to which such an executive order would apply, even facially.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  105. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    That seems rather unlikely. Pancreatic cancer, in every case that I’ve known, is basically a death sentence. If Ginsburg had it at her age it would probably already be affecting her work. Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.

    • Replies: @Tulip
    @Wilkey

    RBG was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009:

    https://www.pancan.org/news/two-great-women-two-great-movies/

    She survived.

    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.
     
    1. What, the pro-abortion people will turn their megaphones up to 11? The demonstrators will go from hysterical to ultra-hysterical? Anyone who is going to vote on this issue is already voting Dem. I think the Dems gave it all they got and it looks like they are going to fall short on the Senate.

    2. RBG is a private person. She clearly has all sorts of ailments that she has not spoken publicly about but which affect things like her ability to keep her head up. She had ample opportunity to retire during the Obama administration and allow Obama to appoint another Wise Latina to replace her but she didn't. It seems pretty clear to me that she intends to die in the saddle so we are not going to learn about her final illness until it is really final - either when she is dead or checks into the hospital for the last time.

    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

  106. I think that it should be possible to deal with birth tourism by legislation. But that pre-supposes a competent and effective legislature. For example, visas could be restricted to individuals who are not pregnant and visas could become invalid upon pregnancy. But again, that would require a competent and effective immigration enforcement system.

    I’m kinda fuzzy and weak on the blood part, but pretty strong on the soil aspect.

  107. The issue is not the 14th Amendment, its what the 14th Amendment doesn’t say:

    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.

    There is no Supreme Court case holding that an person illegally in the United States who has a child = child born in the United States & subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Its an open question of law, despite posturing of many. [Perhaps it “should be” the law, but on what rational public policy grounds? Or should we quote Emma Lazarus and hum.]

    If the 14th Amendment applies, then Trump would lack the power to amend the Constitution. But that would have to be decided by the Supreme Court. But if the 14th Amendment does not apply, then there is no reason he can’t issue an Executive Order, and that would get the Constitutional question rolling.

    There is no better time to strike than now with Kavanaugh on the Court.

  108. @Wilkey
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    That seems rather unlikely. Pancreatic cancer, in every case that I've known, is basically a death sentence. If Ginsburg had it at her age it would probably already be affecting her work. Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.

    Replies: @Tulip, @Jack D

    RBG was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009:

    https://www.pancan.org/news/two-great-women-two-great-movies/

    She survived.

  109. @MJMD
    @istevefan

    He hasn't signed it, it will take at least a year for it to wind its way to SCOTUS after he does (by which time, hopefully, America will have one more Trump appointee), and he might not have the chance to sign it 2 years from now. This is the window.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    He should sign it ASAP so that an injunction by a low-level Federal judge can be used to get out the vote.

  110. A variation on an old theme: The President proposes but in this case it’s the judiciary who disposes. It would not surprise if this went to the SCOTUS. Oh, that whole birthright thing is a scam all right. The argument will be made that the amendment was never intended to apply to the offspring of illegal immigrants. The problem, however, is that the Article One of the 14th Amendment makes no exceptions. And if the conservative justices on the SCOTUS (now a majority) rule in favor of Trump, then they will stand accused of unilaterally changing the Constitution and of violating their most cherished principle–the Doctrine of Original Intent.

    Ultimately the decision might have come from the grass roots level in the form of a proposal to amend the 14th Amendment –a long and arduous process which will be fought tooth and nail by the proponents of unbridled immigration– but probably the only fair way to resolve this issue one way or the other. Frankly, I wish this issue could be subject to a national referendum an screw the three branches! Unfortunately that probably wouldn’t fly either, so we might have to make do with amending the Constitution itself.

  111. i think the right of national self-determination includes the right to maintain a super majority (c. 80%+) of the population including at the school level.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  112. Paul Ryan hates the idea, which is all I need to know that it’s a great proposal.

  113. @Wilkey
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    That seems rather unlikely. Pancreatic cancer, in every case that I've known, is basically a death sentence. If Ginsburg had it at her age it would probably already be affecting her work. Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.

    Replies: @Tulip, @Jack D

    Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.

    1. What, the pro-abortion people will turn their megaphones up to 11? The demonstrators will go from hysterical to ultra-hysterical? Anyone who is going to vote on this issue is already voting Dem. I think the Dems gave it all they got and it looks like they are going to fall short on the Senate.

    2. RBG is a private person. She clearly has all sorts of ailments that she has not spoken publicly about but which affect things like her ability to keep her head up. She had ample opportunity to retire during the Obama administration and allow Obama to appoint another Wise Latina to replace her but she didn’t. It seems pretty clear to me that she intends to die in the saddle so we are not going to learn about her final illness until it is really final – either when she is dead or checks into the hospital for the last time.

    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D

    Speaking of pancreatic cancer, director John Milius has had this for years. How well is he doing today?

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).
     
    On the other hand, Todd Bol, the creator of the Little Free Library movement, was diagnosed with it early this month, and was dead by the 18th.
  114. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Slit your wrists already.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @The preferred nomenclature is...

    Well that was helpful.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  115. @D. K.
    @Anon

    So, you think that the current Republican-majority Congress could manage to put a bill on the president's desk that would, if signed into law by the president, strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction on the singular subject of immigration, but that the same Republican-majority Congress could not manage to put a bill on the president's desk that would, if signed into law by the president, limit birthright citizenship to exclude the American-born children of illegal aliens (or an even broader category of aliens)?!? I find that legislative juxtaposition highly implausible....

    Replies: @Space Ghost

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    What is your point? I was not arguing that Congress could not do so; I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship. Regardless, do you really want the federal courts to be barred from ruling on any immigration issues? Is that what you will want if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, come early January? Is it what you will want if another Democratic-majority Congress is seated in January 2021, a couple of weeks before a Democratic president is inaugurated to replace Donald Trump?

    Replies: @Space Ghost, @Mr. Rational

  116. @Maciano
    Best. American. President. Ever.

    What a leader. Inspiring.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Lucas McCrudy, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    “Best. American. President. Ever.
    What a leader. Inspiring.”

    Only if he actually goes through with this Executive Order…

  117. @Mr. Rational

    What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?
     
    Such a shame that Reagan didn't think to do this.

    Or Nixon.  Would likely have been very popular even then, might have saved his skin.

    Replies: @Bragadocious

    The great “Dutch” Reagan was a cuck on immigration. The Irish amnesty lobby got their hooks into him during his 1984 visit to some shitty pub in Ballydumbfookery and convinced him that amnesty was the way to go, because he owed his cousins in Ireland. Reagan complied.

  118. @istevefan
    I've always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn't buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn't signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    Replies: @MJMD, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @notanon, @anon, @Chrisnonymous

    “I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare.”

    He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts’s personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration — he’s an utterly compromised puppet.

    The EO is a great idea because it forces the Supreme Court to reassess the notion that foreigner invaders can secure US residency for themselves and welfare benefits for their children by hopping the border and plopping out a newborn.

    Put and end to hopping and plopping!

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    "He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts’s personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration — he’s an utterly compromised puppet."

    LOL, you mean the shoe is on the other foot.

    , @Eagle Eye
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen


    Trump is privy to all Roberts’s personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration — he’s an utterly compromised puppet.
     
    Agree - John Roberts' behavior has the telltale marks of a compromised agent who is scared of being exposed. Trump always seems to have excellent sources of information - obviously crucial for a high-profile developer.

    QUESTION: What is the nature of the "dirt" that he is afraid of having exposed? Being a homosexual, and having resorted to a few procedural shortcuts in adopting his two children hardly seems like the kind of stuff that would keep a man in nightsweats nowadays. To explain his behavior, Roberts' dirt must be of a much more serious nature.

    BTW what's with Roberts' role in the "Knights of Malta" - a secretive organization of elite Catholics? Since when is this kind of activism acceptable in a U.S. Supreme Court justice? And why is there not a single protestant justice in a majority-protestant country?

    The collapse of PROTESTANTISM in West in the second half of the 20th century and its manifold after-effects is the most under-analyzed story of our times. Much of the collapse of formerly functioning institutions is due to the withdrawal of the underlying foundation of Protestantism.

  119. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, …”

    This means people who are/were LEGALLY here, but not citizens, such as former slaves. They were subjects of the United States, but not citizens.

    • Replies: @Fredrik
    @Cloudswrest

    Isn't the whole argument here that currently it does include illegals?

    Not my decision to make but to give the children of illegals citizenship is absurd.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @Cloudswrest

    That does include just being here legally.

    I think the most accurate rendering of the 14th Amendment has been by Miss Ann Coulter and Sen Paul followed suit in the debates.

  120. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    To paraphrase Stalin, “How many divisions does the SCOTUS have?” It is a co-equal branch that relies on the other two to quake in their boots when it makes its solemn pronouncements. If the Executive and Congress were aligned in their interests, activist courts would be returned in short order to judging rather than legislating.

  121. @D. K.
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Dual citizens, like my priestly brother down in El Salvador, are subject to the jurisdiction of multiple countries. Green-card holders in this country are subject to American jurisdiction, despite their being subject to the jurisdictions of their respective countries of citizenship, as well. Furthermore, under the language of the 14th Amendment, it is the subjectivity of the anchor babies themselves that is at issue, not whether their illegal-alien parents are subject to American jurisdiction-- which, of course, they are! Children of diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity; anchor babies of illegal aliens may be treated by the American government, at whatever level, as any other babies born in America may be treated. In what sense are illegal aliens who are present in the United States not subject to American jurisdiction themselves? Even illegal-alien young men are required to register with Selective Service!

    Replies: @Lucas McCrudy

    Then explain why it took an act of Congress in the 1920s to give Native Americans citizenship; even if they happened to birth their babies outside of the respective tribal “nations” (i.e. Reservations) that wasn’t enough to automatically confer US citizenship.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Lucas McCrudy

    Even before the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law, in 1924, many American Indians already had been recognized by the American government as citizens of the United States:

    ***

    Native Americans and U.S. Citizenship[edit]

    In 1817, the Cherokee became the first Native Americans recognized as U.S. citizens. Under Article 8 of the 1817 Cherokee treaty, "Upwards of 300 Cherokees (Heads of Families) in the honest simplicity of their souls, made an election to become American citizens".[17][101]

    Factors establishing citizenship included:

    Treaty provision (as with the Cherokee)
    Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887
    Issuance of Patent in Fee simple
    Adopting Habits of Civilized Life
    Minor Children
    Citizenship by Birth
    Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
    Marriage to a U.S. citizen
    Special Act of Congress.

    After the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States".[102]

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#19th_century

    ***

    Under Article One of the United States Constitution, "Indians not taxed" were not counted in assessing the population of a state for purposes of apportionment. Some Native people could become citizens. The Dred Scott decision acknowledged that[1] but linked it to naturalization:

    They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.[2]

    In 1868, under the 14th Amendment, all persons

    born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were declared citizens. However, the jurisdiction requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary committee further clarified the matter: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States.[1]

    About eight percent of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship due to being "taxed."[1] Others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites or accepting land allotments,[3] such as those granted under the Dawes Act.[1] The exclusion of Native people from US citizenship was further established by Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."[4]

    The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put the numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million. The indigenous people who were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means; entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life were some ways that was done.[5]:121 Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship. The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person, however, and it was not until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all born on U.S. soil were citizens.[6]:16[7]:29

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act#History_and_background

    Replies: @Lucas McCrudy

  122. @Lot
    @D. K.

    The Court will state what the 14th requires. The President will use his authority to implement the laws subject to that restriction. And the restriction unlikely covers illegal aliens.

    Replies: @D. K.

    If President Trump issues such an executive order, it will be enjoined faster than the first travel-ban order was– and that was patently constitutional, and also explicitly authorized by an act of Congress! So, yes, the Supreme Court of the United States would decide the legality of such an executive order, before it ever actually was applied to any anchor baby by the federal Executive Branch– which is the only portion of the national government to which such an executive order would apply, even facially.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    Maybe that's the plan.

  123. @istevefan
    I've always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn't buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn't signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    Replies: @MJMD, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @notanon, @anon, @Chrisnonymous

    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.

    if it was only intended to be for former slaves then it would be a good idea to repeal it

    (although that doesn’t mean wait – do the EO as soon as possible and then maybe work on repeal if it’s viable)

  124. @Sam Haysom
    @AnonAnon

    If you consider it in terms of coalition Krazy Glue it also works for trump because blacks are rightfully protective of their place in the victim hierarchy and the 14th amendment was so clearly meant by its framers as protection for slaves that throwing this whole issue out there means the left yet again is going to be co-opting African American pain for the service of Hispanics.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...

    And rich Chinamen. Not that that is the preferred nomenclature dude.

  125. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    He is indeed two generations too late, which is why I won’t be happy until he promises to make his law retro-active … like 100 years retro-active.

  126. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    Hurry, buy your popcorn now,it’s going to be a dousy.

  127. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy.

    The story of the establishment of the English parliament by de Montfort, of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the 'Glorious Revolution' etc is really the story of the usurpation of supreme power from the King and to parliament.

    As often said, the UK has no written constitution, and thus its system of governance is always evolving and adapting. Stripping the House of Lords of hereditary peers was only a recent development.'Brexit' - if it happens, that is, giving supremacy back to Westminster, was a 'spur of the moment' thing.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @J.Ross

    “England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy.”

    Nonsense. English kings always sat in some form of parliament with the most powerful nobles of the land, otherwise they never would find the money or troops to carry out their wishes. The closest they got to absolute was William the Conqueror, and even he operated essentially as a capo di tutti capi.

  128. Now we see the value of the “long march through the institutions:” NPR points to an unbroken consensus of all the scholars, to the effect that George Washington’s ghost personally guards anchor babyism. Queen Ann knows better but they’re not going to mention her. The closest they come to acknowledging another side is to say that there is a subcultural position that asks us to believe that legal authorities have been getting it wrong for a hundred and thirty-odd years — notice, they derive a nonsense number from the act itself, going through periods of far greater restriction, to a time when it was not expected that this law applied to immigrants. None of this self-congratuatory Colbertism works outside an echo chamber. They have learned nothing from 2016 and are just getting more strident.

  129. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    What’s 130 years of precedent against Decius Mus?

  130. @D. K.
    @Lot

    If President Trump issues such an executive order, it will be enjoined faster than the first travel-ban order was-- and that was patently constitutional, and also explicitly authorized by an act of Congress! So, yes, the Supreme Court of the United States would decide the legality of such an executive order, before it ever actually was applied to any anchor baby by the federal Executive Branch-- which is the only portion of the national government to which such an executive order would apply, even facially.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Maybe that’s the plan.

  131. @anon
    Democrats could "adopt" the most popular Republican positions on immigration. Like Clinton pushed Welfare reform. Republicans were enraged by this.

    The problem is that a lot of people oppose immigration but make an exception for Red State, rural agricultural workers. Large businesses frequently have pricing power and can simply pass on higher costs. They don't care so much about the impact on wages, even if they like any increase in GDP, which increases demand for consumer staples, regardless of negative externalities.

    I would vote for any party that scales back our military and reduces immigration. Just saying. This is actually closer to popular sentiments of the fringe party rather than the stupid party.

    Replies: @Altai

    That’s what real victory in a democracy looks like. You change the overton window so no matter who wins, your policy prevails.

  132. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    No. Historically there have been three categories of people who are understood to owe allegiance to other nations, and hence subject to foreign jurisdiction, even if they are born in US territory: children of diplomats, children of foreign soldiers, and children of Native Americans before they became citizens.

    There’s no reason why Congress can’t decide that children of illegal immigrants should be understood to owe allegiance to their parents’ country, just as with the examples above.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

  133. @The Alarmist
    @CTD


    "Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them."
     
    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Replies: @D. K., @anon, @eddy wobegon

    So, you think that the fact that illegal aliens are entitled, in a limited regard, to a lesser level of due process, as a matter of law– thus making their deportation by the federal government both easier and quicker than it otherwise might be– demonstrates that our government does NOT have jurisdiction, to begin with, over those selfsame aliens who are present illegally in the United States?!? Sigh….

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @D. K.

    You have a mistaken interpretation of jurisdiction. See this for a good explanation:

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

  134. The more I think about this, the sillier it seems that we are actually debating whether such an executive order would be “constitutional.”

    It seems t me that the elites want to play a game of technicalities. They have imported a new voter base against the express wishes of the people. That is certainly breach of the social contract all by itself. Is it technically a violation of the letter of the Constitution? I don’t know if it is or not, but I do know that the people cannot defeat the elites in what amounts little more than battle of wits. They will always b able to out-pilpul the little people.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Rosie

    I don't see how they can defend the open-endedness of it. Everywhere else in law there is this idea of clear demarcation of scope, obviating future confusion by spelling out who this applies to and at what time, and here with a totally reasonable bit of modern logistics, literally every human on the planet could be claiming welfare. It's something that wouldn't be accepted if it were new now just because of scope.

  135. @Wilkey
    Frankly I don't think the authors of the 14th Amendment, if allowed to peer into the future at our current predicament, would agree with the idea that their amendment was meant to give citizenship to the child of any random woman who happens to be on American soil when she gives birth. They could not have imagined the ease with which travel now occurs, and the degree to which people are drawn to this counrry, temporarily (for travel or schooling) or permanently. Tens of millions of foreigners come to the US temporarily every single year.

    The whole leftist argument about a "living Constitution" is based in the reality that our government needs to adapt to major changes in technology and culture. One can argue the particulars, but between that and that interesting little "subject to the jurisdiction" clause gives the government plenty of room to say that it makes no sense whatsoever to grant citizenship to the children of people who aren't citizens or legal residents.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    ” They could not have imagined the ease with which travel now occurs, and the degree to which people are drawn to this country, temporarily (for travel or schooling) or permanently. ”

    Just a cursory look at the history of immigration legislation suggests that you are incorrect here.

    Before we were the US, here’s a glimpse of what they considered as to immigration.

    A snippet,

    A Study of the Regulation of Immigration by the English Colonies in America, 1900

    1637 – Massachusetts Requires Permission to Host Aliens

    In May of 1637, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered that no town or person in the colony should receive or host any alien without permission from the authorities. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, defended the 1637 court order as follows:

    “…If we heere be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath a right to come into us without our consent… If we are bound to keep off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us.”

    https://immigration.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000023
    https://archive.org/stream/colonialimmigrat00proprich/colonialimmigrat00proprich_djvu.txt

    A look at the actual research indicates they knew all too well about the potentials here and for a time encouraged it. If they could looked at the flow today, they would dismayed that not more prohibitions be in place – based on that very same ease. No colony, no state intended, the country’s founders had any intention of making immigration a “free for all.” \

    Anything but, and understanding that then — helps understand why we engage it today — the potential ruin.

    The chief executive does not need an executive order to enforce the laws on immigration.

  136. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    yes – one (accidental) way to have a free country despite an all-powerful state is if that state is always off fighting a war somewhere else.

  137. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Is it your belief that the Democrats can defend this, at the Supreme Court or in a drawn out campaign, without unintentionally redpilling massive numbers of white normies?

  138. @Ripple Earthdevil
    OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a 'historic' sexual assault problem

    Lengthy article with horrific tales:

    https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/10/30/jamaica-resorts-tripadvisor-sexual-assault/1520587002/

    Replies: @3g4me, @CrunchybutRealistCon

    @98 Ripple Earthdevil: “OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a ‘historic’ sexual assault problem”

    Jamaica has been a dangerous shithole for decades. The all-inclusive resorts give clueless tourists a false image of the country and a false sense of security. Plus, American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually ‘liberated’ and open to interracial sex). If I had a couple of bucks for every blonde who came to the embassy for a fiance visa for her dreadlocked fiance whose acquaintance she’d made a week ago . . .

    Sorry, but regarding ignorant tourists partying in the Caribbean – particularly non-White tourists from Michigan – ZFG. Natural culling long overdue.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @3g4me

    "In Search of the Big Bamboo" was an article published in the leftist Utne Reader in or around the turn of the millennium. It was very famous and now is accessible only behind paywalls on line, but any public library ought to get you a reprint for free or inexpensively.

    https://mafiadoc.com/in-search-of-the-big-bamboopdf-bahamateach_59d808271723ddb0f71c0e47.html

    It concerned the propensity of usually older female tourists, often white but occasionally black or oriental, to go to island areas where the men were purportedly particularly bejingled-Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, et al-for a dusky right round rogering, and a few mistakenly trying to bring their pet donkeykongs back home.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @3g4me

    "American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually ‘liberated’ and open to interracial sex)"

    Yes, but some of these women will have been raised in whitopias where all the minorities they see are really nice people on TV (in the UK the cookery shows, mostly watched by women, are heavily diverse). Plus they've been taught that racism is the greatest sin so they want to be polite, even friendly.

    Unless they have parents who give them "The Talk", how can they learn the facts of life without doing so the hard way?

  139. @Cloudswrest
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ..."

    This means people who are/were LEGALLY here, but not citizens, such as former slaves. They were subjects of the United States, but not citizens.

    Replies: @Fredrik, @EliteCommInc.

    Isn’t the whole argument here that currently it does include illegals?

    Not my decision to make but to give the children of illegals citizenship is absurd.

  140. @Cloudswrest
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ..."

    This means people who are/were LEGALLY here, but not citizens, such as former slaves. They were subjects of the United States, but not citizens.

    Replies: @Fredrik, @EliteCommInc.

    That does include just being here legally.

    I think the most accurate rendering of the 14th Amendment has been by Miss Ann Coulter and Sen Paul followed suit in the debates.

  141. @Detective Club
    I, for one, can't wait until TINY DUCK submits his legal brief to the US Supreme Court on this weighty matter.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...

    R.U. is gonna do it for him.

  142. @Rosie
    The more I think about this, the sillier it seems that we are actually debating whether such an executive order would be "constitutional."

    It seems t me that the elites want to play a game of technicalities. They have imported a new voter base against the express wishes of the people. That is certainly breach of the social contract all by itself. Is it technically a violation of the letter of the Constitution? I don't know if it is or not, but I do know that the people cannot defeat the elites in what amounts little more than battle of wits. They will always b able to out-pilpul the little people.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    I don’t see how they can defend the open-endedness of it. Everywhere else in law there is this idea of clear demarcation of scope, obviating future confusion by spelling out who this applies to and at what time, and here with a totally reasonable bit of modern logistics, literally every human on the planet could be claiming welfare. It’s something that wouldn’t be accepted if it were new now just because of scope.

  143. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    Hot off the presses… 9 years ago!

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-ginsburg-has-pancreatic-cancer/

    Your reliable source is reliable, but slow.

    Unless your source means that the cancer has recurred.

    RBG wants to destroy this country. But she has the best intentions and wouldn’t think of it this way, so I don’t wish this on her. If she’d just get sick enough to cause her to resign and then get better. That would be nice.

  144. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @The Z Blog

    Slit your wrists already.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Well that was helpful.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @J.Ross

    LOL. Now you are doing comedy too!

  145. @Anonymous
    Ending b.c. would help the border states. I'm not sure how much social dysfunction results from the birth tourist outfits, though eliminating the moral hazard is always good. However, the U.S. will still be plagued by legal immigration's tractor beam and multiculturalism generally. It's open season for rich Chua-category elites to strip-mine everyone else's country; while aggravating to observe on the evening news and in commuter traffic, the criminal migrant zombie-hordes tend to remain low-class because they start low-class and without the cultural clout of, just to pick a random example, rich/brazen Muslim arrivistes who tone-police all of society and endeavor to destroy any haram way of life, just for spite.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    … the U.S. will still be plagued by legal immigration’s tractor beam… [sorry for ellipses on both ends, but just arguing this point]

    I think it helps with the legal sort too. Did you read what Steve wrote (just now or previously) about the Chinese B.C. business? Let me tell you legally, or illegally (and there are loads too), the Chinese do things in a more organized fashion than our Hispanic newcomers.

    I’ve seen this personally in action, in NYC, where babies are born to Chinese ladies living in some cheap-ass fake hotels (really just some apartment that the landlord in Shanghai may even have no idea about), having come in legally on tourist visas. They know the system, and the illegal and legal means are sometimes very intertwined. Not all of it is just border jumpers.

  146. @D. K.
    @The Alarmist

    So, you think that the fact that illegal aliens are entitled, in a limited regard, to a lesser level of due process, as a matter of law-- thus making their deportation by the federal government both easier and quicker than it otherwise might be-- demonstrates that our government does NOT have jurisdiction, to begin with, over those selfsame aliens who are present illegally in the United States?!? Sigh....

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    You have a mistaken interpretation of jurisdiction. See this for a good explanation:

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

    • Agree: Federalist
  147. @Maciano
    Best. American. President. Ever.

    What a leader. Inspiring.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Lucas McCrudy, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    Like the other two repliers (so far), I’ll believe it when I see it. However, just the bringing up of this idea is something to both get out the vote* and get more Americans in tune with this form of immigration stupidity even more than there are now. Good on President Trump for bringing this up!

    * which, again, doesn’t really mean a hill of beans until things are actually being done, not just jibber-jabbed about.

  148. istevefan says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get.

    In the meantime, President Trump and anyone else in our government who supports the idea should do everything in their power, use every trick in the book if necessary, to stop birthright citizenship.

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator. I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    Full speed ahead. Thousands of troops to the border, and now this. I'm lovin' it like a Big Mac with extra cheese.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Clyde, @Russ, @Colin Wright

    . I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    A couple of things to note about this. First, I am amazed that Lindsey Graham is introducing legislation to ban birthright citizenship. Of course with Senator Grahamnesty I need to wait to make sure he is not selling us out with some massive amnesty in exchange.

    Second, on cue Paul “Cuck” Ryan immediately came out against Trump on birthright citizenship. Thank goodness he is leaving. His exit can’t come quick enough. With Ryan one can’t tell if he really believes the current way the 14th is interpreted, or if he is afraid Trump will rally the base to hold the House.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @istevefan

    It’d be a worthwhile exchange probably. It’d stop the bleeding indefinitely.

  149. @Charles Pewitt
    Ann Coulter is a baby boomer broad from Connecticut with a law degree.

    Listen to Ann Coulter:

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1057249184414228481

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Thank you, Mr. Pewitt. Now, does everyone understand why we need her on the Supreme Court next? She had written a column a few years back (I read it on VDare) about her reasoning explaining how the 14th Amendment DOES NOT provide for birthright citizen. I could not follow it completely, just because I’m no lawyer. Miss Coulter is. Imagine her in a Senate confirmation hearing!! I think most of the D’s would call in sick out of fright.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  150. I think this is great, but I wonder if he can really get five SCOTUS members to agree? Which is clearly what he’s going to have to do. SCOTUS may well wind up determining that Congress has this authority, but that the President can not simply issue an executive order to accomplish it. Which would still be an ENORMOUS victory. But then we’d need to get the Congress to pass a bill…which could be problematic, especially getting it past the Senatorial filibuster.

  151. @Lucas McCrudy
    @D. K.

    Then explain why it took an act of Congress in the 1920s to give Native Americans citizenship; even if they happened to birth their babies outside of the respective tribal "nations" (i.e. Reservations) that wasn't enough to automatically confer US citizenship.

    Replies: @D. K.

    Even before the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law, in 1924, many American Indians already had been recognized by the American government as citizens of the United States:

    ***

    Native Americans and U.S. Citizenship[edit]

    In 1817, the Cherokee became the first Native Americans recognized as U.S. citizens. Under Article 8 of the 1817 Cherokee treaty, “Upwards of 300 Cherokees (Heads of Families) in the honest simplicity of their souls, made an election to become American citizens”.[17][101]

    Factors establishing citizenship included:

    Treaty provision (as with the Cherokee)
    Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887
    Issuance of Patent in Fee simple
    Adopting Habits of Civilized Life
    Minor Children
    Citizenship by Birth
    Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
    Marriage to a U.S. citizen
    Special Act of Congress.

    After the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, “that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.[102]

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#19th_century

    ***

    Under Article One of the United States Constitution, “Indians not taxed” were not counted in assessing the population of a state for purposes of apportionment. Some Native people could become citizens. The Dred Scott decision acknowledged that[1] but linked it to naturalization:

    They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.[2]

    In 1868, under the 14th Amendment, all persons

    born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” were declared citizens. However, the jurisdiction requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary committee further clarified the matter: “the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States.[1]

    About eight percent of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship due to being “taxed.”[1] Others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites or accepting land allotments,[3] such as those granted under the Dawes Act.[1] The exclusion of Native people from US citizenship was further established by Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person “who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.”[4]

    The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put the numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million. The indigenous people who were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means; entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life were some ways that was done.[5]:121 Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship. The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person, however, and it was not until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all born on U.S. soil were citizens.[6]:16[7]:29

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act#History_and_background

    • Replies: @Lucas McCrudy
    @D. K.

    Baloney. Haven't you ever hear of a SCOTUS decision Elk Vs. Wilkins from 1894 (two decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment!) where the justices held that Indians were NOT entitled to citizenship even though they were born within the territory of the US.
    I quote verbatim from that very deciosn: "The evident meaning of these last words ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." THAT IS AN EXACT QUOTE FROM THE SUPREME COURT in its majority opinion denying John Elk US citizenship because he failed the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he "owed immediate allegiance" to a foreign or quasi foreign (his tribe) nation at birth.

  152. @AnonAnon
    I’m not a lawyer but I assume the EO is a path to get the issue before the Supreme Court - a Hawaii judge will shoot down the EO and it’ll be pushed to the SC. However, news is coming out that Lindsey Graham wants to introduce legislation to abolish birthright citizenship so I’m afraid it’ll get tied to an amnesty. All in all, it’s a good bombshell to drop and it gets the topic before the nation. It also gets Pittsburgh out of the news cycle and fires up the base, though I believe the majority of Americans are against anchor babies anyway.

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Achmed E. Newman, @GeologyAnon

    I believe the majority of Americans are against anchor babies anyway.

    Barring hard-core ctrl-left types that want to destroy America, I’m sure they are, AA. However, many people just don’t keep up, and of those that do, many are still pretty damn innumerate. They’ll hear some numbers and not realize the true scope of the problem*. I wish President Trump would talk numbers more, especially in percentages. That’s what scares people or gets them riled up.

    * with the exception of those living in California, the other border states (and near the border) and any big city where this stuff can be seen to go on.

  153. OT One of the ironies of our allegedly “divided” era is how unitary it is. Food stores in the past would have joke elections with ice cream flavors or colored coffee cups, and it wasn’t partisan because you could buy one or the other. The following balance is not real. One of these “political” ice cream flavors is really being marketed by a major producer and the other could not even be suggested — it’s a joke and violence-generating anti-Semitic hate speech.

    https://postimg.cc/k2P0J13Y

    https://postimg.cc/mhcJQfT6

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  154. @EliteCommInc.
    @International Jew

    No.

    The property is either returned to the rightful owner or auctioned.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Lowe

    Woosh.

  155. An EO could be useful to generate a test case. For example, to interpret “citizen” as it applies to some particular executive function.

    Manufacturing a proper test case is an art form, however. It requires a lot of attention and thought by very smart lawyers. Trump’s “Muslim Ban” is a perfect example how not to do this.

    Realistically, the Supreme Court will probably take years, if not decades to decide the issue directly.

    In the short term however Trump can use the legal issue to troll and trigger lefties to his heart’s content.

    In fact, the Left is apoplectic about the term “anchor baby.” But they can’t do anything about it because they can’t think of a PC replacement word.

  156. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    England was, of course, originally an absolute monarchy.

    The story of the establishment of the English parliament by de Montfort, of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the 'Glorious Revolution' etc is really the story of the usurpation of supreme power from the King and to parliament.

    As often said, the UK has no written constitution, and thus its system of governance is always evolving and adapting. Stripping the House of Lords of hereditary peers was only a recent development.'Brexit' - if it happens, that is, giving supremacy back to Westminster, was a 'spur of the moment' thing.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @J.Ross

    I don’t think English common law tradition was an ad hoc epileptic fit, and the idea that a king is not an emperor seems to go back quite a ways. I see English legal tradition being pretty consistent for centuries and then succumbing very recently to an international mania with clear representation elsewhere. Not only at one time but for generations, the idea of disarmed and gun-fearing Englishmen would have been laughable.
    Brexit, far from a head fake, is better characterized as a lurch back to very well-established ideas. It is a mistake to think it came out of nowhere.

  157. @Polymath
    Prediction: ending birthright citizenship completely is the initial offer for discussion, the final policy will be much milder, for example to end automatic citizenship for children born to a mother here on a tourist visa.

    This would literally be about “birth tourism” and forcing Democrats to defend it would be politically effective. It would be especially ironic if the Democrats fall into the trap of attacking this initial step by calling it “the thin end of the wedge”, because then Trump would reply “Thin end of the wedge? That’s what an anchor baby is!”

    A “tourist visa citizenship” exception is the most likely to stand up in court, but it would still be unlikely to survive the legal challenges. Legislation would be the right way to do it and that’s the other trap for the Democrats, if the ones who are running criticize Trump for using an executive order he can say “so if it comes before you as a member of Congress which way will you vote on it?”.

    An alternative way to handle it which would drive Democrats even more nuts is simply to say “tourist visas automatically extend to unborn children of the pregnant woman, they are already existing people who share her citizenship so do not become US citizens just by exiting the womb. If they are conceived here, it’s different, and by the way all tourist visas going forward are hereby limited to a period of two trimesters um I mean 6 months”.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Achmed E. Newman

    If they are conceived here, it’s different, and by the way all tourist visas going forward are hereby limited to a period of two trimesters um I mean 6 months”.

    Haha, I get the humor, Polymath, but it’s less funny that there are non-immigration, tourist ones are the ones I know of, that are for 10 years! Now, that’s not 10 years in a row – each period may be limited to 2, 3 or 6 months, what have you. That might make one think it’s OK, per your excerpted sentence, but the “tourist” can come right back in, and up through a period of 10 years.

    That’s a deal that is going on between the US and China on tourist visas. Think about this, which is unrelated to the B.C. topic of the post. How are you going to be able to find a Chinaman that decides to finally stay in Chinatown, Any State, for good? If there were 10,000 Chinese people at one time, spread out fairly thin, it would be possible. Are you gonna find that guy in Chinatown among 50,000 of his own, when they all stick together on this? Good luck ICE!

  158. @Hockamaw

    Why allow ourselves to be relentlessly ripped off by people who don’t give a damn about the Constitution?
     
    Because the Crusades were bad, or because of the Indians or something. It's our penance.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Dr. X

    Because the Crusades were bad

    Crusader kingdoms ruling Al-Quds was bad?

  159. What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?

    The sooner the better — the more ‘acceleration’ events the better.

    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    @eah

    So "youthful minorities" generate economic growth medical advances peace prosperity and rainbow unicorns here on the magic dirt -- but they dont do the same in most of Africa Asia or L America.

    I wonder if the globalist one worlders at brookings seek out these enriching minority types for their own surgical procedures or do they go with the white guy.

    Brookings institute of theology and belief

  160. @istevefan
    @Buzz Mohawk


    . I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.
     
    A couple of things to note about this. First, I am amazed that Lindsey Graham is introducing legislation to ban birthright citizenship. Of course with Senator Grahamnesty I need to wait to make sure he is not selling us out with some massive amnesty in exchange.

    Second, on cue Paul "Cuck" Ryan immediately came out against Trump on birthright citizenship. Thank goodness he is leaving. His exit can't come quick enough. With Ryan one can't tell if he really believes the current way the 14th is interpreted, or if he is afraid Trump will rally the base to hold the House.

    Replies: @L Woods

    It’d be a worthwhile exchange probably. It’d stop the bleeding indefinitely.

  161. @Drake
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?
     
    No. Historically there have been three categories of people who are understood to owe allegiance to other nations, and hence subject to foreign jurisdiction, even if they are born in US territory: children of diplomats, children of foreign soldiers, and children of Native Americans before they became citizens.

    There's no reason why Congress can't decide that children of illegal immigrants should be understood to owe allegiance to their parents' country, just as with the examples above.

    Replies: @D. K.

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    • Replies: @Jim Sweeney
    @D. K.

    No but it requires local registration with the US consulate/embassy and mucho subsequent paperwork with the CIS and State. For info, please see: The American Children Foundation - theacif.org - of which I'm president. That is the task we have set for the group - making citizens of children born abroad to at least one American parent.

    , @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    I fail to see what is so unreasonable about recognizing an American parent or the circumstance of expedition (ie, an American ship or base can "be" America for these purposes), and what is so reasonable about letting literally anyone have citizenship for no reason. If pressed I would make half-foreign children take a test. I seem to remember plenty of Vietnamese war vets who had to do the paperwork to bring wives over here and get them citizenship.
    All of this nonsense dances around the fact that anchor babyism is completely indefensible (the defense strategy is that we are not allowed to talk about it) and all we have to do is get the other side into the position of explaining themselves.

    , @Anonymous
    @D. K.

    If a US natural born citizen female gives birth on foreign soil to the offspring of a foreign father is the child a US citizen 1) automatically , 2) if they file for it or 3) no?

    Little Little Miss Muffett does come to mind in that regard.

    Another thing for rabid prolifers: should place of birth be the criterion, or place of conception? And why?

    , @Drake
    @D. K.


    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless
     
    No, children inherit the citizenship of their parents.

    Under US law, if one parent is American, the child is a US citizen.
    , @res
    @D. K.

    You have made a number of seemingly informative comments in this thread, but this one makes me wonder.

    First, it is a terrible comparison to anchor babies because the parties involved in your example have different immigration statuses.

    Second, my understanding is that immigration status based on parents tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So in your example I think the most common interpretation is the child is eligible for both citizenships but may have to make formal application.

    Third, you are wrong as a matter of simple fact (and since apparently you are a lawyer should know better). As Drake said (though he oversimplified) one American parent is all that is needed. Here are the details: https://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html


    Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered "U.S. soil" for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents.

    There are a wide variety of possible family arrangements, and each one has different citizenship implications.

    If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    - Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one of the parents lived in the U.S. at some point before the child was born; or
    - One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. Time spent serving the military or as a military dependent overseas counts as "time spent in the U.S." for this purpose.

    If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    - The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child's birth; or
    - Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child's paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father's written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents' citizenship and the record of the child's birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child's U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.
     

    Replies: @D. K.

  162. • Replies: @res
    @eah

    His Wikipedia page includes that quote and a reference to the original source (see bottom two thirds of center column of reference 2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

  163. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Thatcher would do things like if she didn't like the mayor of London she would abolish his job. Blair redrew all the county lines in England.

    It's a really different country when it comes to checks and balances. England is a nation state designed for war with the French.

    Replies: @John Derbyshire, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @notanon, @CMC

    Why not do both?

    Write the order right now —because war-like conditions. And also immediately moan and groan that you would prefer that it be done by an amendment but ‘what can I do; i’m only president’ or something of Trumpian brilliance.

    What happens? Immediately the order will get challenged in the courts. So what? It’s great. Put a bunch of our attorneys on it —another way to find out who is on our side, both attorneys and judges. If anyone makes any ancillary complaints, like, say, that we’re dedicating too much legal talent to this case, then answer that the question of how to become an American is pretty important. Meanwhile it’s in the news on a regular basis.

    Obviously it’s going to end up in the Supreme Court. Our turn now?

    Worst case scenario even the Kavanaugh Court says, yeah, we need an amendment bros. Ok, so now we know. It’s not like we would be in a worse position than we are now. Now it’s like we’re not even asking. It’s like that sales thing. Not even asking is a no. At least ask and get the ‘no.’ If the grass-roots local amendment legwork hasn’t begun by the time it rolls into the Supreme Court, it should really take off by then.

    • Agree: Prester John
  164. Liberals frothing about Russians…wonder why…any increase in anything white is borderline sacrilege, for whom Marx is God and Marcuse is his prophet.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  165. Well, my Russian niece just traveled from Moscow to the USA to give birth to an anchor baby. She is staying in a resort-like condo complex full of well-off Russians who do this. So it isn’t just Chinese doing this.

  166. istevefan says:
    @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    During the debate of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, a member of the committed that drafted the 14th Amendment in 1866 stated this:

    Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed int his body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

    • Replies: @Jim Sweeney
    @istevefan

    It also excluded American Indians from citizenship until a separate act of Congress many years later as tribes were deemed foreign nations.

    , @D. K.
    @istevefan

    ***

    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.

    ***

    You are missing a "nor" or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean. Regardless, as I noted above, the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the issue of the legislative intent. Since it is an amendment, rather than a statute, there also would be the issue of the understanding an intent of all of the state legislatures who subsequently voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The assumption that there was "an intent" that was shared by everyone involved in its drafting, passage, and ratification is a tad presumptuous, to say the least.

    Replies: @anon, @J.Ross, @res

  167. anon[322] • Disclaimer says:

    Ending birthright citizenship is a concept way passed it’s time. All other countries in the world require at least one parent to be citizen before citizenship can be granted. It’s time the US catches up since this loophole has been exploited 9 ways to Sunday.

    The trouble with doing it with an EO is, even if it’s ratified by SCOTUS, it can still be easily cancelled by the next POTUS. The only way to really get it done is through congress. If the GOP retains the house and gets a huge lead in the senate, we could probably get it done. If not, there’s no chance of this ever being done through congress. However doing this as an EO will at least put a pause on it while Trump is president. I say he should hurry up and get it done this week. Let the Dems look like crap before midterm by trying to block him.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @anon


    Ending birthright citizenship is a concept way passed it’s time. All other countries in the world require at least one parent to be citizen before citizenship can be granted.
     
    In correcting the President, an NPR voice just said that there are in fact 30 countries in the world that have it. But she didn't bother to name any of them.

    An Eritrean once told me it would be very easy of me to move to his country. And I though, you know, that might be true. There probably isn't a long line at the door.
  168. Treason

  169. @istevefan
    I've always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn't buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn't signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    Replies: @MJMD, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @notanon, @anon, @Chrisnonymous

    It’s not Roberts I’m worried about, it’s effing Gorsuck. He’s been voting with the libs on immigration. Another effing liberal in sheepskin like Kennedy.

  170. @OP
    I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It's very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Sammler, @Jim Sweeney, @e, @sf, @MBlanc46

    The existing law pretty clearly covers children of legal permanent immigrants. You’d need another Amendment to change that.

  171. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country’s laws while that baby is there? Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    The short answer is that the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship. This is the most complete explanation that I have seen:
    https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/

    I am interested in these kinds of Constitutional issues, but it is really just intellectual curiosity. The courts can just make something up with no regard whatsoever to the actual Constitution. To take just the most obvious examples, our “Constitutional rights” to abortion and gay marriage are wholly contrived. Practically speaking, it is not a question of what the 14th Amendment means. It comes down to whether five or more Supreme Court justices want birthright citizenship. If so, they will just pretend that the Constitution required that result.

    It’s not much different from a cult leader saying, “God told me so.” Well, if God (or the Constitution) says so, there’s nothing else to say.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  172. Anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve looked into this a few times and never found the constitutional arguments all that persuasive.

    Steve:

    Some kindly advice. Don’t take a position against your interests and against the best interests of American citizens if you aren’t a lawyer who has really studied the issue. And maybe not even then.

  173. Okee Dokee, but what do you do with the children of foreign nationals born in the US. If you can’t deport them then they become stateless. I guess if they remain in the US for 14 years they could be naturalized. In that case you would still have all the caravaners’ kids, but none of the middle class Chinese parents’ kids. I want to see the actual proposal. Having stateless people in the US would be a disaster.

    IMO, eliminate any judicial process for asylum seekers. US Senators would be able to nominate anyone they wanted for asylum and the Senate could vote on it. Either one at a time of in groups. Senators could submit their votes by email.

  174. @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    Can you cite the holding that established the birthright interpretation “tradition”?

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for “hate speech”…

    Maybe but the First Amendment is actually part of the Constitution. Birthright citizenship is not.

  175. @Anonymous
    In fact, the trend amongst the Anglo-Saxon 'common law' nations has been the gradual elimination o jus solis and the instatement of jus sanguis.

    This trend has been concomitant with the onset of the modern era of massive third world immigration induced by rapid and cheap communications.

    In the UK, at least, where the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy reigns, it was a trivial matter for the Thatcher government of 1981 to overturn centuries of legal precedent.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @LondonBob

    Maggie wasn’t perfect but she had some real achievements on immigration, essentially freezing it for her term with a variety of reforms. There was no equivalent to Reagan’s disastrous amnesty, presumably her mental faculties were both superior and still high functioning.

  176. @OP
    I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It's very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Sammler, @Jim Sweeney, @e, @sf, @MBlanc46

    Sorry but SCOTUS has already ruled that the child of legal residents is a birthright citizen. That was back in the later 1800s. Van Ark is the case name as I recall.

  177. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI

    Got it. So if the ambassador from Freedonia has a baby in Washington, that baby is subject to the jurisdiction of Freedonia, not the US. Makes sense. Unfortunately for our cause, it also seems obvious that this exception does not apply to ordinary people who come here and have babies.

    Or does it? Is a foreign national not subject to his own country's jurisdiction while he is here? An example might be Americans who make money overseas but still must pay federal income tax on that money. They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

    I would love it if somebody could convince a Supreme Court majority that any citizen of a foreign country is "subject to the jurisdiction" of that country while they are here. End of anchor babies.

    Replies: @D. K., @Jim Sweeney

    People conflate jurisdiction with police power which is not what it means. It refers to one’s allegiance. Everybody in any place is subject to the jurisdiction of the local police but are not subject to the duties imposed by citizenship, i.e., allegiance. Those are legally distinguishable and, without that distinction, this argument is not possible.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Jim Sweeney

    ***

    People conflate jurisdiction with police power which is not what it means. It refers to one’s allegiance. Everybody in any place is subject to the jurisdiction of the local police but are not subject to the duties imposed by citizenship, i.e., allegiance. Those are legally distinguishable and, without that distinction, this argument is not possible.

    ***

    Sorry for replying to this so late, but I just noticed it!

    Do "anchor babies" born in this country to illegal alien parents have an "allegiance" to the respective countries of their parents' citizenship? (Those children might not even be told that their parents were in the country illegally!) Do the American-born children of green-cardholders have an "allegiance" to their parents' respective countries of citizenship, making those children resident aliens rather than natural-born Americans? Does the fact that a country like Mexico now considers all people of Mexican descent in the United States to be Mexicans mean that those Mexican-Americans have "allegiance" to Mexico, and were categorically ineligible for birthright citizenship? Does an American-born child of a native-born American citizen who holds dual citizenship have an "allegiance" to the parent's other country of citizenship, making the child ineligible for birthright citizenship? Would it matter whether the parent was a native-born citizen of the other country, despite being born in America, or only became a dual citizen after being born as a native-born American? Would it matter if the parent's other citizenship was granted before or after the birth of the child whose own "allegiance" were at issue for birthright-citizenship purposes? Is an American-born baby who facially is entitled to birthright citizenship from multiple jurisdictions, as Barack H. Obama II apparently was, thereby ineligible to be a native-born American citizen? The alleged "allegiance" to another country is a rather tangled can of worms. There are illegal aliens who hate the countries in which they were born, and native-born Americans of old-American stock whose genuine allegiance lies with a country to which they have never been, and from which they did not descend-- as was the case with the Soviet Union, back in the day.

    As I have noted above, there are many things that the American government, at any level, may do to illegal aliens, beyond merely the exercise of its police powers-- such as taxing, regulating, and even conscripting them into military service. I ask again: what may the American government do to its own citizens, because it has jurisdiction over them, that it supposedly cannot do to illegal aliens, because it supposedly does not have jurisdiction over them, even as they illegally reside in this country, for years on end? All of that is really beside the point, of course, since the 14th Amendment does not refer to the legal status of parents-- after all, under federal law, at the time of the 14th Amendment's passage and ratification, there was no such thing as an "illegal alien" (and, thus, no such thing, colloquially, as an "anchor baby")!-- but rather only to the status of the children born within American territory. It is the jurisdiction that the American government does, or does not, have over those "anchor babies" (inter alia) that is at issue in the birthright-citizenship controversy, not the jurisdiction that the government does, or does not, have over any illegal-alien parents whose American-born children's citizenship is at issue.

    In your very next comment, in this thread, you replied to me:

    ***

    No but it requires local registration with the US consulate/embassy and mucho subsequent paperwork with the CIS and State. For info, please see: The American Children Foundation – theacif.org – of which I’m president. That is the task we have set for the group – making citizens of children born abroad to at least one American parent.

    ***

    By your own line of thinking, does not a child born abroad to only one American parent, whose other parent, I assume, would usually be a citizen of the same foreign country in which that child was born, bear "allegiance" also-- indeed, in most cases, first and foremost-- to that other country, rather than to the United States? Why are you worried about "anchor babies" here-- as, indeed, I am, as I have noted above!-- while working to make foreign-born children who are not native-born American citizens, by the circumstances of their births to a respectively lone American parent, citizens of the United States?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  178. @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

    No but it requires local registration with the US consulate/embassy and mucho subsequent paperwork with the CIS and State. For info, please see: The American Children Foundation – theacif.org – of which I’m president. That is the task we have set for the group – making citizens of children born abroad to at least one American parent.

  179. @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    During the debate of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, a member of the committed that drafted the 14th Amendment in 1866 stated this:

    Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed int his body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country
     

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @D. K.

    It also excluded American Indians from citizenship until a separate act of Congress many years later as tribes were deemed foreign nations.

  180. OT, but apparently Netanyahu will go to the Bolsanaro inauguration, and has invited him back to Israel.

  181. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    A Chinese woman, 8 months pregnant, vacations to Disneyland, gives birth prematurely there, then returns back to China.

    When the child grows up in China, does he:

    1. Pay US income tax on income earned abroad?

    2. Register for the selective service?

    3. Vote in US presidental elections?

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    @Hippopotamusdrome



    When the child grows up in China, does he:

    1. Pay US income tax on income earned abroad?
     


     
    Yes.

    He is required to, anyway, as former British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson discovered. He was born here when his parents were visiting students, and they all left when he was a newborn.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/02/15/savvy-london-mayor-boris-johnson-paid-irs-is-now-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/#b47658721c1d

    https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/89118/how-did-the-irs-know-that-boris-johnson-sold-his-house

    http://www.boris-johnson.com/2006/08/29/american-passport/

  182. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    And I have it from a 100% reliable source that she will be 86 in March. That seat is Trump’s 🙂

  183. @OP
    I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It's very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Sammler, @Jim Sweeney, @e, @sf, @MBlanc46

    Lindsay Graham, the POTUS’s best supporter once McCain was out of commission, said this morning he’s going to write the legislation.

    Paul Ryan, due to exit the House, said he could not support an EO. Ryan is trying to hold whatever job his globalist puppet masters have lined up for him.

  184. @Buzz Mohawk
    Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get.

    In the meantime, President Trump and anyone else in our government who supports the idea should do everything in their power, use every trick in the book if necessary, to stop birthright citizenship.

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator. I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    Full speed ahead. Thousands of troops to the border, and now this. I'm lovin' it like a Big Mac with extra cheese.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Clyde, @Russ, @Colin Wright

    Agree with all your words. Trump is ramping up and due to Melania in my option. She has been through media denigrating shitsz and gets what the deal is. She is giving Tr the extra that he needs.

  185. CNN: “We have to stop demonizing people and realize that the number one threat in this country is white men.”
    Anon said: “… we thank CNN for winning the midterms for us. Thank you based Don [Lemon]!”

    https://twitter.com/markand4503/status/1057291581714128897

  186. @Buzz Mohawk
    Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get.

    In the meantime, President Trump and anyone else in our government who supports the idea should do everything in their power, use every trick in the book if necessary, to stop birthright citizenship.

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator. I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    Full speed ahead. Thousands of troops to the border, and now this. I'm lovin' it like a Big Mac with extra cheese.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Clyde, @Russ, @Colin Wright

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator.

    The move puts the good guys on offense and the bad guys on defense, nominally. It is a good and welcomed move.

  187. @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.
     
    1. What, the pro-abortion people will turn their megaphones up to 11? The demonstrators will go from hysterical to ultra-hysterical? Anyone who is going to vote on this issue is already voting Dem. I think the Dems gave it all they got and it looks like they are going to fall short on the Senate.

    2. RBG is a private person. She clearly has all sorts of ailments that she has not spoken publicly about but which affect things like her ability to keep her head up. She had ample opportunity to retire during the Obama administration and allow Obama to appoint another Wise Latina to replace her but she didn't. It seems pretty clear to me that she intends to die in the saddle so we are not going to learn about her final illness until it is really final - either when she is dead or checks into the hospital for the last time.

    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    Speaking of pancreatic cancer, director John Milius has had this for years. How well is he doing today?

  188. @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

    I fail to see what is so unreasonable about recognizing an American parent or the circumstance of expedition (ie, an American ship or base can “be” America for these purposes), and what is so reasonable about letting literally anyone have citizenship for no reason. If pressed I would make half-foreign children take a test. I seem to remember plenty of Vietnamese war vets who had to do the paperwork to bring wives over here and get them citizenship.
    All of this nonsense dances around the fact that anchor babyism is completely indefensible (the defense strategy is that we are not allowed to talk about it) and all we have to do is get the other side into the position of explaining themselves.

  189. @Space Ghost
    @D. K.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

    Replies: @D. K.

    What is your point? I was not arguing that Congress could not do so; I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship. Regardless, do you really want the federal courts to be barred from ruling on any immigration issues? Is that what you will want if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, come early January? Is it what you will want if another Democratic-majority Congress is seated in January 2021, a couple of weeks before a Democratic president is inaugurated to replace Donald Trump?

    • Replies: @Space Ghost
    @D. K.

    > I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship

    Then the Supreme Court would declare that it violates the 14th Amendment. The only real solution here is a constitutional amendment.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Mr. Rational
    @D. K.

    It would be a relatively simple matter to require that all suits regarding immigration or citizenship be filed in the DC circuit.  That would put the Ninth Circus out of action on this issue.

    For real fun, force all 2nd Amendment issues into the DC circuit as well.

  190. I’ll say the same thing I said on the Lion:

    If the Supreme Court allowed something like this the whole constitution would effectively be rewritten every time a new president that would come into office.

    I agree with restrictions, but through the legal avenue of amending the constitution, not executive order bullshit.

    Enough legislating from the executive office, this isn’t what America is supposed to be.

    • Replies: @JerryC
    @Kaz

    Dude, the constitution is a "living document". Remember?

  191. This is one of those problems that we didn’t address when we could have because no one thought it was necessary. Now that more of us realize it’s necessary, we won’t be able to pass the thing.

    Nonetheless, it seems like a valuable and clarifying wedge issue.

  192. No more stale pale male on the 71 year old indomitable Patriarch Trumpster! I call him bold and old and breaking the mold. Every day! So much so that rotten ol Bob Mueller likes and is impressed and is slacking off/ He will soon have Ron Rottenstein too… Dancing to his tune/

    IOW its all good after these mid terms.

  193. OT: How are you getting to the polls on Election Day? If you vote Democrat, you’re in luck!

    Uber and Lyft are working with various “partners” to give out promo codes that basically offer a 50% discount on rides to the polls. If you look into the partners, you find that they are all lefty, liberal, SJW-friendly organizations.

    Thanks, Uber and Lyft, for supporting “Democracy”.

  194. @istevefan
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    During the debate of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, a member of the committed that drafted the 14th Amendment in 1866 stated this:

    Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed int his body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country
     

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @D. K.

    ***

    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.

    ***

    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean. Regardless, as I noted above, the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the issue of the legislative intent. Since it is an amendment, rather than a statute, there also would be the issue of the understanding an intent of all of the state legislatures who subsequently voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The assumption that there was “an intent” that was shared by everyone involved in its drafting, passage, and ratification is a tad presumptuous, to say the least.

    • Replies: @anon
    @D. K.

    the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the legislative intent.

    Citation needed.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @J.Ross
    @D. K.


    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.
     
    This is an admission of defeat. It's a nineteenth century legislator, not a modern speaker with a copy of Strunk under his arm. Tell us how our foundational documents are invalid because of the spelling errors.
    You will not get away from anchor babyism being possible only so long as people have their eyes off it. Once we get the average person to understand just how sloppy this is, it's over.

    Replies: @D. K., @Joe Stalin

    , @res
    @D. K.

    You are familiar with the difference between spoken English and written legalese, right? The meaning of that passage is clear. In particular, pay attention to the placement of "but will include..."

    I initially took your many comments in this thread to be informative, accurate, and in good faith. I no longer think that.

    Replies: @D. K.

  195. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    I’ve been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    She is super tight and super disciplined like Steve Jobs. She ties her hair back severely. So I will give your post lots of probability.

  196. @The Z Blog
    If Bob has four pencils, then why is there a car parked at the school Saturday? You should be ordering lunch.

    Seriously, how did you make it to adulthood?

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Uh … what?

  197. @D. K.
    @istevefan

    ***

    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.

    ***

    You are missing a "nor" or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean. Regardless, as I noted above, the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the issue of the legislative intent. Since it is an amendment, rather than a statute, there also would be the issue of the understanding an intent of all of the state legislatures who subsequently voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The assumption that there was "an intent" that was shared by everyone involved in its drafting, passage, and ratification is a tad presumptuous, to say the least.

    Replies: @anon, @J.Ross, @res

    the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the legislative intent.

    Citation needed.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @anon

    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:

    ***

    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles", then the court is most likely to construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not "aeroplanes" or "bicycles" even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.

    In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

    Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

    U.S. Supreme Court: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Meaning

    Replies: @anon, @Federalist

  198. This Vox article makes it seem as if it’ll be very hard to abolish birthright citizenship because of the constitution:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts

  199. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

    If a US natural born citizen female gives birth on foreign soil to the offspring of a foreign father is the child a US citizen 1) automatically , 2) if they file for it or 3) no?

    Little Little Miss Muffett does come to mind in that regard.

    Another thing for rabid prolifers: should place of birth be the criterion, or place of conception? And why?

  200. The first time I heard about this issue was when Ron Paul was running in 2008. He went on Meet the Press when Tim Russert was the host and calmly explained how birthright citizenship was likely not Constitutional. And was deeply harmful to our country.

    Russert nearly had a heart attack, judging by his reaction.

    Paul then proceeded to explain that the Civil War wasn’t actually necessary to free the slaves. It was like telling a child there was no Santa Claus.

  201. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

  202. @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    What is your point? I was not arguing that Congress could not do so; I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship. Regardless, do you really want the federal courts to be barred from ruling on any immigration issues? Is that what you will want if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, come early January? Is it what you will want if another Democratic-majority Congress is seated in January 2021, a couple of weeks before a Democratic president is inaugurated to replace Donald Trump?

    Replies: @Space Ghost, @Mr. Rational

    > I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship

    Then the Supreme Court would declare that it violates the 14th Amendment. The only real solution here is a constitutional amendment.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    That is my own opinion, as an erstwhile attorney schooled in Constitutional Law; but I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

    Replies: @anon, @Bubba

  203. The problem isn’t birthright citizenship for illegal aliens’ children; it’s letting those children bring in family members.

    • Replies: @S. Verdad
    @Redneck farmer

    what famly members can the children of illegal aliens bring in?

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

  204. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Well, I’m no expert on this issue

    No kidding?

    Who would ever have noticed?

  205. @indocon
    Upholding Trump's exec order banning anchor baby citizenships is what Brett Kav was put there for, not striking down Roe.

    BTW, if you find yourself arguing with a liberal on this issue, spin their story of living constitution back on them, the original 14th amendment was meant to protect slaves, not super rich Chinese woman coming over to give birth to babies in this country.

    Replies: @lhtness

    The 14th amendment was passed by people who never imagined travel by automobile, and certainly not travel by airplane. Or a giant welfare state that gives trillions of dollars to illegal immigrants and their anchor babies.

  206. This is a very simple and straightforward matter of national sovereignty. We are the people of the United States, and we are its citizens, and we are the only ones who decide who may be a citizen, and who may not be a citizen. We decide, because that is a matter of sovereignty, and our national sovereignty is total and absolute.

    This is our country, not theirs. We decide, not them. In order to say that “birthright citizenship” is permissible, then you are saying that non-citizens have control over who becomes a citizen, which is absurd, and contrary to every notion of national sovereignty. Ultimately, this is our country. That means that we, the citizens, have control over it, including all aspects of citizenship, and no person who is not a United States citizen has any right to decide who will be a citizen. There is no logical or justifiable reason to allow a non-citizen to decide who a citizen will be. This is simply being fair to U.S. citizens.

    • Agree: Rosie, Mr. Rational
  207. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    If that were the case. Why didn’t they just stop at “born in the United States”? The modifying clause would be superfluous.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  208. Anon[256] • Disclaimer says:

    He won’t do anything. Just saying it is doing it to him.

    We are still in the Paris Agreement. What’s up with that? Transgenders still serve in the military. Huh?

    Has the wall started?

    Glass half full, maybe?: If he just says shit and never does it, the courts cannot issue injunctions stopping it. The down side is that nothing changes.

    I think it would be a good idea to start making monthly constitutional amendment proposals, for real. Just get them out there going through the process. Make them seem less portentous, more commonplace. Get that mental change going. Make it more like the California initiative process or the Alabama constitution. Once the psychology of the “sacred document” is changed, it will be much easier to make changes to the constitution.

  209. @D. K.
    @istevefan

    ***

    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.

    ***

    You are missing a "nor" or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean. Regardless, as I noted above, the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the issue of the legislative intent. Since it is an amendment, rather than a statute, there also would be the issue of the understanding an intent of all of the state legislatures who subsequently voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The assumption that there was "an intent" that was shared by everyone involved in its drafting, passage, and ratification is a tad presumptuous, to say the least.

    Replies: @anon, @J.Ross, @res

    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.

    This is an admission of defeat. It’s a nineteenth century legislator, not a modern speaker with a copy of Strunk under his arm. Tell us how our foundational documents are invalid because of the spelling errors.
    You will not get away from anchor babyism being possible only so long as people have their eyes off it. Once we get the average person to understand just how sloppy this is, it’s over.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @J.Ross

    No, it is merely pointing out that the senator did not say what some people claim that he said. The words "foreigners" and "aliens" meant the same thing, then as now, and the following clause merely modified those two words that referred to the same category, to limit those births not covered by the proposed amendment; the senator was not listing three separate categories-- (1) "foreigners;" (2) "aliens;" and (3) "[those] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." (1) is the same thing as (2), and (3) is merely a tiny subset of both (1) and (2). If he had been listing three separate categories, then the American-born children of legal immigrants who had not yet been naturalized would not be eligible for birthright citizenship, either!

    Birthright citizenship finally will be over if and when, and only if and when, the Supreme Court says so, or else if and when a constitutional amendment ending or limiting it is passed by the United States Congress, and then ratified by the necessary supermajority of state legislatures.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Joe Stalin
    @J.Ross

    Reminds me of how the Streetsweeper/Striker 12 12 gauge shotsguns were declared Class 3 "Destructive Devices" when some anti-gunner noticed a missing comma in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  210. @Buzz Mohawk
    Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get.

    In the meantime, President Trump and anyone else in our government who supports the idea should do everything in their power, use every trick in the book if necessary, to stop birthright citizenship.

    Trump is making me feel good with this. The guy is a master manipulator. I love the timing; it indicates he is on board with the idea that he and Republicans will enjoy the most voter support if they commit to our agenda and stop trying to please and negotiate with those who want to replace us.

    Full speed ahead. Thousands of troops to the border, and now this. I'm lovin' it like a Big Mac with extra cheese.

    Replies: @istevefan, @Clyde, @Russ, @Colin Wright

    ‘Definitely a Constitutional amendment is needed. That will take about a thousand years to get…’

    Yeah, but just the fight will be a good thing.

    It could be a phyrric victory for the Left. Every state it’s blocked in is another one in which a big chunk of the great middle winds up saying ‘hey: I was for that.’

  211. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: What I was taught in US history is that immigration was great when we had a frontier to settle. Once the frontier closed immigrants stayed in the cities, leading to Tammany Hall and anarchist bombings. In response, we curbed immigration and everything settled down.

    Why isn’t this story the anti-immigration narrative? It’s simple. It avoids racial issues. It explains why we used to have immigration, but no longer should. The bad guys of the narrative are corrupt politicians and anarchists. No one likes either of them.

  212. If you tend to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who want to interpret the Constitution according to what they think the founders meant, and that modern conditions should not be considered, then you should know what result to expect.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Jonathan Mason


    If you tend to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who want to interpret the Constitution according to what they think the founders meant, and that modern conditions should not be considered, then you should know what result to expect.
     
    The drafters ("founders") meant to bring former slaves into the citizenry. They did not intend that the offspring of people who invade the United States should be citizens.
  213. Tucker Carlson has been covering this issue.

    Here he is talking to some actual anchor babes:

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  214. Anon[256] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    What would be accomplished is:

    (1) Once again the fact that judges are undemocratically in charge of the country would be highlighted for voters, a fact to be filed away in their heads for consideration when voting for candidates in future elections.

    (2) Politicians would be put on the spot and would have to take a clear public position on the issue, another set of facts for voters to consider.

    (3) There would be news coverage of birthright citizenship. It may include coverage of wonderful immigrant citizens who pay taxes and established businesses that employ Americans. It doesn’t really matter what the content of the reports are: they will piss off a good portion of the electorate who never really thought that much about the issue and didn’t know about the problem.

    Whether the executive order works or not (and of course, it will be nullified by a future Democratic administration), it will have these positive effects.

  215. @Hockamaw

    Why allow ourselves to be relentlessly ripped off by people who don’t give a damn about the Constitution?
     
    Because the Crusades were bad, or because of the Indians or something. It's our penance.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Dr. X

    Because the Holocaust.

  216. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn't just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.

    Then again, if the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage but nobody had ever noticed that fact for 200+ years, I suppose that anything is possible...

    Replies: @Sam Haysom, @istevefan, @HI, @Declane, @Federalist, @Rosie, @Wilkey, @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @vinteuil, @Anon, @Anonymous

    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    Has the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) ever decided the question whether a child born to illegal infiltrators of the United States is a United States citizen by operation of the Constitution?

    Did the drafters of the amendment really mean by the language that people could invade our country and give birth and have their children have equal rights in our country as our own? Imagine if Russia invaded Alaska. Would Russian children born to the invading forces be American citizens? The thought is absurd.

    As for legal scholars, since when does Ron Unz rely upon mainstream “consensus” and why should we expect “legal scholars” to diverge from the views on immigration of the powers that be, the media, etc.? What would happen to a “legal scholar’s” career prospects if he came out strongly against birthright citizenship?

  217. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know.

    Whaaat???? You mean the purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was freed slaves and not illegal aliens, anal sex, gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion???

    Sheesh… who knew? SMDH…

    • Agree: ben tillman
  218. @Sam Haysom
    @Ron Unz

    Were you ever curious why 20 years ago or so a new controversy around the issue arose? I know you might have been busy gutting attempts to curtail illegal immigration during that time (by the way how did your attempt to fight bilingualism turn out?) but the reason a new controversy arose was because the issue had never been adjudicated in respects to illegal immigration. After all the landmark case around the 14th amendment arose from the first large scale attempt to stem oligarchic open borders. If you are genuinely curious I can recommend you some good sources on the original case.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon

    Please give us some good sources.

  219. anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    If you tend to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who want to interpret the Constitution according to what they think the founders meant, and that modern conditions should not be considered, then you should know what result to expect.

    Replies: @anonymous

    If you tend to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who want to interpret the Constitution according to what they think the founders meant, and that modern conditions should not be considered, then you should know what result to expect.

    The drafters (“founders”) meant to bring former slaves into the citizenry. They did not intend that the offspring of people who invade the United States should be citizens.

  220. Anyway, pending resolution of the Constitutional issue, the obvious interim measure would be to simply deny anyone entrance to the United States who cannot furnish evidence that they are not pregnant.

    That, we can do. No Constitutional issue at all.

  221. Approaching the event horizon

    But still not seeing the elephant in the room. Candace Owens is a grifter and a plant. Exposing how dumb we really are.

  222. @The Alarmist
    @CTD


    "Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them."
     
    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Replies: @D. K., @anon, @eddy wobegon

    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Is an invading army subject to the jurisdiction? Would its offspring be U.S. citizens?

  223. Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US and still living who thought they were US citizens and subject to its laws, but now apparently are not as the Supreme Court reveals that they never were citizens all along.

    Possibly they will be able to get tax refunds for taxation on their worldwide income in all prior years.

    • Replies: @JerryC
    @Jonathan Mason

    If anything comes of this, the provisions would certainly not be retroactive. So you can calm down.

    , @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Rational, @EliteCommInc.

  224. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @jon
    @Mookie


    It’s not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies.
     
    If Dems come out in opposition to anchor babies, then we can push for actual legislation. If they won't agree to that, then it's still a good campaign issue (and if they go along with it, then that's the whole point). There's really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    There’s really no downside to this for Republicans, a majority of Americans are on our side, the only strategy for the Dems was to try to keep it under the radar, and Trump just nuked that plan.

    Yep. I know a lot of Democrats who don’t like the practices of birth tourism and anchor babies.

  225. @Jonathan Mason
    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US and still living who thought they were US citizens and subject to its laws, but now apparently are not as the Supreme Court reveals that they never were citizens all along.

    Possibly they will be able to get tax refunds for taxation on their worldwide income in all prior years.

    Replies: @JerryC, @J.Ross

    If anything comes of this, the provisions would certainly not be retroactive. So you can calm down.

  226. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,”

    This language does not appear in the 14th Amendment. Would that it did, because Original Intent would win the day for sure. The only qualifier, such as it is, is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (meaning of the United States), and it is my understanding that Trump is using these four words to justify eliminating birthright citizenship, which means that the five conservative justices will have to lean on such as the words of Senator Howard–who is only one person–in order to justify Trump’s actions.

    Bottom line–as regards who qualifies as a citizen should be determined the hard way–via a constitutional amendment, otherwise I see nothing but problems.

    • Replies: @JerryC
    @Prester John

    Here's the deal. The framers of the 14th Amendment wrote the thing up with present conditions in mind. Hence the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier, which was meant to exclude the American Indians/recognize the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. But illegal aliens and anchor babies weren't really a thing in 1868, so the original intent could not have been to grant them citizenship automatically.

    The common sense thing to do in this case would be to say that the constitution neither compels nor forbids anchor baby citizenship. It's a political question and should be decided through the normal legislative and administrative channels.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  227. anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they’ve been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    As to the former, has there been legislation (in contrast to constitutional text) that has conferred citizenship? If so, that negates the inference that the Constitution is doing the work.

    Has the issue of offspring of illegal infiltrators or tourists ever been raised as a constitutional matter? If not, you can’t really say that a “traditional interpretation” of the Constitution has ever existed.

  228. @CTD
    Going against the letter of the Constitution seems like a horrible idea to me. Once you let go of that, Roberts's "actually it's a tax" move on the ACA will seem like nothing.

    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction - that's why we can (occasionally) deport them.

    Replies: @Flip, @The Alarmist, @Anonymous

    Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them.

    No drafter in his right mind would have made the offspring of illegals immediately eligible for citizenship.

  229. OT (?!?):

    Eighty years ago, at this very hour (Eastern Standard Time), The Mercury Theatre on the Air was broadcasting its (in)famous dramatization of H. G. Wells’ novel “The War of the Worlds” (1898), on the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

  230. @istevefan
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.
     
    I've been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    So even on this issue, the left will try to put their spin onto it by making it seem whites abuse this loophole.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Ghost of Bull Moose, @Anon

    I’ve been seeing progs today arguing against Russian birth tourism as though that is the problem. Apparently there were some Russians who stayed at a Trump hotel somewhere to try to get birth citizenship.

    Do you have a cite?

  231. @International Jew
    I'm sure most voters don't even know about birthright citizenship. So putting it out there is bound to jar some reflexive, life-long, Dems to stop and think, "Whoah, this ain't right!"...and maybe join us.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TTSSYF

    I’m sure most voters don’t even know about birthright citizenship. So putting it out there is bound to jar some reflexive, life-long, Dems to stop and think, “Whoah, this ain’t right!”…and maybe join us.

    Important point!

  232. I want to believe!

    Anchor babies are around 8% of US births, about 300,000 per year. About 25% of US school-age children are now Hispanic. What was it in the 80s? Like 5%? This is almost entirely because of illegal immigration, anchor babies and the secondary effects thereof. Ridiculous!

    At one point in 2015, it was looking like a Bush v. Clinton match up for president. From that miserable situation, we somehow find ourselves blessed to have a President making proposals like this.

    • Replies: @anon
    @gregor

    In my area, home of Bill Gate's tech plantation, it's now 60% Asian in all elementary schools, half Chinese, half Indian. Merely 15 years ago, it was 10% Asian.

    Replies: @Anon

  233. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country’s laws while that baby is there? Aren’t we all “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    Do you really think that the drafters intended to grant citizenship automatically to the offspring of an invading army?

  234. @Jonathan Mason
    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US and still living who thought they were US citizens and subject to its laws, but now apparently are not as the Supreme Court reveals that they never were citizens all along.

    Possibly they will be able to get tax refunds for taxation on their worldwide income in all prior years.

    Replies: @JerryC, @J.Ross

    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.
     
    The US Constitution is immutable.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous

    , @Mr. Rational
    @J.Ross


    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.
     
    And we should absolutely NOT grandfather them.  They have to go back.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @J.Ross

    imminent chaos and destruction have long been forecast and stirred by liberals and democrats --


    I am unmoved.

  235. Anon[337] • Disclaimer says:

    Why choose. Do an executive order simultaneously with introducing legislation, introducing a constitutional amendment in Congress, and calling a Constitutional Convention. Four ways, all going at once. Nobody could ignore the issue, and every politician, state and national, would have to discuss it. Judges considering whether to overturn the EO would have to take into account how such an a action on their part would affect the voting public’s support of the other three things. Best guess: support would be energized. Better to let the EO stand rather than risk an amendment or some sort of legislation? That’s what judges would have to consider.

  236. @Reg Cæsar
    @Ron Unz


    Well, I’m no expert on this issue, but until about 20-odd years ago didn’t just about every legal scholar and judge in America always interpret the 14th Amendment to provide for birthright citizenship?

    If so, then overturning 130 years of legal precedent by an Executive Tweet seems a little doubtful to me.
     
    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It's hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.

    Well, look. I’m not a lawyer so I’m not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I’m saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I’m sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I’m mistaken.

    It’s not that the courts ruled they were citizens—it’s that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump’s Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they’ll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here…

    • Replies: @Coag
    @Ron Unz

    Highly likely the birthright citizens of the past, who have their citizenship papers in order, will be grandfathered in.

    Highly unlikely such a monumental political decision as to abolish birthright citizenship will be an ex post facto law. You will see all sorts of wacky scenarios in the senile years of the Anglo-Saxon republic but I’d bet that the last thing that goes out the window is the inborn Anglo-Saxon unease against ex post facto laws.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @Anonymous
    @Ron Unz


    I’m sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I’m mistaken.
     
    It's a fair question. But...

    Was their citizenship conferred by statute or by the Constitution? If by statute, it largely moots your point.
    , @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz

    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits. Throughout the 20th Century, especially after WW2, the main bringer of court cases to challenge constitutional limits were left-wing organizations. Lefties followed a set template found in Brown v. Board of Education: find a sympathetic plaintiff, get a lefty-front organization (the NAACP, the ACLU, etc.) to quarterback the legal service; have other Lefty organizations swamp the court with amicus, get demonstrations going in front of the Supreme Court, get Earl Warren to lobby the justices, then make sure the arguments were directed to the justices most on the fence. (Also, make sure you get your guys planted on the federal judiciary).

    The Right really wasn't organized as the Left was, nor did it have a strategy of using the courts to ram its agenda through. So the Right couldn't get it together to bring a suit to get the law clarified/challenged. When the Right finally did so in the 21st Century in the 2nd Amendment cases, it got its clear victory.

    Meanwhile, the Left wasn't going to bring suit because the ongoinging consensus---thanks to a random footnote and lefty legal professors asserting it---was that birthright citizenship existed. Why would the Left dare to both make this issue more public---and therefore garner more opponents---and risk having the policy overturned by the Supreme Court? It was simply stupid for the Left to do so. It got the borders opened in 1965, that's all it needed.

    So neither side was going to bring it.

    2. Related to number 1: Lack of standing. "Standing" is a rule in federal court that only those personally affected by a law/policy can bring a lawsuit. Importantly, having a "generalized" grievance isn't enough; you have to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome. The standing issue has given the federal courts many an excuse to punt a case because it claims you aren't personally affected enough to bring it---the harm was too attenuated.

    And for Person A to claim that the grant to Person B's of birthright citizenship harmed Person A is a classic claim that the courts would have dismissed due to lack of standing----any harm that Person A alleged would have been judged "too attenuated" to grant standing. All the harm was indirect or secondary, according to the courts.

    3. The immigration issue really wasn't a big right-wing issue of the times. Its only grown more important since the 1965 opening of the borders and the now-open assertion by the Left that this is being used to ethnically cleanse whites.

    Your comparison to the gay "marriage" nonsense is really a non sequitur and beneath you. Constitutional issues take decades to germinate and get to the Supreme Court "deciding" it. First Amendment limits was considered set-in-stone until the Left took up the cause in the 1900s and convinced many a judge to come to their side, notably the great dissenter, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Segregation law was considered immutable until Brown v. Board. etc.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Ron Unz

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Ron Unz


    if Trump’s Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they’ll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here…
     
    I most fervently hope for just that.
    , @silviosilver
    @Ron Unz

    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you're not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen.

    Since you're a busy man, I'll make it easy for you. Just answer YES or NO to the following question:

    Should America have birthright citizenship?

    (A one-word answer will be quite sufficient.)

    Replies: @Ron Unz

  237. @istevefan
    I've always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals. And I am glad Trump seems to agree. However, I would like to have had another Trump-appointed justice to the Supreme Court before this argument is tested.

    I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare. We probably will only get one shot at this, so I would like it if the Supreme Court was firmly in our favor.

    Maybe Trump is doing this now because he is worried about the midterms and wants to keep the House. I think this will occupy the news cycle for the week and might help. But it would be bad if the current court doesn't buy the argument because it will probably never be addressed again. It might be a short term payoff at the expense of long term policy.

    Of course he hasn't signed it yet. So maybe just talking about it is good to suck the oxygen away from the democrats for the week and force the MSM to talk about our issue. Then down the road after Ginsberg is replaced with one of ours, he can sign it and let a sympathetic Supreme Court rule on it.

    Replies: @MJMD, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @notanon, @anon, @Chrisnonymous

    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.

    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you and Buchanan (as you represent him). The records of the Congressional debates over the 14th Amendment reveal that the opponents actually raised the spectre of differently-raced foreign hordes invading our country at the time of the debates. In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians. The result of these debates was that the wording of the current Amendment passed Congressional votes, effectively rejecting the arguments against birth citizenship that were made on the basis of its possible social effects. While I don’t know the legal status of parents being specifically discussed, it’s obvious that the Amendment’s current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Chrisnonymous


    it’s obvious that the Amendment’s current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress
     
    There is no "current interpretation." And the interpretation you attribute to it was not obviously intended by its drafters.
    , @istevefan
    @Chrisnonymous


    In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians.
     
    I read parts of that discussion. The man who brought up the possibility of California being swamped by the Chinese was opposed, not because the other guys supported birthright citizenship at no cost, but because they thought his assessment was incorrect. Here is a dialogue exchange with excerpts from Cowan (against birthright citizenship for aliens) and Conness who thought those concerns were silly.

    Note how Conness brings up that fact that he lived in California and knew the Chinese. He was sure they all wanted to go home and that they did not bring over females in large numbers. He even claimed they sent their dead back home to be buried. So why worry about it?

    It sounds similar to how in 1965 some senators mocked those who claimed the new immigration act would dilute and change the population. Recall Teddy Kennedy saying those claims were false and the ethnic balance would not be disturbed. Likewise the guy opposing birthright citizenship to aliens in 1866 was treated as though he was crazy for thinking that it would transform the population.

    Read this brief exchange for yourselves and see. They always call restrictionists the know-nothings from that group in the 1850s. But it turns out the the enlightened guys who denounce restrictionists always turn out to be wrong. Either that, or they knew the consequences ahead of time and just lied. Either way the American public was never told upfront that they were going to be displaced, whether by the 1965 Immigration Act or by the poison pill of the 14th Amendment.


    Mr. COWAN. I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locatethere and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point
     
    One of the guys responding

    Mr. CONNESS...Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other,either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese — from forty to forty-five thousand. Those persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land. It is not an unusual circumstance that the clipper ships trading between San Francisco and China carry at a time three or four hundred human remains of these Chinese. When interred in our State they are not interred deep in the earth, but laid very near the surface, and then mounds of earth are laid over them, so that the process of disinterment is very easy.That is their habit and custom; and as soon as they are fit for transmission to their own country they are taken up with great regularity and sent there. None of their bones are allowed to remain. They will return, then, either living or dead.Another feature connected with them is, that they do not bring their females to our country but in very limited numbers, and rarely ever in connection with families; so that their progeny in California is very small indeed
     
    Full transcript
  238. On the radio today I heard someone, maybe Rush, read a quote about how the 14th Amendment wasn’t meant to cover children of foreigners, and IIRC, it was from one of the guys who actually wrote the 14th Amendment. Wish I had more info, but I was in the car.

  239. Yeah, here we go:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[46]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”[47] According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, “A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause.”[46] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[48][49]

    So there’s that.

    Anyone else notice how Big Media is in lockstep saying the 14th guarantees birthright scammery? Like that interpretation is writ in stone. Fox News is saying this. Local news cretin said this. Lugenpresse.

  240. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    It’s contextual. Obviously “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” is everyone in the world, if we interpret as broadly as possible. We arrest people in other countries, we invade other countries, etc.

    So by your interpretation, it would seem that anyone born on Earth or Moon is a US citizen, no?

    In proper context, it means “US subjects,” basically. Not foreigners or the like. It was intended to make citizens of slaves and their descendants.

  241. @stillCARealist
    @Lordy

    My guess is he's an immigrant himself. I had an Indian boss who owned a property that he only rented to Indian immigrants, who returned all favors to him. Another Chinese guy did the same thing: only Chinese immigrant renters who wouldn't mess with him. They were very open about this behavior that was totally tribal. They made it sound as though these new immigrants were legal, though.

    Replies: @Lordy

    My guess is he’s an immigrant himself. I had an Indian boss who owned a property that he only rented to Indian immigrants, who returned all favors to him. Another Chinese guy did the same thing: only Chinese immigrant renters who wouldn’t mess with him. They were very open about this behavior that was totally tribal. They made it sound as though these new immigrants were legal, though.

    Nope. He’s a bald, middle-aged mean little Irish American.

  242. My wife’s parent live in a home in a suburb east of LA. It’s a poor neighborhood with a mix of apartment buildings and 2 bedroom bungalows with add-ons. So the next door neighbor decided to add a second floor her bungalow and use the house for a Chinese anchor baby factory. The neighbors were not happy about this. The constant comings and goings, the ambulances, and the unpermitted construction had them calling City Hall and the sheriff a on regular basis. They complained for about 5 years before any law enforcement action was taken and it was shut down.

    The neighborhood is all immigrants, some with dubious citizenship, I suspect, but they still hated the anchor baby chaos. That’s just my little anecdote, not data. But it points out how unpopular the anchor baby scam can be even in places where you might expect it would be OK.

  243. @Lot
    @Sam Haysom

    It comes down to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.

    That phrase includes legal permanent immigrants like Wong Kim Ark according to the Supreme Court 130 years ago.

    That doesn't include children of diplomats.

    Indians born on reservations used to be excluded from birthright citizenship, now they are not.

    The children of illegal aliens are like Indians in that it is up to Congress or the President to decide the issue.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/fourteenth-amendment-debate.html

    Replies: @D. K., @Chrisnonymous

    I appreciate the work of NumbersUSA, but on this issue of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they are mistaken, and that article you linked is too shallow–see, for example, this post on the language that is quoted in the NumbersUSA article: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39284

    As I tried to point out in a comment on that site, the only real wiggle room we have from a legal perspective is the fact that Indians were excluded along with diplomats’ families despite not having complete diplomatic immunity from US law, and this exclusion was based on Congressional legislation.

    As a legal matter, other than passing another Amendment to clarify the 14th, the best way for Congress to overturn birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law, thus making them not entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Chrisnonymous


    not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law
     
    Legal aliens are already exempt from Selective Service registration. Use that.

    Replies: @res

    , @Lot
    @Chrisnonymous

    The meaning of the 14th Amendment is what the Supreme Court says it means.

    The Chamber of Commerce doesn't really care if Jr. Illegals are citizens or not, just don't touch their supply of Asian coolies.

    We're gonna win this one. Join the bandwagon, spread the word.

    https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/43be6c2593d9147d232fbcf9291f0b67d9b52af3/c=245-0-4812-3425/local/-/media/2018/07/19/DetroitNews/B99680983Z.1_20180719065004_000_GVP23C7VO.2-0.jpg?width=534&height=401&fit=crop

  244. @Buzz Mohawk
    @HI


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
     
    Would the legal scholars here please explain how a baby can be born in a country and not be subject to that country's laws while that baby is there? Aren't we all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as soon as we begin suckling, breathing and shitting our diapers?

    When I read this in school, it just went by as a redundancy, a stylistic thing similar to what we see in lots of old writing. No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

    This is problematic and requires a new amendment. We can argue that the authors were not thinking about future waves of immigrants, but the language certainly sounds like they were perfectly happy allowing new babies to be citizens, no matter who they came out of.

    Replies: @HI, @Drake, @Federalist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Redman, @Anonymous, @Svigor, @S. Verdad

    a child of Mexican (Russian, Israeli, Nigerian) citizens unlawfully present in the U.S., is a citizen of Mexico, and also of the U.S. if the person later commits a crime and flees to Mexico (etc), he can avail himself of the protection of Mexico (Russia, etc) and avoid extradition. A plain vanilla U.S. citizen enjoys no such luxury.

  245. If the US abolish birthright citizenship, the US govt might not be able to criticize Burma for kicking out the Rohingyas anymore…

    Burma doesn’t have birthright citizenship laws and none of the Rohingyas got citizenship.

  246. @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Rational, @EliteCommInc.

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    The US Constitution is immutable.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    You sure?

    , @Anonymous
    @Jonathan Mason


    The US Constitution is immutable.
     
    I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but taking your position at face value, I'd submit that the Constitution does not state which persons cannot be citizens. It only designates a class of people who receive citizenship under the Constitution. It doesn't prevent Congress from granting citizenship to anyone it wishes, even the entire world.
  247. @EliteCommInc.
    @International Jew

    No.

    The property is either returned to the rightful owner or auctioned.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Lowe

    He was joking.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @Lowe

    Understood.

  248. @Kaz
    I'll say the same thing I said on the Lion:

    If the Supreme Court allowed something like this the whole constitution would effectively be rewritten every time a new president that would come into office.

    I agree with restrictions, but through the legal avenue of amending the constitution, not executive order bullshit.

    Enough legislating from the executive office, this isn’t what America is supposed to be.

    Replies: @JerryC

    Dude, the constitution is a “living document”. Remember?

  249. @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

    Highly likely the birthright citizens of the past, who have their citizenship papers in order, will be grandfathered in.

    Highly unlikely such a monumental political decision as to abolish birthright citizenship will be an ex post facto law. You will see all sorts of wacky scenarios in the senile years of the Anglo-Saxon republic but I’d bet that the last thing that goes out the window is the inborn Anglo-Saxon unease against ex post facto laws.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Coag


    Highly likely the birthright citizens of the past, who have their citizenship papers in order, will be grandfathered in.

    Highly unlikely such a monumental political decision as to abolish birthright citizenship will be an ex post facto law.
     
    The 14th Amendment was ratified (sort of) 150 years ago. It is not an ex post facto law.
  250. @Prester John
    "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"

    This language does not appear in the 14th Amendment. Would that it did, because Original Intent would win the day for sure. The only qualifier, such as it is, is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (meaning of the United States), and it is my understanding that Trump is using these four words to justify eliminating birthright citizenship, which means that the five conservative justices will have to lean on such as the words of Senator Howard--who is only one person--in order to justify Trump's actions.

    Bottom line--as regards who qualifies as a citizen should be determined the hard way--via a constitutional amendment, otherwise I see nothing but problems.

    Replies: @JerryC

    Here’s the deal. The framers of the 14th Amendment wrote the thing up with present conditions in mind. Hence the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier, which was meant to exclude the American Indians/recognize the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. But illegal aliens and anchor babies weren’t really a thing in 1868, so the original intent could not have been to grant them citizenship automatically.

    The common sense thing to do in this case would be to say that the constitution neither compels nor forbids anchor baby citizenship. It’s a political question and should be decided through the normal legislative and administrative channels.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @JerryC

    That would be a great and entirely appropriate judicial punt. That's what Scalia constantly reiterated: the Constitution is the national charter, not the operations manual. That's what legislatures are for.

  251. @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    Announcing that Ginsburg was on the way out would probably be one of the few things that might actually rescue Dem attempts to win control of the Senate.
     
    1. What, the pro-abortion people will turn their megaphones up to 11? The demonstrators will go from hysterical to ultra-hysterical? Anyone who is going to vote on this issue is already voting Dem. I think the Dems gave it all they got and it looks like they are going to fall short on the Senate.

    2. RBG is a private person. She clearly has all sorts of ailments that she has not spoken publicly about but which affect things like her ability to keep her head up. She had ample opportunity to retire during the Obama administration and allow Obama to appoint another Wise Latina to replace her but she didn't. It seems pretty clear to me that she intends to die in the saddle so we are not going to learn about her final illness until it is really final - either when she is dead or checks into the hospital for the last time.

    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    3. Pancreatic cancer is usually a quick death but it depends on the form. Steve Jobs lasted a lot longer than most (which just meant that he suffered more).

    On the other hand, Todd Bol, the creator of the Little Free Library movement, was diagnosed with it early this month, and was dead by the 18th.

  252. @Redneck farmer
    The problem isn't birthright citizenship for illegal aliens' children; it's letting those children bring in family members.

    Replies: @S. Verdad

    what famly members can the children of illegal aliens bring in?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @S. Verdad

    Whichever ones they can sponsor as an adult. So bring in a sibling when you are 22, bring in mom and dad (If they weren't deported) to help with their grandkids in your 30s. The people you sponsored bring in other people, who bring in family members closer to them. Michener described it in a chapter in Caribbean.

  253. @Chrisnonymous
    @Lot

    I appreciate the work of NumbersUSA, but on this issue of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they are mistaken, and that article you linked is too shallow--see, for example, this post on the language that is quoted in the NumbersUSA article: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39284

    As I tried to point out in a comment on that site, the only real wiggle room we have from a legal perspective is the fact that Indians were excluded along with diplomats' families despite not having complete diplomatic immunity from US law, and this exclusion was based on Congressional legislation.

    As a legal matter, other than passing another Amendment to clarify the 14th, the best way for Congress to overturn birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law, thus making them not entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

    not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law

    Legal aliens are already exempt from Selective Service registration. Use that.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @res
    @Reg Cæsar

    That's a good idea, but there may be a problem with it only applying to males between 18 and 25.

    https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration

    This document (linked there) goes into detail on which immigrants must register: https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/WhoMustRegisterChart.pdf
    I did not realize undocumented immigrants (in the US at that age) had to register.

  254. @J.Ross
    @D. K.


    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.
     
    This is an admission of defeat. It's a nineteenth century legislator, not a modern speaker with a copy of Strunk under his arm. Tell us how our foundational documents are invalid because of the spelling errors.
    You will not get away from anchor babyism being possible only so long as people have their eyes off it. Once we get the average person to understand just how sloppy this is, it's over.

    Replies: @D. K., @Joe Stalin

    No, it is merely pointing out that the senator did not say what some people claim that he said. The words “foreigners” and “aliens” meant the same thing, then as now, and the following clause merely modified those two words that referred to the same category, to limit those births not covered by the proposed amendment; the senator was not listing three separate categories– (1) “foreigners;” (2) “aliens;” and (3) “[those] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” (1) is the same thing as (2), and (3) is merely a tiny subset of both (1) and (2). If he had been listing three separate categories, then the American-born children of legal immigrants who had not yet been naturalized would not be eligible for birthright citizenship, either!

    Birthright citizenship finally will be over if and when, and only if and when, the Supreme Court says so, or else if and when a constitutional amendment ending or limiting it is passed by the United States Congress, and then ratified by the necessary supermajority of state legislatures.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    >the words "foreigners" and "aliens"
    Irrelevent. And it's a dodge on your own comment -- dishonest! You claimed that Americans don't fumble "or" and "nor" in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books. Now you want to introduce new and uncontested material. They teach you that in law school?
    How much prose do you expect it would take to prove that people in the late nineteenth century were thinking approvingly about the Merkelboner? Do you think drawings would help?

    Replies: @D. K., @Federalist

  255. This is democracy.

    Agreed. Was that a 300 reference? If so, nicely done. As to your original question…

    What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?

    It is a strategic mistake.

    An EO on birthright citizenship will result in a SCOTUS case that will put the conservatives on the Court in the position of either (a) upholding the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment or (b) making an “activist” and “political” decision against the current interpretation.

    The latter result is dishonest for conservatives and will prove to liberals that they are correct to oppose the appointment of conservative justices and judges at all costs.

    However, the former result would be worse. A SCOTUS case will allow the left time to martial all their arguments and present them in the relatively truthful and rational zone of the judiciary. A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment. A decision by the Court in favor of the left (especially one including the votes of conservative justices) would, in that case, make them appear to be on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American way, and, ultimately, make overturning the 14th Amendment through legislative action more difficult. On the other hand, if the left’s initial presentation of its arguments is done in the context of a political debate over legislative action, all the liars on our side of the issue can muddy the waters for low-information voters and make it easier for us to overturn 14. As I said above, the current best way to deal with the issue is to pass some legislation extending privileges to aliens that makes them and and their children not entirely subject to US jurisdiction. The president can extend an EO after that.

    • Replies: @Tulip
    @Chrisnonymous

    An EO on birthright citizenship will result in a SCOTUS case that will put the conservatives on the Court in the position of either (a) upholding the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment

    There is no such thing. There has never been a SCOTUS case on the question of whether the child of an illegal immigrant is by operation of constitutional magic a U.S. Citizen. Wong Kim Ark addressed the child of a two individuals lawfully residing and domiciled in the U.S.

    This leaves two gray areas: 1.) children of people illegally residing in the US, 2.) people who are not residing in or domiciled in the US (birth tourists). Granted, the rationale of Wong Kim Ark suggested that the controlling principle was i.) being on U.S. soil and ii.) being subject to U.S. law at the time of birth (e.g. not diplomatic immunity). Applying the rationale to the grey areas would give the open borders result, but as they say in law, its merely dicta.

    Additionally, Wong Kim Ark had a powerful dissent consistent with the position of real Americans, which would find that children in 1.) or 2.) were not citizens. However, Wong Kim Ark is the law--in the narrow context of the decision--the question is whether the controlling principle applies in a context outside the context of that case. . . which is the subject of Trump's EO.

    As far as a SCOTUS decision that supports the integrity of the concept of citizenship in this country, I don't know how any intelligent person could confuse that as anything other than the only possible conservative position. Second, there is no judicial activism here, this is just a decision on the limits of an existing legal principle.

    The cheap labor lobby just has their knickers up because someone is questioning their assumptions, and rather than rationally defend the irrational, they are crying heretic and hiding behind the "consensus of authorities" (who 70 years ago were in consensus that segregation was the law of the Land).

    There is no reason why citizenship should be handed out to children of birth tourists or illegal immigrants. It is rationally indefensible from the perspective of a meaningful Commonwealth. Ron Unz raises a good, pragmatic, point that any changes should not be retroactive, but I'm sure the Judges can make up a reason why its not retroactive, or Congress can address it in legislation if we come to that point.

    , @res
    @Chrisnonymous


    A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment.
     
    Do you have any evidence to support either of these claims?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  256. @Anon
    In 2010 Viktor Orban's Fidesz Party won the election with 53% of the vote, which translated into 2/3rds of the seats in Parliament. A new constitution was drawn up.

    Also in 2010, the GOP received 52% of the vote for the House, and got way less than 2/3 of the seats. So the GOP can't simply amend the Constitution to remove jus soli. The GOP also doesn't have the 37 state legislatures needed to ratify.

    The departure of several bicoastal blue states, and partitioning Chicago from Downstate, along with the indpendence of the Territories; might be able to give the GOP the numbers to transform the remaining country into an illiberal state.

    Replies: @Lowe

    In other words, we just have to goad California into seceding, and then before we reconquer it, we amend the Constitution.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  257. @Lowe
    @EliteCommInc.

    He was joking.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    Understood.

  258. @International Jew
    Ok, but it's unfair to punish children for a crime committed by their parents. I mean, if I rob a bank, I go to jail, fine, but my kids still get to keep the loot, don't they?

    Replies: @EliteCommInc., @EliteCommInc.

    Excuse me for missing your sarcasm . . .

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @EliteCommInc.

    That's ok, I troll lefties with that analogy all the time, and they rarely get it.

  259. @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless

    No, children inherit the citizenship of their parents.

    Under US law, if one parent is American, the child is a US citizen.

  260. @anon
    Ending birthright citizenship is a concept way passed it's time. All other countries in the world require at least one parent to be citizen before citizenship can be granted. It's time the US catches up since this loophole has been exploited 9 ways to Sunday.

    The trouble with doing it with an EO is, even if it's ratified by SCOTUS, it can still be easily cancelled by the next POTUS. The only way to really get it done is through congress. If the GOP retains the house and gets a huge lead in the senate, we could probably get it done. If not, there's no chance of this ever being done through congress. However doing this as an EO will at least put a pause on it while Trump is president. I say he should hurry up and get it done this week. Let the Dems look like crap before midterm by trying to block him.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ending birthright citizenship is a concept way passed it’s time. All other countries in the world require at least one parent to be citizen before citizenship can be granted.

    In correcting the President, an NPR voice just said that there are in fact 30 countries in the world that have it. But she didn’t bother to name any of them.

    An Eritrean once told me it would be very easy of me to move to his country. And I though, you know, that might be true. There probably isn’t a long line at the door.

  261. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:

    As a legal immigrant I think it’s about damn time the US closes this loophole. Failure to do this will plunge America into an ungovernable 3rd world shithole within the next 20 years. The vast majority of people from the 3rd world are incredibly dishonest, that’s why they are still third world. Dishonest people always make the honest look stupid. Their exploitation of this law makes America look extremely stupid, and we are being ripped off 9 ways to Sunday by border crashers from the South to birth tourists from China to the Middle East.

    Trump needs to walk the talk and put in this EO, then look for a way to get congress to pass this into law. America needs a 20 year moratorium on immigration, and end all foreign wars, now.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  262. @Chrisnonymous
    @istevefan


    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.
     
    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you and Buchanan (as you represent him). The records of the Congressional debates over the 14th Amendment reveal that the opponents actually raised the spectre of differently-raced foreign hordes invading our country at the time of the debates. In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians. The result of these debates was that the wording of the current Amendment passed Congressional votes, effectively rejecting the arguments against birth citizenship that were made on the basis of its possible social effects. While I don't know the legal status of parents being specifically discussed, it's obvious that the Amendment's current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @istevefan

    it’s obvious that the Amendment’s current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress

    There is no “current interpretation.” And the interpretation you attribute to it was not obviously intended by its drafters.

  263. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

    I’m sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I’m mistaken.

    It’s a fair question. But…

    Was their citizenship conferred by statute or by the Constitution? If by statute, it largely moots your point.

  264. @Space Ghost
    @D. K.

    > I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship

    Then the Supreme Court would declare that it violates the 14th Amendment. The only real solution here is a constitutional amendment.

    Replies: @D. K.

    That is my own opinion, as an erstwhile attorney schooled in Constitutional Law; but I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

    • Replies: @anon
    @D. K.


    the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
     
    Really? Have they in fact "accepted" that the offspring of illegal infiltrators are U.S. citizens under the Constitution? Where? When?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @D. K.

    , @Bubba
    @D. K.


    I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
     
    Hmmm...that reminds me of an Oliver Twist quote, something about the law being an ass - black slaves are 3/5 of a white man, a tomato is a vegetable, the destructive interpretation of the 16 word Commerce Clause, Obamacare is a tax, abortion is a Constitutional right, etc...

    My dear erstwhile Esquire, I do believe you're engaging in logical fallacies of appealing to authority and ridicule.

    Replies: @D. K.

  265. @Chrisnonymous
    @Lot

    I appreciate the work of NumbersUSA, but on this issue of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they are mistaken, and that article you linked is too shallow--see, for example, this post on the language that is quoted in the NumbersUSA article: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39284

    As I tried to point out in a comment on that site, the only real wiggle room we have from a legal perspective is the fact that Indians were excluded along with diplomats' families despite not having complete diplomatic immunity from US law, and this exclusion was based on Congressional legislation.

    As a legal matter, other than passing another Amendment to clarify the 14th, the best way for Congress to overturn birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law, thus making them not entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Lot

    The meaning of the 14th Amendment is what the Supreme Court says it means.

    The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t really care if Jr. Illegals are citizens or not, just don’t touch their supply of Asian coolies.

    We’re gonna win this one. Join the bandwagon, spread the word.

  266. @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.
     
    The US Constitution is immutable.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous

    You sure?

  267. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.
     
    The US Constitution is immutable.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous

    The US Constitution is immutable.

    I can’t tell if this is sarcasm, but taking your position at face value, I’d submit that the Constitution does not state which persons cannot be citizens. It only designates a class of people who receive citizenship under the Constitution. It doesn’t prevent Congress from granting citizenship to anyone it wishes, even the entire world.

  268. anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    That is my own opinion, as an erstwhile attorney schooled in Constitutional Law; but I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

    Replies: @anon, @Bubba

    the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

    Really? Have they in fact “accepted” that the offspring of illegal infiltrators are U.S. citizens under the Constitution? Where? When?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @anon

    Hey go easy on them, it's not easy to simultaneously sincerely believe that the Yellow Peril can never be citizens, that they may not even be fully human, and at the same time to honestly think that they can by an accident of geography.

    , @D. K.
    @anon

    Every time that the federal government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as an American citizen, and every time that a state government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as a citizen of that state, by granting rights and privileges reserved for citizens, they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment. Where and when has any "anchor baby" provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth?

    Replies: @anon, @whorefinder

  269. @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Buzz Mohawk



    No one explained why anyone would not be subject to a jurisdiction immediately upon being born in that jurisdiction.

     

    A Chinese woman, 8 months pregnant, vacations to Disneyland, gives birth prematurely there, then returns back to China.

    When the child grows up in China, does he:

    1. Pay US income tax on income earned abroad?

    2. Register for the selective service?

    3. Vote in US presidental elections?

    Replies: @PiltdownMan

    When the child grows up in China, does he:

    1. Pay US income tax on income earned abroad?

    Yes.

    He is required to, anyway, as former British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson discovered. He was born here when his parents were visiting students, and they all left when he was a newborn.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/02/15/savvy-london-mayor-boris-johnson-paid-irs-is-now-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/#b47658721c1d

    https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/89118/how-did-the-irs-know-that-boris-johnson-sold-his-house

    http://www.boris-johnson.com/2006/08/29/american-passport/

  270. Jack Hanson says:

    Trump continues to dance on the graves of his foes.

    The reality is that the idea of the 14th AMD guaranteeing citizenship jus soili to everybody born here is an incredibly recent one, and an administrative interpretation.

    Trump played his cards well. Good thing Kavenaugh is cultured enough to not laugh as he reads the majority opinion on this one.

  271. @J.Ross
    @D. K.


    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.
     
    This is an admission of defeat. It's a nineteenth century legislator, not a modern speaker with a copy of Strunk under his arm. Tell us how our foundational documents are invalid because of the spelling errors.
    You will not get away from anchor babyism being possible only so long as people have their eyes off it. Once we get the average person to understand just how sloppy this is, it's over.

    Replies: @D. K., @Joe Stalin

    Reminds me of how the Streetsweeper/Striker 12 12 gauge shotsguns were declared Class 3 “Destructive Devices” when some anti-gunner noticed a missing comma in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Joe Stalin

    And more broadly they do this "of course the Founders smoked pot" stuff all the time, Heather Mac Donald devoted the first part of one of her books to how the concept of charity (which once meant minimal help to get an honest worker to stability) was unapologetically rewritten to mean subsidizing unproductivity and destructive habits.

  272. @D. K.
    @J.Ross

    No, it is merely pointing out that the senator did not say what some people claim that he said. The words "foreigners" and "aliens" meant the same thing, then as now, and the following clause merely modified those two words that referred to the same category, to limit those births not covered by the proposed amendment; the senator was not listing three separate categories-- (1) "foreigners;" (2) "aliens;" and (3) "[those] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." (1) is the same thing as (2), and (3) is merely a tiny subset of both (1) and (2). If he had been listing three separate categories, then the American-born children of legal immigrants who had not yet been naturalized would not be eligible for birthright citizenship, either!

    Birthright citizenship finally will be over if and when, and only if and when, the Supreme Court says so, or else if and when a constitutional amendment ending or limiting it is passed by the United States Congress, and then ratified by the necessary supermajority of state legislatures.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    >the words “foreigners” and “aliens”
    Irrelevent. And it’s a dodge on your own comment — dishonest! You claimed that Americans don’t fumble “or” and “nor” in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books. Now you want to introduce new and uncontested material. They teach you that in law school?
    How much prose do you expect it would take to prove that people in the late nineteenth century were thinking approvingly about the Merkelboner? Do you think drawings would help?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @J.Ross

    "You claimed that Americans don’t fumble “or” and “nor” in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books."

    Your reading comprehension is decidedly sub-optimal; I said no such thing. I said that in order for the third clause that I numbered to be taken as a separate category, thus leaving "foreigners" and "aliens" unmodified by that third clause, it would have needed to start with a "nor," in order to separate it from "foreigners" and "aliens;" if you prefer to accept an illiterate "or" in place of "nor," that is fine by me-- but there is no "or" present to separate that third clause from "foreigners" and "aliens," either! The man was speaking on the Senate floor, not writing a legal brief. The entire construction-- "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"-- refers to a single category of excluded people, with the third clause modifying the first two clauses, and the second clause merely being a restatement of the first, using a synonym for "foreigners" that is used in federal statutes. If you still cannot grasp what I am saying, Mr. Ross, please take that shortcoming up with your own parents.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Federalist
    @J.Ross

    J. Ross, what you are saying in this thread is right. D.K. is a troll. He won't directly address the points that you or several others have made. You are supposed to be impressed because he used to be a lawyer.

    Replies: @Bubba

  273. @Declane
    @The Z Blog

    If it's too late, why do you keep a blog? You should be preparing for the end of civilized society.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    Eeyore LARP is the saddest LARP.

  274. istevefan says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    @istevefan


    I’ve always agreed with Patrick Buchanan that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted on giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.
     
    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you and Buchanan (as you represent him). The records of the Congressional debates over the 14th Amendment reveal that the opponents actually raised the spectre of differently-raced foreign hordes invading our country at the time of the debates. In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians. The result of these debates was that the wording of the current Amendment passed Congressional votes, effectively rejecting the arguments against birth citizenship that were made on the basis of its possible social effects. While I don't know the legal status of parents being specifically discussed, it's obvious that the Amendment's current interpretation is the one intended by those who wrote and passed it in Congress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @istevefan

    In fact, although we think of Chinese birth tourism as a product of very modern ease of travel, one vocal opponent of birth citizenship at the time claimed that it was so easy at that time for Chinese to cross the Pacific that California could be overrun by Chinese giving birth to a new population of Californians.

    I read parts of that discussion. The man who brought up the possibility of California being swamped by the Chinese was opposed, not because the other guys supported birthright citizenship at no cost, but because they thought his assessment was incorrect. Here is a dialogue exchange with excerpts from Cowan (against birthright citizenship for aliens) and Conness who thought those concerns were silly.

    Note how Conness brings up that fact that he lived in California and knew the Chinese. He was sure they all wanted to go home and that they did not bring over females in large numbers. He even claimed they sent their dead back home to be buried. So why worry about it?

    It sounds similar to how in 1965 some senators mocked those who claimed the new immigration act would dilute and change the population. Recall Teddy Kennedy saying those claims were false and the ethnic balance would not be disturbed. Likewise the guy opposing birthright citizenship to aliens in 1866 was treated as though he was crazy for thinking that it would transform the population.

    Read this brief exchange for yourselves and see. They always call restrictionists the know-nothings from that group in the 1850s. But it turns out the the enlightened guys who denounce restrictionists always turn out to be wrong. Either that, or they knew the consequences ahead of time and just lied. Either way the American public was never told upfront that they were going to be displaced, whether by the 1965 Immigration Act or by the poison pill of the 14th Amendment.

    Mr. COWAN. I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locatethere and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point

    One of the guys responding

    Mr. CONNESS…Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other,either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese — from forty to forty-five thousand. Those persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land. It is not an unusual circumstance that the clipper ships trading between San Francisco and China carry at a time three or four hundred human remains of these Chinese. When interred in our State they are not interred deep in the earth, but laid very near the surface, and then mounds of earth are laid over them, so that the process of disinterment is very easy.That is their habit and custom; and as soon as they are fit for transmission to their own country they are taken up with great regularity and sent there. None of their bones are allowed to remain. They will return, then, either living or dead.Another feature connected with them is, that they do not bring their females to our country but in very limited numbers, and rarely ever in connection with families; so that their progeny in California is very small indeed

    Full transcript

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  275. @anon
    @D. K.

    the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the legislative intent.

    Citation needed.

    Replies: @D. K.

    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:

    ***

    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute’s plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says “motor vehicles”, then the court is most likely to construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not “aeroplanes” or “bicycles” even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.

    In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

    Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

    U.S. Supreme Court: “We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Meaning

    • Replies: @anon
    @D. K.


    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation.
     
    These aren't "rules" in a legal sense. They are "canons of interpretation", optional, guides in interpreting a text, "rules of thumb." They are advisory.

    Anyways, who is to say whether the words of this particular clause are "unambiguous"? Do words ever have meaning shorne of all context? What if one interpretation leads to a ridiculous result?

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Federalist
    @D. K.


    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:
     
    How magnanimous of you, ex-lawyer.

    The Wikipedia article you cite explains that a court would be unlikely to construe the term "motor vehicles" to include airplanes, even though airplanes are vehicles with motors.

    Similarly, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment. See this explanation previously suggested to you by The Alarmist: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @D. K.

  276. @anon
    @D. K.


    the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
     
    Really? Have they in fact "accepted" that the offspring of illegal infiltrators are U.S. citizens under the Constitution? Where? When?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @D. K.

    Hey go easy on them, it’s not easy to simultaneously sincerely believe that the Yellow Peril can never be citizens, that they may not even be fully human, and at the same time to honestly think that they can by an accident of geography.

  277. @Joe Stalin
    @J.Ross

    Reminds me of how the Streetsweeper/Striker 12 12 gauge shotsguns were declared Class 3 "Destructive Devices" when some anti-gunner noticed a missing comma in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    And more broadly they do this “of course the Founders smoked pot” stuff all the time, Heather Mac Donald devoted the first part of one of her books to how the concept of charity (which once meant minimal help to get an honest worker to stability) was unapologetically rewritten to mean subsidizing unproductivity and destructive habits.

  278. anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @anon

    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:

    ***

    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles", then the court is most likely to construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not "aeroplanes" or "bicycles" even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.

    In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

    Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

    U.S. Supreme Court: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Meaning

    Replies: @anon, @Federalist

    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation.

    These aren’t “rules” in a legal sense. They are “canons of interpretation”, optional, guides in interpreting a text, “rules of thumb.” They are advisory.

    Anyways, who is to say whether the words of this particular clause are “unambiguous”? Do words ever have meaning shorne of all context? What if one interpretation leads to a ridiculous result?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

  279. @EliteCommInc.
    @International Jew

    Excuse me for missing your sarcasm . . .

    Replies: @International Jew

    That’s ok, I troll lefties with that analogy all the time, and they rarely get it.

  280. @OP
    I would prefer if it was done through legislation. It's very easy for an EO to be reversed. I would also prefer if it were extended to all non-citizens, not just illegals.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Sammler, @Jim Sweeney, @e, @sf, @MBlanc46

    In the Wong Kim Ark case, the supreme court found that Mr. Ark’s parents were the 19th century equivalent of legal immigrants with a green card, and therefore Mr. Ark was a citizen. Overcoming this would require a supreme court willing to ignore this precedent (unlikely) or a constitutional amendment. The decision had an unspoken implication that if Mr. Ark’s parents had entered after the Chinese Exclusion Act, the decision would have gone the other way.

  281. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Detective Club

    I've been told by an 85% reliable source that RBG has been recently DXed with pancreatic cancer.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Wilkey, @tyrone, @Paul Yarbles, @jon, @Clyde, @Bubba

    I think RBG has been dead for years was replaced with a body double from The Walking Dead or a really crappy Japanese robot. Same with Diane Feinstein.

  282. @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    What is your point? I was not arguing that Congress could not do so; I was arguing that it would be politically easier for it to pass a bill that just would constrain birthright citizenship. Regardless, do you really want the federal courts to be barred from ruling on any immigration issues? Is that what you will want if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, come early January? Is it what you will want if another Democratic-majority Congress is seated in January 2021, a couple of weeks before a Democratic president is inaugurated to replace Donald Trump?

    Replies: @Space Ghost, @Mr. Rational

    It would be a relatively simple matter to require that all suits regarding immigration or citizenship be filed in the DC circuit.  That would put the Ninth Circus out of action on this issue.

    For real fun, force all 2nd Amendment issues into the DC circuit as well.

  283. @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    >the words "foreigners" and "aliens"
    Irrelevent. And it's a dodge on your own comment -- dishonest! You claimed that Americans don't fumble "or" and "nor" in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books. Now you want to introduce new and uncontested material. They teach you that in law school?
    How much prose do you expect it would take to prove that people in the late nineteenth century were thinking approvingly about the Merkelboner? Do you think drawings would help?

    Replies: @D. K., @Federalist

    “You claimed that Americans don’t fumble “or” and “nor” in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books.”

    Your reading comprehension is decidedly sub-optimal; I said no such thing. I said that in order for the third clause that I numbered to be taken as a separate category, thus leaving “foreigners” and “aliens” unmodified by that third clause, it would have needed to start with a “nor,” in order to separate it from “foreigners” and “aliens;” if you prefer to accept an illiterate “or” in place of “nor,” that is fine by me– but there is no “or” present to separate that third clause from “foreigners” and “aliens,” either! The man was speaking on the Senate floor, not writing a legal brief. The entire construction– “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”– refers to a single category of excluded people, with the third clause modifying the first two clauses, and the second clause merely being a restatement of the first, using a synonym for “foreigners” that is used in federal statutes. If you still cannot grasp what I am saying, Mr. Ross, please take that shortcoming up with your own parents.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    comment 285


    I said no such thing.

     

    comment 197

    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.
     

    Replies: @D. K.

  284. @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits. Throughout the 20th Century, especially after WW2, the main bringer of court cases to challenge constitutional limits were left-wing organizations. Lefties followed a set template found in Brown v. Board of Education: find a sympathetic plaintiff, get a lefty-front organization (the NAACP, the ACLU, etc.) to quarterback the legal service; have other Lefty organizations swamp the court with amicus, get demonstrations going in front of the Supreme Court, get Earl Warren to lobby the justices, then make sure the arguments were directed to the justices most on the fence. (Also, make sure you get your guys planted on the federal judiciary).

    The Right really wasn’t organized as the Left was, nor did it have a strategy of using the courts to ram its agenda through. So the Right couldn’t get it together to bring a suit to get the law clarified/challenged. When the Right finally did so in the 21st Century in the 2nd Amendment cases, it got its clear victory.

    Meanwhile, the Left wasn’t going to bring suit because the ongoinging consensus—thanks to a random footnote and lefty legal professors asserting it—was that birthright citizenship existed. Why would the Left dare to both make this issue more public—and therefore garner more opponents—and risk having the policy overturned by the Supreme Court? It was simply stupid for the Left to do so. It got the borders opened in 1965, that’s all it needed.

    So neither side was going to bring it.

    2. Related to number 1: Lack of standing. “Standing” is a rule in federal court that only those personally affected by a law/policy can bring a lawsuit. Importantly, having a “generalized” grievance isn’t enough; you have to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome. The standing issue has given the federal courts many an excuse to punt a case because it claims you aren’t personally affected enough to bring it—the harm was too attenuated.

    And for Person A to claim that the grant to Person B’s of birthright citizenship harmed Person A is a classic claim that the courts would have dismissed due to lack of standing—-any harm that Person A alleged would have been judged “too attenuated” to grant standing. All the harm was indirect or secondary, according to the courts.

    3. The immigration issue really wasn’t a big right-wing issue of the times. Its only grown more important since the 1965 opening of the borders and the now-open assertion by the Left that this is being used to ethnically cleanse whites.

    Your comparison to the gay “marriage” nonsense is really a non sequitur and beneath you. Constitutional issues take decades to germinate and get to the Supreme Court “deciding” it. First Amendment limits was considered set-in-stone until the Left took up the cause in the 1900s and convinced many a judge to come to their side, notably the great dissenter, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Segregation law was considered immutable until Brown v. Board. etc.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @whorefinder

    I haven't read the comment you're responding to, so I don't know whether your comment fairly meets its substance, but standing on its own, that's a very good comment.

    , @Ron Unz
    @whorefinder


    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits.
     
    Well, I'm not really talking about a Supreme Court case. I'm just saying until pretty recently, I'm not sure whether anyone in the entire history of the country had ever questioned whether the birthright citizenship applied to the children of illegal immigrants, despite the many, many millions of such children granted their citizenship over the last hundred-odd years.

    I'm curious whether anyone can find a Congressman, mayor, or ordinary judge who ever disputed the issue, or even just an opinion columnist writing in some newspaper somewhere. Maybe there actually was one in the last 100 years, but none of the anti-birthright people have ever cited an example. With so many millions of children having received their citizenship that way, it was hardly an obscure issue.

    I really do think the Gay Marriage issue is a pretty good analogy. As far as I can tell, until about 20-odd years ago, nobody in the history of the entire world had ever advocated Gay Marriage, and then suddenly we discover it had actually been in our Constitution all along.

    And I'm sure you can't find a single Supreme Court ruling in 230 years stating that Gay Marriage is *not* guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution...

    Replies: @whorefinder

  285. anon[681] • Disclaimer says:

    There are now lots of Chinese who are living in the US on tourist visas, bought their homes with cash, and are sending their children to our public schools for free. Some of these children are foreign born, others born here. None should get citizenship. They could do this because effing Obama gave them 10 year tourist visas. It’s time to cut it back to 3 months.

    Foreign citizens should pay full fee when attending our public schools, $14,000 per year K-12.

    All the Indians here on H1b should get the same treatment. None of their children should get citizenship. At least one parent must be citizen for the child to be citizen. Otherwise the child gets the same status as the parent, either green card or temporary dependent visa. They will get the same citizenship as the parents’.

    Both groups like to bring in the parents to babysit the kids. The parents should never get green cards or citizenship, which allows them to start collecting social security and get medicare without having contributed a penny into the system.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Lucas McCrudy
    @anon

    You can thank a 1982 SCOTUS decision, Plyler v. Doe., for saddling us with the concept of anchor babies (at least according to Queen Ann) and for forcing public schools to give any person that shows up, regardless of his immigration status or that of his parents, regardless if he's been vaccinated for infectious diseases, regardless of whether he's chronologically an adult (a 30 y.o. with an 8th grade education could sign up for the 9th grade at your local public school, claim to be a teenager -but since were talking about 3rd Worlders, have no way of authenticating their real birth date- amd then sit next to your 14 y.o. children in class) the "right" to attend public schools totally free of charge.

  286. @anon
    @D. K.


    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation.
     
    These aren't "rules" in a legal sense. They are "canons of interpretation", optional, guides in interpreting a text, "rules of thumb." They are advisory.

    Anyways, who is to say whether the words of this particular clause are "unambiguous"? Do words ever have meaning shorne of all context? What if one interpretation leads to a ridiculous result?

    Replies: @D. K.

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are “unambiguous.” When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called “anchor babies”– then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @D. K.

    The 14th Amendment's claim that it applies to those "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means is not plain.

    This really isn't that hard. The Left tried the same "plain meaning" nonsense on the 2nd Amendment and came up short, because the "plain meaning" wasn't there, and needed interpretation.

    And looking at "intent" via congressional debates is very, very subjective, as Justice Scalia pointed out many times to great effect. Each and every person who voted on the 14th Amendment's passage had their own interpretation of what the words meant, and none of their individual belief has more strength than any other's, not even the composers of the language or the sponsors.

    What will probably happen is that the Supreme Court will look to what federal courts of the time considered in cases about whether someone was "subject to jurisdiction thereof". Likely there will be some diplomat cases.

    Replies: @anonymous, @D. K.

    , @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.
     
    This isn't about the executive order itself. Trump is setting up a situation where the Supreme Court will have to decide the issue, and either Trump will win (birthright citizenship will be held to be un-protected by the constitution) or he will have a huge club to beat the court and the left with (they sided with corrupt birther scammers! give me another term to appoint real justices! Drain the swamp!) . There is no way all the left-wing front groups won't be all over this in the courts, which will fast track it to the Supreme Court.

    Trump has thus solved two of the greatest problems with getting this decided by the Supreme Court: he'll get the Left to bring a lawsuit, and he's given someone standing to challenge the policy. That in itself is huge. Even if the Supreme Court cements birthright citizenship, Trump wins, because the old law hasn't changed (the government treated birthright citizenship as law before), but now he makes the Left own it, and defend illegals over Americans, and it'll make stopping illegal immigration even more important---because now if they get in we can't get them out, officially.

    It's a very crafty move on his part. Whoever decided on this legal strategy is cagey---perhaps his federal appellate judge sister? Stephen Miller?

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Svigor
    @D. K.

    Maybe I'm jumping into this too late, but seems to me the 14th is a statute, Trump's (supposed - did he issue it yet?) E.O. is the interpretation, and SCotUS will be ruling on it (i.e., deciding if it will be held valid), or some 9th circuit shitbag's attempt to strike it down, whatever.

    , @vinteuil
    @D. K.


    so-called “anchor babies”
     
    It figures that you'd be uncomfortable with that phrase. The metaphor is a little too vivid for you, I guess?

    What's your...preferred nomenclature? Something like "dreamers-to-be," perhaps?

    Or maybe you'd rather that we just don't mention them at all?
    , @vinteuil
    @D. K.

    Oh, and this:


    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are “unambiguous.”
     
    Nuts. Merde. The courts have spent the last sixty years proving that they are just about the last people in the world to be trusted with any such judgment.
  287. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @istevefan

    "I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare."

    He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts's personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration -- he's an utterly compromised puppet.

    The EO is a great idea because it forces the Supreme Court to reassess the notion that foreigner invaders can secure US residency for themselves and welfare benefits for their children by hopping the border and plopping out a newborn.

    Put and end to hopping and plopping!

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Eagle Eye

    “He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts’s personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration — he’s an utterly compromised puppet.”

    LOL, you mean the shoe is on the other foot.

  288. @kihowi
    I tell you what. He's found the only thing that will stop people talking about murdered jews.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    I tell you what. He’s found the only thing that will stop people talking about murdered jews.

    Has it actually done that? if so, it was a stroke of genius. It would be interesting if Stephen Miller were behind it.

  289. @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Rational, @EliteCommInc.

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    And we should absolutely NOT grandfather them.  They have to go back.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Mr. Rational

    I agree, I'm ready to volunteer to grab people and shove them into shipping containers. That's not happening. With an alternate universe Trumpier Trump that dealt with the bureaucracy properly and built the wall, that still wouldn't happen. What will happen is Grandma stays, people with no record who have been here beyond a certain threshold stay, and the vatos Obama pretended he could not see will go. So: fix the law, empower the agencies, but [they will probably] show mercy in practice with the least threatening cases.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  290. @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    Good argument. “No one argued this before, therefore, its not a valid argument.” I see the argumentum ad antiquitatem
    fallacy lives on.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Appeal_to_tradition

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @whorefinder

    That's clearly not what he's saying. It would be self-explanatorily useful to the discussion if there was an earlier case to look at.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Anon

  291. @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

    if Trump’s Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they’ll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here…

    I most fervently hope for just that.

  292. “What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?

    I would say he ought to issue it and see where the legal process takes it.

    “Of course, birthright citizenship is a massive scam.”

    Then Michelle Malkin has to go, as well as current Americans of European descendants who came to our nation illegally.

    Regardless, birthright citizenship does need to go.

  293. @D. K.
    @J.Ross

    "You claimed that Americans don’t fumble “or” and “nor” in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books."

    Your reading comprehension is decidedly sub-optimal; I said no such thing. I said that in order for the third clause that I numbered to be taken as a separate category, thus leaving "foreigners" and "aliens" unmodified by that third clause, it would have needed to start with a "nor," in order to separate it from "foreigners" and "aliens;" if you prefer to accept an illiterate "or" in place of "nor," that is fine by me-- but there is no "or" present to separate that third clause from "foreigners" and "aliens," either! The man was speaking on the Senate floor, not writing a legal brief. The entire construction-- "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"-- refers to a single category of excluded people, with the third clause modifying the first two clauses, and the second clause merely being a restatement of the first, using a synonym for "foreigners" that is used in federal statutes. If you still cannot grasp what I am saying, Mr. Ross, please take that shortcoming up with your own parents.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    comment 285

    I said no such thing.

    comment 197

    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @J.Ross

    Yes, Zippy, a "nor" would have been needed before the aforementioned third clause; a "nor" could have been added, but would not have been required, before "aliens," as well. Had they been there, then the senator's statement would have been in the form of a list of exceptions-- albeit a redundant one, as "foreigners" means the same thing as "aliens"; since they were not there, as I already have stated and reiterated, the entire construction was a singular categorical exception to the inclusiveness of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Here, however, is what you claimed, in your next-to-latest reply to me in this string:

    "You claimed that Americans don’t fumble 'or' and 'nor' in spoken English...."

    Again, your reading comprehension skills are decidedly sub-optimal, no matter how many times you plow over the same old ground; again, I said no such thing.

  294. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Besser spät als nie, and dum spiro spero!

  295. @gregor
    I want to believe!

    Anchor babies are around 8% of US births, about 300,000 per year. About 25% of US school-age children are now Hispanic. What was it in the 80s? Like 5%? This is almost entirely because of illegal immigration, anchor babies and the secondary effects thereof. Ridiculous!

    At one point in 2015, it was looking like a Bush v. Clinton match up for president. From that miserable situation, we somehow find ourselves blessed to have a President making proposals like this.

    Replies: @anon

    In my area, home of Bill Gate’s tech plantation, it’s now 60% Asian in all elementary schools, half Chinese, half Indian. Merely 15 years ago, it was 10% Asian.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @anon

    He should change his name to Bill Floodgates.

  296. @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz

    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits. Throughout the 20th Century, especially after WW2, the main bringer of court cases to challenge constitutional limits were left-wing organizations. Lefties followed a set template found in Brown v. Board of Education: find a sympathetic plaintiff, get a lefty-front organization (the NAACP, the ACLU, etc.) to quarterback the legal service; have other Lefty organizations swamp the court with amicus, get demonstrations going in front of the Supreme Court, get Earl Warren to lobby the justices, then make sure the arguments were directed to the justices most on the fence. (Also, make sure you get your guys planted on the federal judiciary).

    The Right really wasn't organized as the Left was, nor did it have a strategy of using the courts to ram its agenda through. So the Right couldn't get it together to bring a suit to get the law clarified/challenged. When the Right finally did so in the 21st Century in the 2nd Amendment cases, it got its clear victory.

    Meanwhile, the Left wasn't going to bring suit because the ongoinging consensus---thanks to a random footnote and lefty legal professors asserting it---was that birthright citizenship existed. Why would the Left dare to both make this issue more public---and therefore garner more opponents---and risk having the policy overturned by the Supreme Court? It was simply stupid for the Left to do so. It got the borders opened in 1965, that's all it needed.

    So neither side was going to bring it.

    2. Related to number 1: Lack of standing. "Standing" is a rule in federal court that only those personally affected by a law/policy can bring a lawsuit. Importantly, having a "generalized" grievance isn't enough; you have to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome. The standing issue has given the federal courts many an excuse to punt a case because it claims you aren't personally affected enough to bring it---the harm was too attenuated.

    And for Person A to claim that the grant to Person B's of birthright citizenship harmed Person A is a classic claim that the courts would have dismissed due to lack of standing----any harm that Person A alleged would have been judged "too attenuated" to grant standing. All the harm was indirect or secondary, according to the courts.

    3. The immigration issue really wasn't a big right-wing issue of the times. Its only grown more important since the 1965 opening of the borders and the now-open assertion by the Left that this is being used to ethnically cleanse whites.

    Your comparison to the gay "marriage" nonsense is really a non sequitur and beneath you. Constitutional issues take decades to germinate and get to the Supreme Court "deciding" it. First Amendment limits was considered set-in-stone until the Left took up the cause in the 1900s and convinced many a judge to come to their side, notably the great dissenter, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Segregation law was considered immutable until Brown v. Board. etc.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Ron Unz

    I haven’t read the comment you’re responding to, so I don’t know whether your comment fairly meets its substance, but standing on its own, that’s a very good comment.

  297. @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

    The 14th Amendment’s claim that it applies to those “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means is not plain.

    This really isn’t that hard. The Left tried the same “plain meaning” nonsense on the 2nd Amendment and came up short, because the “plain meaning” wasn’t there, and needed interpretation.

    And looking at “intent” via congressional debates is very, very subjective, as Justice Scalia pointed out many times to great effect. Each and every person who voted on the 14th Amendment’s passage had their own interpretation of what the words meant, and none of their individual belief has more strength than any other’s, not even the composers of the language or the sponsors.

    What will probably happen is that the Supreme Court will look to what federal courts of the time considered in cases about whether someone was “subject to jurisdiction thereof”. Likely there will be some diplomat cases.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @whorefinder

    The 14th Amendment’s claim that it applies to those “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means is not plain.

    Are you sure that is the only ambiguity in the sentence? See ben tillman's reply above to The Z Blog.

    , @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    Pray tell, in what sense are "anchor babies" who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    Replies: @Anon, @whorefinder

  298. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me
    @Ripple Earthdevil

    @98 Ripple Earthdevil: "OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a ‘historic’ sexual assault problem"

    Jamaica has been a dangerous shithole for decades. The all-inclusive resorts give clueless tourists a false image of the country and a false sense of security. Plus, American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually 'liberated' and open to interracial sex). If I had a couple of bucks for every blonde who came to the embassy for a fiance visa for her dreadlocked fiance whose acquaintance she'd made a week ago . . .

    Sorry, but regarding ignorant tourists partying in the Caribbean - particularly non-White tourists from Michigan - ZFG. Natural culling long overdue.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @YetAnotherAnon

    “In Search of the Big Bamboo” was an article published in the leftist Utne Reader in or around the turn of the millennium. It was very famous and now is accessible only behind paywalls on line, but any public library ought to get you a reprint for free or inexpensively.

    https://mafiadoc.com/in-search-of-the-big-bamboopdf-bahamateach_59d808271723ddb0f71c0e47.html

    It concerned the propensity of usually older female tourists, often white but occasionally black or oriental, to go to island areas where the men were purportedly particularly bejingled-Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, et al-for a dusky right round rogering, and a few mistakenly trying to bring their pet donkeykongs back home.

  299. @D. K.
    @Space Ghost

    That is my own opinion, as an erstwhile attorney schooled in Constitutional Law; but I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

    Replies: @anon, @Bubba

    I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

    Hmmm…that reminds me of an Oliver Twist quote, something about the law being an ass – black slaves are 3/5 of a white man, a tomato is a vegetable, the destructive interpretation of the 16 word Commerce Clause, Obamacare is a tax, abortion is a Constitutional right, etc…

    My dear erstwhile Esquire, I do believe you’re engaging in logical fallacies of appealing to authority and ridicule.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Bubba

    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba? Regardless, the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @res

  300. @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

    Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    This isn’t about the executive order itself. Trump is setting up a situation where the Supreme Court will have to decide the issue, and either Trump will win (birthright citizenship will be held to be un-protected by the constitution) or he will have a huge club to beat the court and the left with (they sided with corrupt birther scammers! give me another term to appoint real justices! Drain the swamp!) . There is no way all the left-wing front groups won’t be all over this in the courts, which will fast track it to the Supreme Court.

    Trump has thus solved two of the greatest problems with getting this decided by the Supreme Court: he’ll get the Left to bring a lawsuit, and he’s given someone standing to challenge the policy. That in itself is huge. Even if the Supreme Court cements birthright citizenship, Trump wins, because the old law hasn’t changed (the government treated birthright citizenship as law before), but now he makes the Left own it, and defend illegals over Americans, and it’ll make stopping illegal immigration even more important—because now if they get in we can’t get them out, officially.

    It’s a very crafty move on his part. Whoever decided on this legal strategy is cagey—perhaps his federal appellate judge sister? Stephen Miller?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    I am against birthright citizenship for the "anchor babies" of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called "green card"); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end-- although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

  301. @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    comment 285


    I said no such thing.

     

    comment 197

    You are missing a “nor” or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean.
     

    Replies: @D. K.

    Yes, Zippy, a “nor” would have been needed before the aforementioned third clause; a “nor” could have been added, but would not have been required, before “aliens,” as well. Had they been there, then the senator’s statement would have been in the form of a list of exceptions– albeit a redundant one, as “foreigners” means the same thing as “aliens”; since they were not there, as I already have stated and reiterated, the entire construction was a singular categorical exception to the inclusiveness of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Here, however, is what you claimed, in your next-to-latest reply to me in this string:

    “You claimed that Americans don’t fumble ‘or’ and ‘nor’ in spoken English….”

    Again, your reading comprehension skills are decidedly sub-optimal, no matter how many times you plow over the same old ground; again, I said no such thing.

  302. @anon
    @gregor

    In my area, home of Bill Gate's tech plantation, it's now 60% Asian in all elementary schools, half Chinese, half Indian. Merely 15 years ago, it was 10% Asian.

    Replies: @Anon

    He should change his name to Bill Floodgates.

  303. @The Z Blog
    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme. That means this is mostly a PR stunt by Trump. He will most likely never sign such an EO, but if he does, it will be in the courts until he is removed, resigns or serves out his term. Then it will be dropped by President Kamala Harris.

    As far as an amendment, it would take decades to get through the states and by then the country will be swamped with Mayan and Aztec tribesman, plus the millions the immigrant rackets will have imported from Africa. That assumes the Congress would ever be allowed to vote on it and send it to the states. At this point, only a complete fool thinks Congress has any power. They are actors hired by the people in charge to put on a show for us.

    But I digress.

    I give Trump credit for raising the issue. The guy has balls. The trouble is, he is two generations too late.

    Replies: @Declane, @Anon, @Anon, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @The Alarmist, @Old Palo Altan, @Dr. X, @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Well, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the issue of freed slaves. That we know. We also know the current courts will not acknowledge that and instead become literal in the extreme.

    Literalism favors us.

    Relevant language:

    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.

    “Born” and “naturalized” are participles, verb forms used as adjectives. The relative pronoun and relevant auxiliary verb are elided. The relevant pronoun must be “who”, but the elided verb could be “are” or “were” or “have been” or, perhaps one might argue, something else. And then think about the implications of “are” instead of the usual “shall be”.

  304. If anything happens to birthright citizenship, it’s going to take a long record of scholarship or a Constitutional amendment. Whatever we think about it on the merits, it’s not something that Donald Trump can get rid of on Twitter. There’s too much jurisprudence behind it already.

    But what can be done, and I think should be done, is executive actions with respect to the presumptive asylum claims for the caravan-ers assuming they get to America. Obviously Sessions is trying to process them and get rid of them as quickly as he can, but I think there’s at least the possibility that Trump can get rid of them wholesale, by simply refusing to allow them to apply for asylum.

    That is probably technically in violation of a couple statutes, but there’s probably some plausible workarounds if you’re creative enough. Among other things, you could simply say that it’s a matter of foreign policy, national security, or an overall program of immigration enforcement. The judicial branch has tended to be deferential to the President in situations like this.

  305. @whorefinder
    @D. K.

    The 14th Amendment's claim that it applies to those "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means is not plain.

    This really isn't that hard. The Left tried the same "plain meaning" nonsense on the 2nd Amendment and came up short, because the "plain meaning" wasn't there, and needed interpretation.

    And looking at "intent" via congressional debates is very, very subjective, as Justice Scalia pointed out many times to great effect. Each and every person who voted on the 14th Amendment's passage had their own interpretation of what the words meant, and none of their individual belief has more strength than any other's, not even the composers of the language or the sponsors.

    What will probably happen is that the Supreme Court will look to what federal courts of the time considered in cases about whether someone was "subject to jurisdiction thereof". Likely there will be some diplomat cases.

    Replies: @anonymous, @D. K.

    The 14th Amendment’s claim that it applies to those “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means is not plain.

    Are you sure that is the only ambiguity in the sentence? See ben tillman’s reply above to The Z Blog.

  306. @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz

    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits. Throughout the 20th Century, especially after WW2, the main bringer of court cases to challenge constitutional limits were left-wing organizations. Lefties followed a set template found in Brown v. Board of Education: find a sympathetic plaintiff, get a lefty-front organization (the NAACP, the ACLU, etc.) to quarterback the legal service; have other Lefty organizations swamp the court with amicus, get demonstrations going in front of the Supreme Court, get Earl Warren to lobby the justices, then make sure the arguments were directed to the justices most on the fence. (Also, make sure you get your guys planted on the federal judiciary).

    The Right really wasn't organized as the Left was, nor did it have a strategy of using the courts to ram its agenda through. So the Right couldn't get it together to bring a suit to get the law clarified/challenged. When the Right finally did so in the 21st Century in the 2nd Amendment cases, it got its clear victory.

    Meanwhile, the Left wasn't going to bring suit because the ongoinging consensus---thanks to a random footnote and lefty legal professors asserting it---was that birthright citizenship existed. Why would the Left dare to both make this issue more public---and therefore garner more opponents---and risk having the policy overturned by the Supreme Court? It was simply stupid for the Left to do so. It got the borders opened in 1965, that's all it needed.

    So neither side was going to bring it.

    2. Related to number 1: Lack of standing. "Standing" is a rule in federal court that only those personally affected by a law/policy can bring a lawsuit. Importantly, having a "generalized" grievance isn't enough; you have to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome. The standing issue has given the federal courts many an excuse to punt a case because it claims you aren't personally affected enough to bring it---the harm was too attenuated.

    And for Person A to claim that the grant to Person B's of birthright citizenship harmed Person A is a classic claim that the courts would have dismissed due to lack of standing----any harm that Person A alleged would have been judged "too attenuated" to grant standing. All the harm was indirect or secondary, according to the courts.

    3. The immigration issue really wasn't a big right-wing issue of the times. Its only grown more important since the 1965 opening of the borders and the now-open assertion by the Left that this is being used to ethnically cleanse whites.

    Your comparison to the gay "marriage" nonsense is really a non sequitur and beneath you. Constitutional issues take decades to germinate and get to the Supreme Court "deciding" it. First Amendment limits was considered set-in-stone until the Left took up the cause in the 1900s and convinced many a judge to come to their side, notably the great dissenter, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Segregation law was considered immutable until Brown v. Board. etc.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Ron Unz

    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits.

    Well, I’m not really talking about a Supreme Court case. I’m just saying until pretty recently, I’m not sure whether anyone in the entire history of the country had ever questioned whether the birthright citizenship applied to the children of illegal immigrants, despite the many, many millions of such children granted their citizenship over the last hundred-odd years.

    I’m curious whether anyone can find a Congressman, mayor, or ordinary judge who ever disputed the issue, or even just an opinion columnist writing in some newspaper somewhere. Maybe there actually was one in the last 100 years, but none of the anti-birthright people have ever cited an example. With so many millions of children having received their citizenship that way, it was hardly an obscure issue.

    I really do think the Gay Marriage issue is a pretty good analogy. As far as I can tell, until about 20-odd years ago, nobody in the history of the entire world had ever advocated Gay Marriage, and then suddenly we discover it had actually been in our Constitution all along.

    And I’m sure you can’t find a single Supreme Court ruling in 230 years stating that Gay Marriage is *not* guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution…

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz


    I’m not sure whether anyone in the entire history of the country had ever questioned whether the birthright citizenship applied to the children of illegal immigrants, despite the many, many millions of such children granted their citizenship over the last hundred-odd years.
     
    The flood of illegal immigration is a modern problem.

    We have had the Supreme Court interpret the 4th Amendment warrant requirement as applied to email and telephone calls, even though in the entire history of the country before that, no one had ever ruled about whether the 4th Amendment applied to emails or phones....because they didn't exist yet.

    Similarly, jet-airline travel, mass car and bus transit, mass birth tourism, hundreds of miles of unprotected fences, organized coyote gangs, lax immigration policy, open borders and massive difference in the quality of life between the U.S. and our southern neighbors hadn't converged in the past 230 years to create the need to delineate if birthright citizenship exists for illegals...because such a massive problem didn't exist yet.

    You're just trying to poo-poo the anti-birthright citizenship arguments because you think they're too opportunistic. But merely because they are new and serve our purposes does not make them invalid. This is far less radical than Brown v. Board, since Brown was overturning decades of precedent squarely on point and fundamentally destroyed the existing social order in much of the country, while this is merely clarification of an assumption that has never been ruled upon.

    P.S. And yeah, this is about the Supreme Court ruling on it. For better or for worse, most Americans believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of Constitutional meaning. That it hasn't ruled on it means its an open question. And plenty of related rulings and legislation---such as Indians not being citizens as a group until 1924---strongly imply people were thinking like us long ago.

  307. @whorefinder
    @D. K.

    The 14th Amendment's claim that it applies to those "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " makes it ambiguous; the meaning must be interpreted, because what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means is not plain.

    This really isn't that hard. The Left tried the same "plain meaning" nonsense on the 2nd Amendment and came up short, because the "plain meaning" wasn't there, and needed interpretation.

    And looking at "intent" via congressional debates is very, very subjective, as Justice Scalia pointed out many times to great effect. Each and every person who voted on the 14th Amendment's passage had their own interpretation of what the words meant, and none of their individual belief has more strength than any other's, not even the composers of the language or the sponsors.

    What will probably happen is that the Supreme Court will look to what federal courts of the time considered in cases about whether someone was "subject to jurisdiction thereof". Likely there will be some diplomat cases.

    Replies: @anonymous, @D. K.

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @D. K.

    See ben tillman's comment above, here:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/anchor-babies/#comment-2600650

    , @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States
     
    lol. Now I know you're a silly troll.

    You made a big deal about canons of interpretation. Guess what is also a canon? That no phrase in a law is to be taken as superfluous. This goes double for U.S. Constitutional amendments; this is why "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" are not synonymous in the First Amendment, but are distinct entities with protection.

    So the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not something superfluous, or that anyone who is an anchor baby in the U.S. is de facto subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Note that the phrase is conjunctive to the phrase " born or naturalized in the United States". Meaning "to be born in the U.S." is not the same as being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; they are two separate qualifiers for citizenship.

    You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby.

    Now the courts haven't ruled yet. They could say anchor babies do get both automatically. But, as many have pointed out, foreign diplomats don't get this automatically. So if people here legally don't get it, its a very likely thing that persons here illegally wouldn't get to be automatically "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

    But you've exposed yourself as a dumb little lefty troll. Run along now, the adults are talking, or I'll be forced to spank you again, son.

    Replies: @D. K.

  308. Let’s not forget what they had planned for Madam President:
    https://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/05/abandoning-defensive-crouch-liberal.html?m=1

    I don’t find it at all absurd that in some alternative but quite possible history, they are citing the “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment to throw out the Senate and the Electoral College via the judiciary.

    While it is fairly clear that the executive branch has regarded, in recent times, anyone born on US soil (with few exceptions) as a citizen, it is far from obvious that this establishes a judicial precedent, and, as some note above, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 seems to make it fairly clear that the 14th Amendment was not then regarded as giving citizenship to everyone born within the physical territory of the US. Moreover, I think that reflecting on the complex history between Indian tribes and the US government reveals that there is some sense to this view. Many Indians did not regard themselves in any sense whatsoever as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. I don’t fault them. But they lost, for better or worse. (Both, in my view.)

    The upshot seems to be that while the executive branch has in recent times effectively granted jus soli, the executive branch is not supposed to be the maker of laws or the interpreter of laws, and it is far from obvious that either the legislative or judicial branches have ever clearly endorsed jus soli. (But maybe I’m missing something.)

    Ending the supposed “right” to birthright citizenship might actually be as simple as Trump issuing an order (which would no doubt eventually have to be upheld by the SC), but sorting out the many problem cases would no doubt practically require clear legislation.

  309. @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.
     
    This isn't about the executive order itself. Trump is setting up a situation where the Supreme Court will have to decide the issue, and either Trump will win (birthright citizenship will be held to be un-protected by the constitution) or he will have a huge club to beat the court and the left with (they sided with corrupt birther scammers! give me another term to appoint real justices! Drain the swamp!) . There is no way all the left-wing front groups won't be all over this in the courts, which will fast track it to the Supreme Court.

    Trump has thus solved two of the greatest problems with getting this decided by the Supreme Court: he'll get the Left to bring a lawsuit, and he's given someone standing to challenge the policy. That in itself is huge. Even if the Supreme Court cements birthright citizenship, Trump wins, because the old law hasn't changed (the government treated birthright citizenship as law before), but now he makes the Left own it, and defend illegals over Americans, and it'll make stopping illegal immigration even more important---because now if they get in we can't get them out, officially.

    It's a very crafty move on his part. Whoever decided on this legal strategy is cagey---perhaps his federal appellate judge sister? Stephen Miller?

    Replies: @D. K.

    I am against birthright citizenship for the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called “green card”); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end– although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  310. @Ron Unz
    @whorefinder


    Not to be a legal nerd, but the birthright citizenship issue never came up before the Supreme Court for a few reasons:

    1. Left-wingers dominated 20th Century constitutional law suits.
     
    Well, I'm not really talking about a Supreme Court case. I'm just saying until pretty recently, I'm not sure whether anyone in the entire history of the country had ever questioned whether the birthright citizenship applied to the children of illegal immigrants, despite the many, many millions of such children granted their citizenship over the last hundred-odd years.

    I'm curious whether anyone can find a Congressman, mayor, or ordinary judge who ever disputed the issue, or even just an opinion columnist writing in some newspaper somewhere. Maybe there actually was one in the last 100 years, but none of the anti-birthright people have ever cited an example. With so many millions of children having received their citizenship that way, it was hardly an obscure issue.

    I really do think the Gay Marriage issue is a pretty good analogy. As far as I can tell, until about 20-odd years ago, nobody in the history of the entire world had ever advocated Gay Marriage, and then suddenly we discover it had actually been in our Constitution all along.

    And I'm sure you can't find a single Supreme Court ruling in 230 years stating that Gay Marriage is *not* guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution...

    Replies: @whorefinder

    I’m not sure whether anyone in the entire history of the country had ever questioned whether the birthright citizenship applied to the children of illegal immigrants, despite the many, many millions of such children granted their citizenship over the last hundred-odd years.

    The flood of illegal immigration is a modern problem.

    We have had the Supreme Court interpret the 4th Amendment warrant requirement as applied to email and telephone calls, even though in the entire history of the country before that, no one had ever ruled about whether the 4th Amendment applied to emails or phones….because they didn’t exist yet.

    Similarly, jet-airline travel, mass car and bus transit, mass birth tourism, hundreds of miles of unprotected fences, organized coyote gangs, lax immigration policy, open borders and massive difference in the quality of life between the U.S. and our southern neighbors hadn’t converged in the past 230 years to create the need to delineate if birthright citizenship exists for illegals…because such a massive problem didn’t exist yet.

    You’re just trying to poo-poo the anti-birthright citizenship arguments because you think they’re too opportunistic. But merely because they are new and serve our purposes does not make them invalid. This is far less radical than Brown v. Board, since Brown was overturning decades of precedent squarely on point and fundamentally destroyed the existing social order in much of the country, while this is merely clarification of an assumption that has never been ruled upon.

    P.S. And yeah, this is about the Supreme Court ruling on it. For better or for worse, most Americans believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of Constitutional meaning. That it hasn’t ruled on it means its an open question. And plenty of related rulings and legislation—such as Indians not being citizens as a group until 1924—strongly imply people were thinking like us long ago.

  311. @Bubba
    @D. K.


    I keep running into laypeople, including some with only a high-school education, who assure me that what the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
     
    Hmmm...that reminds me of an Oliver Twist quote, something about the law being an ass - black slaves are 3/5 of a white man, a tomato is a vegetable, the destructive interpretation of the 16 word Commerce Clause, Obamacare is a tax, abortion is a Constitutional right, etc...

    My dear erstwhile Esquire, I do believe you're engaging in logical fallacies of appealing to authority and ridicule.

    Replies: @D. K.

    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba? Regardless, the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.
     
    LMAO. Oh trolly, I do enjoy you now that I know what you are.

    No, the law is not an appeal to authority. The law is about interpreting what an authority (the legislation/rule) means. But your attempt to spew nonsense and doubletalk is amusing, and a strong tell you're out of steam. Media Matters had better tag in someone fresher.
    , @res
    @D. K.


    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba?
     
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

    But I think what you did is more accurately characterized as the opposite of an appeal to authority. In other words, attempting to discredit the people you are arguing against. Which is more accurately characterized as Ad hominem IMHO.

    My understanding is you are a former lawyer. If so, why the former? Were you just not very good at it?

    Replies: @D. K.

  312. @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    Pray tell, in what sense are "anchor babies" who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    Replies: @Anon, @whorefinder

    See ben tillman’s comment above, here:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/anchor-babies/#comment-2600650

  313. @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    Pray tell, in what sense are "anchor babies" who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    Replies: @Anon, @whorefinder

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States

    lol. Now I know you’re a silly troll.

    You made a big deal about canons of interpretation. Guess what is also a canon? That no phrase in a law is to be taken as superfluous. This goes double for U.S. Constitutional amendments; this is why “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” are not synonymous in the First Amendment, but are distinct entities with protection.

    So the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not something superfluous, or that anyone who is an anchor baby in the U.S. is de facto subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Note that the phrase is conjunctive to the phrase ” born or naturalized in the United States”. Meaning “to be born in the U.S.” is not the same as being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; they are two separate qualifiers for citizenship.

    You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby.

    Now the courts haven’t ruled yet. They could say anchor babies do get both automatically. But, as many have pointed out, foreign diplomats don’t get this automatically. So if people here legally don’t get it, its a very likely thing that persons here illegally wouldn’t get to be automatically “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    But you’ve exposed yourself as a dumb little lefty troll. Run along now, the adults are talking, or I’ll be forced to spank you again, son.

    • Agree: Federalist
    • Replies: @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    "You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby."

    The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was not at all superfluous, because its inclusion excluded the American-born children of both those with diplomatic immunity and members of the sovereign Indian tribes.

    Replies: @Svigor

  314. @D. K.
    @Bubba

    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba? Regardless, the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @res

    the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.

    LMAO. Oh trolly, I do enjoy you now that I know what you are.

    No, the law is not an appeal to authority. The law is about interpreting what an authority (the legislation/rule) means. But your attempt to spew nonsense and doubletalk is amusing, and a strong tell you’re out of steam. Media Matters had better tag in someone fresher.

    • Agree: Bubba
  315. @anon
    @D. K.


    the entire American government and legal establishment have accepted as the Law of the Land for 150 years is a naive, or else deliberate, misreading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
     
    Really? Have they in fact "accepted" that the offspring of illegal infiltrators are U.S. citizens under the Constitution? Where? When?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @D. K.

    Every time that the federal government has acknowledged an “anchor baby” as an American citizen, and every time that a state government has acknowledged an “anchor baby” as a citizen of that state, by granting rights and privileges reserved for citizens, they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment. Where and when has any “anchor baby” provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person’s parents’ status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child’s birth?

    • Replies: @anon
    @D. K.

    There's a statute for that:


    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 8 USC 1401(a).
     
    It isn't necessarily a constitutional dispensation.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment.
     
    Wrong. But thanks for playing, NPC.

    Where and when has any “anchor baby” provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person’s parents’ status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child’s birth?
     
    About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!

    Replies: @D. K.

  316. @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States
     
    lol. Now I know you're a silly troll.

    You made a big deal about canons of interpretation. Guess what is also a canon? That no phrase in a law is to be taken as superfluous. This goes double for U.S. Constitutional amendments; this is why "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" are not synonymous in the First Amendment, but are distinct entities with protection.

    So the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not something superfluous, or that anyone who is an anchor baby in the U.S. is de facto subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Note that the phrase is conjunctive to the phrase " born or naturalized in the United States". Meaning "to be born in the U.S." is not the same as being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; they are two separate qualifiers for citizenship.

    You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby.

    Now the courts haven't ruled yet. They could say anchor babies do get both automatically. But, as many have pointed out, foreign diplomats don't get this automatically. So if people here legally don't get it, its a very likely thing that persons here illegally wouldn't get to be automatically "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

    But you've exposed yourself as a dumb little lefty troll. Run along now, the adults are talking, or I'll be forced to spank you again, son.

    Replies: @D. K.

    “You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby.”

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not at all superfluous, because its inclusion excluded the American-born children of both those with diplomatic immunity and members of the sovereign Indian tribes.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @D. K.

    And foreigners.

  317. @D. K.
    @anon

    Every time that the federal government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as an American citizen, and every time that a state government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as a citizen of that state, by granting rights and privileges reserved for citizens, they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment. Where and when has any "anchor baby" provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth?

    Replies: @anon, @whorefinder

    There’s a statute for that:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 8 USC 1401(a).

    It isn’t necessarily a constitutional dispensation.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @anon

    That statute merely codifies what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment requires, just as the treason statute codifies what the Treason Clause of the Constitution requires.

    Replies: @anon

  318. Here is the full text of the US vs Wong Kim Ark. It’s a lengthy read, but it covers a lot of the arguments that will be covered if Trump does challenge the anchor baby issue.

  319. @whorefinder
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    Good argument. "No one argued this before, therefore, its not a valid argument." I see the argumentum ad antiquitatem
    fallacy lives on.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Appeal_to_tradition

    Replies: @J.Ross

    That’s clearly not what he’s saying. It would be self-explanatorily useful to the discussion if there was an earlier case to look at.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @J.Ross

    No, it is what he's saying. Unz's is being snarky, he's opposed to the anti-immigrant mindset of most of Steve's readers, and is dropping this as a glib dig. "Oh, no one thought this till about 5 minutes ago! This is just like gay marriage!"

    Sure, it would be useful if there were a previous case on point. But that's the reason why we're all arguing here and why this will hit the Supreme Court: because there isn't one. Just like there wasn't a supreme court ruling on email hacking by the feds until email was invented and the feds started hacking it.

    , @Anon
    @J.Ross

    Besides, an appeal to tradition is kind of what law is.

  320. @D. K.
    @anon

    Every time that the federal government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as an American citizen, and every time that a state government has acknowledged an "anchor baby" as a citizen of that state, by granting rights and privileges reserved for citizens, they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment. Where and when has any "anchor baby" provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth?

    Replies: @anon, @whorefinder

    they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment.

    Wrong. But thanks for playing, NPC.

    Where and when has any “anchor baby” provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person’s parents’ status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child’s birth?

    About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    "About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!"

    Thank you for conceding that no "'anchor baby' provably born in the United States ever [has] been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth."

    Your reply also demonstrates what absolutely shitty reading comprehension you possess, even when a straightforward statement of someone else's opinion on the issue at hand is directed right at you, as a reply to one of your own replies to him:

    ***

    I am against birthright citizenship for the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called “green card”); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end– although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

    ***

    Your over-the-top hostility toward me, last night, was plainly ignited by my asking the following:

    ***

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    ***

    Your remarkably hostile reply to me failed to answer any of those questions. That was unsurprising, since there is no sense in which our government does not have jurisdiction over "anchor babies" present in the United States, nor even over their illegal-alien parents who are likewise present. They all can be taxed and regulated, the same as I am, and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration, the same as I was, back in 1974. They may be arrested, jailed, indicted, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and even executed for capital crimes-- and there is nothing that any outside jurisdiction can do to stop that from happening; all that foreign jurisdictions may do is register their complaints and dissatisfaction over what is being done or had been done, already.

    Perhaps your over-the-top hostility actually was ignited by my asking what diplomatic cases would have to do with adjudging the right of "anchor babies" to claim or be granted American citizenship-- as your reply to which I am replying, again, implicitly admits that they always have been granted-- because my questioning your legal judgment-- as a graduate of where, exactly? Harvard Law School? The top of your graduating class there?-- displayed such impudence, coming from an alumnus of a mere public law school!?! Ah, well.... Such are the metaphorical crosses forever borne by all of you self-confessed geniuses and savants, old man!

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Rational

  321. istevefan says:

    From the link on the Wong Kim Ark case, here is just a snippet of the dissenting opinion written by the Chief Justice at that time, Melville Fuller. This guy is interesting. He was born and raised in Maine, but was surprisingly not as liberal as what we would expect of those old Yankees.

    If the act of 1866 had not contained the words, “and not subject to any foreign power,” the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary or general and permanent.

    There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.

    But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanent allegiance, which they had not severed by formal abjuration or equivalent conduct, and some of whom were not permitted to do so if they would.

    And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted.

    Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first clause of the first section reads:

    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.

    The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words “and not subject to any foreign power” of the act.

    The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means.” And Senator Johnson:

    Now, all that this amendment provides [p722] is that all persons born within the United States and not subject to some foreign power — for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

  322. In Singapore, the children of alien permanent residents lose their permanent resident status when they turn 21, and have to apply for a work or residency visa on their own merits.

    • Replies: @anon
    @PiltdownMan


    In Singapore, the children of alien permanent residents lose their permanent resident status when they turn 21, and have to apply for a work or residency visa on their own merits.
     
    Very sensible.
  323. Very interesting. Wong Kim Ark does not vindicate anchor babyism, definitely not of the tourist variety. The concept resorted to here in lieu of any more recent thought is the medieval idea of allegiance, which reasonably implies loyalty, connection, and exploitation, not stepping on a magic square for ten seconds. This thing is massively vulnerable to a good challenge.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    @J.Ross

    If you are referring to the snippet above, keep in mind that was from the dissenting opinion.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  324. Are the armed soldiers of an invading army “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?

    How about an invading army of civilians who cross our borders in like fashion, but without weaponry?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @PiltdownMan


    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?
     
    I should think that the U.S. Constitution trumps the "laws of war."

    Replies: @Svigor, @D. K.

    , @Eagle Eye
    @PiltdownMan


    How about an invading army of civilians who cross our borders in like fashion, but without weaponry?
     
    Illegal immigrants have ipso facto failed to submit to American jurisdiction by being in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. They are clearly not "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law and we are insane to accord them massive benefits and citizenship for their anchor babies, allegedly based on an untested legal theory smuggled by one justice into a foot note to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion.
  325. anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @PiltdownMan
    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?

    How about an invading army of civilians who cross our borders in like fashion, but without weaponry?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Eagle Eye

    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?

    I should think that the U.S. Constitution trumps the “laws of war.”

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @anonymous

    Seems like a dodge. Everyone on the planet is eligible for birthright citizenship, according to the scumbag interpretation of the 14th, rendering it nonsensical.

    , @D. K.
    @anonymous

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    Ratified treaties, including those agreeing to abide by the "laws of war" set forth, are part of the "supreme Law of the Land," along with the Constitution itself.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  326. @PiltdownMan
    In Singapore, the children of alien permanent residents lose their permanent resident status when they turn 21, and have to apply for a work or residency visa on their own merits.

    Replies: @anon

    In Singapore, the children of alien permanent residents lose their permanent resident status when they turn 21, and have to apply for a work or residency visa on their own merits.

    Very sensible.

  327. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Children born to foreign diplomats are already exempt from birthright citizenship. Making another exception for those not legally present seems possible.

    The nest step is revoking citizenship awarded to scammers like Chinese birth tourists and people sneaking across to give birth in U.S. hospitals.

    Steve is right, if the media makes it a huge issue for the last week and starts lecturing everyone about the right of rich Chinese to arrange an escape hatch baby this is a big winner.

    I think this will be particularly strong with African-Americans. They value their citizenship more than a lot of whites, Prog whites especially.

    Progs hate citizenship because it is valuable and their citizenship isn't worth more than the deplorables.' They want it to be like a library card, available to all, a bit of a joke, and worthless except when it comes to winning elections for Democrats.

    Replies: @istevefan, @The Last Real Calvinist

    Progs hate citizenship because it is valuable and their citizenship isn’t worth more than the deplorables.’ They want it to be like a library card, available to all, a bit of a joke, and worthless except when it comes to winning elections for Democrats.

    This is a very insightful comparison; I think you’ve got it just right.

  328. @J.Ross
    Very interesting. Wong Kim Ark does not vindicate anchor babyism, definitely not of the tourist variety. The concept resorted to here in lieu of any more recent thought is the medieval idea of allegiance, which reasonably implies loyalty, connection, and exploitation, not stepping on a magic square for ten seconds. This thing is massively vulnerable to a good challenge.

    Replies: @istevefan

    If you are referring to the snippet above, keep in mind that was from the dissenting opinion.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @istevefan

    My bad. But this thing has still not had much visibility and cannot possibly survive a vigorous discussion with modern circumstances. It is abundantly clear that nobody was thinking of the Merkelboner.
    NPR by the way is continuing with its "every Muslim stubbed toe" policy, interviewing a Sudanese woman who has been here for twenty-one years under Temporary Protected Status without seeking citizenship.

  329. anon[133] • Disclaimer says:

    Is this just more 4D chess?

    Trump: I’m gonna change the 14th amendment by executive order

    Dems: you can’t do that!

    Trump: *shrugs* lololololol

    Later:

    High-profile Dems (in public): Trump knows that the people don’t support his agenda, that’s why he’s governing via EO, if he really believes Americans want this he should [propose it in congress/call a national convention/call a referendum/whatever] and let us all have our say!

    Trump: what a splendid idea, I can’t believe I didn’t think of it myself

  330. Anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    @istevefan


    So maybe in the 60′s and earlier the issue of anchor babies was not that big of a deal so there was never serious consideration about the 14th Amendment.
     
    Well, obviously the *practical* importance of the issue has gradually grown over time. But I was raising the legal issue.

    America has had substantial numbers of illegal immigrants since the 19th century, and they've been having children here for roughly that long as well.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional "birthright interpretation" of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago...

    Maybe the next president will send out an Executive Tweet repealing the First Amendment for "hate speech"...

    Replies: @istevefan, @Federalist, @anon, @whorefinder, @Anonymous

    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…

    If there’s been a statute in place:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    8 USC 1401(a).

    Then what need has there been to have an interpretation of the birthright provision in the 14th Amendment?

    (I do not know how long the statute has been in effect.)

    • Replies: @res
    @Anonymous

    This site has the history of the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    If I read that correctly it became effective in 1952.

    Replies: @anon

  331. Ireland had a referendum on the issue of ending birthright citizenship in 2004. It was passed by a margin of almost 4 to 1, probably the biggest margin ever seen in an Irish referendum.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jon Halpenny


    It was passed by a margin of almost 4 to 1, probably the biggest margin ever seen in an Irish referendum.
     
    Do you have a cite?

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny

  332. Eagle Eye says:
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @istevefan

    "I am not confident how Roberts will vote after what he did with obamacare."

    He will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Trump is privy to all Roberts's personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration -- he's an utterly compromised puppet.

    The EO is a great idea because it forces the Supreme Court to reassess the notion that foreigner invaders can secure US residency for themselves and welfare benefits for their children by hopping the border and plopping out a newborn.

    Put and end to hopping and plopping!

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Eagle Eye

    Trump is privy to all Roberts’s personal dirt that was illegally collected by the previous administration — he’s an utterly compromised puppet.

    Agree – John Roberts’ behavior has the telltale marks of a compromised agent who is scared of being exposed. Trump always seems to have excellent sources of information – obviously crucial for a high-profile developer.

    QUESTION: What is the nature of the “dirt” that he is afraid of having exposed? Being a homosexual, and having resorted to a few procedural shortcuts in adopting his two children hardly seems like the kind of stuff that would keep a man in nightsweats nowadays. To explain his behavior, Roberts’ dirt must be of a much more serious nature.

    BTW what’s with Roberts’ role in the “Knights of Malta” – a secretive organization of elite Catholics? Since when is this kind of activism acceptable in a U.S. Supreme Court justice? And why is there not a single protestant justice in a majority-protestant country?

    The collapse of PROTESTANTISM in West in the second half of the 20th century and its manifold after-effects is the most under-analyzed story of our times. Much of the collapse of formerly functioning institutions is due to the withdrawal of the underlying foundation of Protestantism.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  333. @S. Verdad
    @Redneck farmer

    what famly members can the children of illegal aliens bring in?

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    Whichever ones they can sponsor as an adult. So bring in a sibling when you are 22, bring in mom and dad (If they weren’t deported) to help with their grandkids in your 30s. The people you sponsored bring in other people, who bring in family members closer to them. Michener described it in a chapter in Caribbean.

  334. Eagle Eye says:
    @PiltdownMan
    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?

    How about an invading army of civilians who cross our borders in like fashion, but without weaponry?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Eagle Eye

    How about an invading army of civilians who cross our borders in like fashion, but without weaponry?

    Illegal immigrants have ipso facto failed to submit to American jurisdiction by being in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. They are clearly not “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. law and we are insane to accord them massive benefits and citizenship for their anchor babies, allegedly based on an untested legal theory smuggled by one justice into a foot note to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  335. @J.Ross
    @whorefinder

    That's clearly not what he's saying. It would be self-explanatorily useful to the discussion if there was an earlier case to look at.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Anon

    No, it is what he’s saying. Unz’s is being snarky, he’s opposed to the anti-immigrant mindset of most of Steve’s readers, and is dropping this as a glib dig. “Oh, no one thought this till about 5 minutes ago! This is just like gay marriage!”

    Sure, it would be useful if there were a previous case on point. But that’s the reason why we’re all arguing here and why this will hit the Supreme Court: because there isn’t one. Just like there wasn’t a supreme court ruling on email hacking by the feds until email was invented and the feds started hacking it.

  336. @Thulean Friend
    If he abolishes it, and let's presume that SCOTUS upholds it, can another president cancel his executive order in a later term? If so, then it would almost be guaranteed to fail once/when America turns into California 2.0 politically, with a democratic one-party state.


    P.S. Lindsay Graham came out today saying he would introduce legislation to support the initiative in the senate. He really did seem to change once McCain died.

    Replies: @peterike, @Detective Club, @TTSSYF

    As far as I’m concerned, Lindsay’s more than made up for any shortcomings he had in the past. I think he finally saw the light with the antics the ‘rats pulled during the Kavanaugh hearings, just as Trump began seeing the light after he was elected. Both have become more conservative than they ever were in the past. Kavanaugh may turn out to be similarly affected (as Thomas likely was after what he was put through). The sheer outrageousness of it all is enough to drive otherwise moderate Republicans to the hard Right.

  337. @International Jew
    I'm sure most voters don't even know about birthright citizenship. So putting it out there is bound to jar some reflexive, life-long, Dems to stop and think, "Whoah, this ain't right!"...and maybe join us.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TTSSYF

    The average citizen doesn’t know about it, much less the extent to which it is formalized and exploited by foreigners, because no one in the media, save for a few websites like this one, talks about it. The media cover up this issue, just as they do many other dysfunctionalities that otherwise might hinder the Leftist agenda. So whether Trump pulls this off or not, it’s good that he brought it up now, before the election. Let’s make it part of the vote.

  338. @Charles Pewitt
    I wrote this in September 2018:

    The United States must abandon the Anchor baby scam by properly interpreting the law. That means no bullshit from that dead slob William Brennan about anything to do with citizenship.

     


    I am the only one making the link between the Leprechaun William Brennan and the Anchor Baby scam. Maybe others are, but they ain’t calling a Leprechaun a Leprechaun like I am. I love the Irish people, I just don’t like Leprechauns.

     

    John Brennan the former CIA Head Rat and that dead dope Supreme Court clod William Brennan are not making me feel so kindly towards Leprechauns named Brennan.

    Ain't there any decent people named Brennan? DAMMIT!

    Replies: @Anon, @Another Canadian

    “Ain’t there any decent people named Brennan? DAMMIT!”

  339. @eah
    What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?

    The sooner the better -- the more 'acceleration' events the better.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqoTqm0UcAAWjx5.jpg

    Replies: @Buck Turgidson

    So “youthful minorities” generate economic growth medical advances peace prosperity and rainbow unicorns here on the magic dirt — but they dont do the same in most of Africa Asia or L America.

    I wonder if the globalist one worlders at brookings seek out these enriching minority types for their own surgical procedures or do they go with the white guy.

    Brookings institute of theology and belief

  340. @Ron Unz
    @Reg Cæsar


    Plessy v Ferguson, after Dred Scott the most hated decision in America jurisprudence (hated by them, that is), was written by the same five guys who gave us Wong Kim Ark. It’s hard to see why one argument is so good and the other so bad, coming from the same hive mind.
     
    Well, look. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not focusing on the legalities of the situation. All I'm saying is that from the late 19th century until the mid-1990s, I'm sure there were many, many millions of children born in America to illegal immigrant parents, and as far as I can tell, no one in all those years publicly disputed that they were automatically U.S. citizens. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

    It's not that the courts ruled they were citizens---it's that in all those years no one even questioned it enough even to try to bring it before a judge.

    But like I said, until the mid-1990s, no one had ever claimed that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage either, so obviously our ancestors were totally ignorant of all sorts of important constitutional matters.

    Indeed, as a legal bonus, I think I once saw some estimates that something like 60-70% of all current Hispanic citizens had ancestors born to illegal parents whose citizenship derived from the 14th Amendment.

    So if Trump's Executive Tweet is made retroactive, maybe they'll all suddenly lose their citizenship as well, thereby solving some of the demographic problems that greatly concern lots of the commenters here...

    Replies: @Coag, @Anonymous, @whorefinder, @Mr. Rational, @silviosilver

    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you’re not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen.

    Since you’re a busy man, I’ll make it easy for you. Just answer YES or NO to the following question:

    Should America have birthright citizenship?

    (A one-word answer will be quite sufficient.)

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    @silviosilver


    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you’re not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen...Should America have birthright citizenship?
     
    Sure. I'm 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    But I think the odds of that happening in the foreseeable future are so extremely low it's not something I much worry about...

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil

  341. @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

    Maybe I’m jumping into this too late, but seems to me the 14th is a statute, Trump’s (supposed – did he issue it yet?) E.O. is the interpretation, and SCotUS will be ruling on it (i.e., deciding if it will be held valid), or some 9th circuit shitbag’s attempt to strike it down, whatever.

  342. @anonymous
    @PiltdownMan


    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?
     
    I should think that the U.S. Constitution trumps the "laws of war."

    Replies: @Svigor, @D. K.

    Seems like a dodge. Everyone on the planet is eligible for birthright citizenship, according to the scumbag interpretation of the 14th, rendering it nonsensical.

  343. @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    "You know what that means, sweetness? It means a person could be born in the U.S. but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. You know, like an anchor baby."

    The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was not at all superfluous, because its inclusion excluded the American-born children of both those with diplomatic immunity and members of the sovereign Indian tribes.

    Replies: @Svigor

    And foreigners.

  344. @anon
    There are now lots of Chinese who are living in the US on tourist visas, bought their homes with cash, and are sending their children to our public schools for free. Some of these children are foreign born, others born here. None should get citizenship. They could do this because effing Obama gave them 10 year tourist visas. It's time to cut it back to 3 months.

    Foreign citizens should pay full fee when attending our public schools, $14,000 per year K-12.

    All the Indians here on H1b should get the same treatment. None of their children should get citizenship. At least one parent must be citizen for the child to be citizen. Otherwise the child gets the same status as the parent, either green card or temporary dependent visa. They will get the same citizenship as the parents'.

    Both groups like to bring in the parents to babysit the kids. The parents should never get green cards or citizenship, which allows them to start collecting social security and get medicare without having contributed a penny into the system.

    Replies: @Lucas McCrudy

    You can thank a 1982 SCOTUS decision, Plyler v. Doe., for saddling us with the concept of anchor babies (at least according to Queen Ann) and for forcing public schools to give any person that shows up, regardless of his immigration status or that of his parents, regardless if he’s been vaccinated for infectious diseases, regardless of whether he’s chronologically an adult (a 30 y.o. with an 8th grade education could sign up for the 9th grade at your local public school, claim to be a teenager -but since were talking about 3rd Worlders, have no way of authenticating their real birth date- amd then sit next to your 14 y.o. children in class) the “right” to attend public schools totally free of charge.

  345. @HI
    "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means what "subject" used to mean. If you're a tourist or an illegal, you're not a subject of the United States. If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you are a subject. This argument is more solid than arguments based on vague penumbrae or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment that the left used to justify supposed rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.

    Replies: @Seneca44, @EliteCommInc., @Buzz Mohawk, @Prester John

    This explanation is as good as any, but the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” amounts to weasel words and is needlessly ambiguous, this in contrast to the clarity of the remainder of Section 1, to wit, “ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES …ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES” (emphasis mine). If they didn’t intend “birth citizenship” (a phrase which was probably not even in use at the time the amendment was enacted), then why doesn’t the amendment explicitly forbid birth citizenship, or were the architects of this amendment trying to split the baby?

    Totally agree with Buzz Mohawk. The only way around this conundrum is to amend the Constitution accordingly.

  346. @Lordy
    I keep saying, but nobody listens:

    Require landlords to use e-verify for citizens and legal alien status. This would immediately hamper illegal aliens alone, and with anchor babies, which would encourage them to self-deport immediately. It’s an obstruction that would keep on giving, and would also make forced mandated "affordable housing" and HUD grants less urgent, and settle out the rising rents in Los Angeles, as it would open up hundreds of thousands of rentals within a year.

    I’m acquainted with one landlord in the Los Angeles area who owns over 10 different properties, last I checked, NEVER advertises when one of his many rentals becomes available. He rents it to illegal immigrants almost exclusively, and when a unit opens up, he alerts all his tenants, and they bring him armloads of illegal alien applicants.

    He prefers illegals because they do their own repairs and yard work for free, so he doesn’t have to deal with any of his many properties most of the time except to go to his mailbox to get his rental checks. They also NEVER take him to court over ANYthing, unlike a legal tenant might.

    He has his operation running like a well-oiled machine, and there are MANY just like him in the Los Angeles area. I’ve spoke with him a few times, as I own a property near him, and he is a complete piece of shit. If he laid down and died, it would be a boon for humanity. He doesn’t care a whit about the Mexicans he exploits, or the community he owns properties in which his properties degrades. The world would be right if he’d just die, sitting up on his likely expensive toilet.

    He’s well-to-do, but human garbage just the same. I regard him as I would a swarm of pestilence, even though that’s an insult to virulent locusts.

    E-Verify would screw him up.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @bomag

    The guy you describe here is basically a criminal.

    We used to draft and enforce laws that would curtail criminal behavior.

    Ahh, the good old days.

    A reminder that society runs on basic trust issues. There are so many ways to “hack” the system, that basic trust is needed at the base level. But we seem to import/breed/enable the untrustworthy more and more, thus we get the surveillance state and other shabbier stuff to accommodate the grifters amongst us.

  347. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Maciano
    Best. American. President. Ever.

    What a leader. Inspiring.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2, @Lucas McCrudy, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    A little premature for that praise. Let’s see what he does.

    Trump has a habit of talking big then do nothing. He’s been talking about ending spousal work permit for H1B workers for the last 2 years, and it’s still not done. He’s still not doing a dang thing about H1b and OPT. The Optional Practical Training is esp. insidious as it gives employers tax incentives to hire foreign grads ahead of US grads, while giving them crucial entry level job experience that could propel them to higher paying careers. Many employers like Microsoft begin applying for a green card as soon as they hire an OPT or H1b. There is not even a cap on OPT, and the number actually increased after Trump took office. WSJ reported last year alone 265,000 new OPT’s were granted.

    The state AG of WA state, Bob Ferguson, has already announced he plans to sue as soon as Trump signs an EO to end birthright citizenship. The mofo is angling for governorship in 2020 and may well get it.

    What Trump needs to do is cancel all EO’s on immigration signed by Bushobama, that would end the OPT, H1b, spousal work permit H4A, diversity visa, plus sign the new EO to end birthright for non-citizen parents. He can do a lot just by cancelling existing EOs.

  348. @Chrisnonymous

    This is democracy.
     
    Agreed. Was that a 300 reference? If so, nicely done. As to your original question...

    What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?
     
    It is a strategic mistake.

    An EO on birthright citizenship will result in a SCOTUS case that will put the conservatives on the Court in the position of either (a) upholding the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment or (b) making an "activist" and "political" decision against the current interpretation.

    The latter result is dishonest for conservatives and will prove to liberals that they are correct to oppose the appointment of conservative justices and judges at all costs.

    However, the former result would be worse. A SCOTUS case will allow the left time to martial all their arguments and present them in the relatively truthful and rational zone of the judiciary. A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment. A decision by the Court in favor of the left (especially one including the votes of conservative justices) would, in that case, make them appear to be on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American way, and, ultimately, make overturning the 14th Amendment through legislative action more difficult. On the other hand, if the left's initial presentation of its arguments is done in the context of a political debate over legislative action, all the liars on our side of the issue can muddy the waters for low-information voters and make it easier for us to overturn 14. As I said above, the current best way to deal with the issue is to pass some legislation extending privileges to aliens that makes them and and their children not entirely subject to US jurisdiction. The president can extend an EO after that.

    Replies: @Tulip, @res

    An EO on birthright citizenship will result in a SCOTUS case that will put the conservatives on the Court in the position of either (a) upholding the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment

    There is no such thing. There has never been a SCOTUS case on the question of whether the child of an illegal immigrant is by operation of constitutional magic a U.S. Citizen. Wong Kim Ark addressed the child of a two individuals lawfully residing and domiciled in the U.S.

    This leaves two gray areas: 1.) children of people illegally residing in the US, 2.) people who are not residing in or domiciled in the US (birth tourists). Granted, the rationale of Wong Kim Ark suggested that the controlling principle was i.) being on U.S. soil and ii.) being subject to U.S. law at the time of birth (e.g. not diplomatic immunity). Applying the rationale to the grey areas would give the open borders result, but as they say in law, its merely dicta.

    Additionally, Wong Kim Ark had a powerful dissent consistent with the position of real Americans, which would find that children in 1.) or 2.) were not citizens. However, Wong Kim Ark is the law–in the narrow context of the decision–the question is whether the controlling principle applies in a context outside the context of that case. . . which is the subject of Trump’s EO.

    As far as a SCOTUS decision that supports the integrity of the concept of citizenship in this country, I don’t know how any intelligent person could confuse that as anything other than the only possible conservative position. Second, there is no judicial activism here, this is just a decision on the limits of an existing legal principle.

    The cheap labor lobby just has their knickers up because someone is questioning their assumptions, and rather than rationally defend the irrational, they are crying heretic and hiding behind the “consensus of authorities” (who 70 years ago were in consensus that segregation was the law of the Land).

    There is no reason why citizenship should be handed out to children of birth tourists or illegal immigrants. It is rationally indefensible from the perspective of a meaningful Commonwealth. Ron Unz raises a good, pragmatic, point that any changes should not be retroactive, but I’m sure the Judges can make up a reason why its not retroactive, or Congress can address it in legislation if we come to that point.

  349. @anon
    @D. K.

    There's a statute for that:


    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 8 USC 1401(a).
     
    It isn't necessarily a constitutional dispensation.

    Replies: @D. K.

    That statute merely codifies what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment requires, just as the treason statute codifies what the Treason Clause of the Constitution requires.

    • Replies: @anon
    @D. K.


    That statute merely codifies what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment requires, just as the treason statute codifies what the Treason Clause of the Constitution requires.
     
    No it doesn't. You are begging the question.

    The statute can stand alone, and is the product of a different political process, and, importantly, was drafted with different language.
  350. @The Alarmist
    @CTD


    "Illegals are clearly subject to our jurisdiction – that’s why we can (occasionally) deport them."
     
    Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that is why they are deported after a hearing before an Executive branch officer rather than an actual judge.

    Replies: @D. K., @anon, @eddy wobegon

    Kudos to you for finding the following resource which really fleshes out the nuances regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” aspect which distinguishes the 14th Amendment from common law citizenship.

    It is indispensable reading:

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

  351. @J.Ross
    @D. K.

    >the words "foreigners" and "aliens"
    Irrelevent. And it's a dodge on your own comment -- dishonest! You claimed that Americans don't fumble "or" and "nor" in spoken English, which is a completely preposterous thing to claim, no matter how many law school graduates have written the idea down in expensive books. Now you want to introduce new and uncontested material. They teach you that in law school?
    How much prose do you expect it would take to prove that people in the late nineteenth century were thinking approvingly about the Merkelboner? Do you think drawings would help?

    Replies: @D. K., @Federalist

    J. Ross, what you are saying in this thread is right. D.K. is a troll. He won’t directly address the points that you or several others have made. You are supposed to be impressed because he used to be a lawyer.

    • Replies: @Bubba
    @Federalist


    He won’t directly address the points that you or several others have made. You are supposed to be impressed because he used to be a lawyer.
     
    LOL! If he even was a lawyer. Anyone who proclaims to be an ex-lawyer and uses Wikipedia (comment #280) to explain a law issue (even for the benefit of the ignoramuses in the "lay majority") should have been disbarred anyway. 8th graders fail papers for using Wikipedia.

    Replies: @anon

  352. The case of Plyler v. Doe, 547 U.S. 202, is sometimes trotted out in the citizenship context, but it examined the second part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

    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. 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.

    In Plyler, the Supreme Court found that the children of illegal aliens were “persons within its jurisdiction” entitled to “equal protection of the laws”. Pretty dodgy, as “citizens” are entitled to “equal protection” and “non-citizens” are not by legal operation of citizenship from the standpoint of classical Republicanism. Plyler literally would imply a foreign invasion force on American soil would have the same legal rights as citizens.

    But none the less, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is distinct from “within its jurisdiction”. Can illegal aliens be tried for treason, for example? No, because they aren’t “subjects”, but they can be tried for espionage, because they are “within its jurisdiction”.

    To be “subject to the jurisdiction” you have to have a duty of loyalty to the sovereign of the jurisdiction, the breach of which in the extremis is treason. To be “within the jurisdiction” is simply having the duty to do as the Romans do in Rome.

  353. @anonymous
    @PiltdownMan


    Are the armed soldiers of an invading army “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, if captured? Or are they covered by laws of war, and subject to our jurisdiction only in limited ways, until repatriated?
     
    I should think that the U.S. Constitution trumps the "laws of war."

    Replies: @Svigor, @D. K.

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    Ratified treaties, including those agreeing to abide by the “laws of war” set forth, are part of the “supreme Law of the Land,” along with the Constitution itself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @D. K.


    Ratified treaties, including those agreeing to abide by the “laws of war” set forth, are part of the “supreme Law of the Land,” along with the Constitution itself.
     
    So is legislation enacted by Congress. But both "ratified treaties agreeing to abide by the laws of war" (I note you had to add a nice long qualifier, capped with a vague reference) and legislation are trumped by the Constitution where they conflict with it. The Constitution is what is supreme.
  354. The offense of treason is codified in United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and states:

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    The key to “subject to the jurisdiction” is this same question: if the parents are in the United States and owe a duty of allegiance to the United States, then they are “subject” to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and their children are citizens. If not, then the children are not per se citizens pursuant to the 14th Amendment, although Congress through legislation, and the President through E.O. can say otherwise.

  355. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @anon

    That statute merely codifies what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment requires, just as the treason statute codifies what the Treason Clause of the Constitution requires.

    Replies: @anon

    That statute merely codifies what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment requires, just as the treason statute codifies what the Treason Clause of the Constitution requires.

    No it doesn’t. You are begging the question.

    The statute can stand alone, and is the product of a different political process, and, importantly, was drafted with different language.

  356. @D. K.
    @anon

    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:

    ***

    There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles", then the court is most likely to construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not "aeroplanes" or "bicycles" even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.

    In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

    Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

    U.S. Supreme Court: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Meaning

    Replies: @anon, @Federalist

    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:

    How magnanimous of you, ex-lawyer.

    The Wikipedia article you cite explains that a court would be unlikely to construe the term “motor vehicles” to include airplanes, even though airplanes are vehicles with motors.

    Similarly, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment. See this explanation previously suggested to you by The Alarmist: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Federalist


    Similarly, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment.
     
    As should "person." They couldn't have intended it to include the offspring of invaders.
    , @D. K.
    @Federalist

    Thanks, but I do not care to read long articles, linked to in short comments, just in order to reply to other commenters, like you two, in an ongoing thread (that has taken up too much of my invaluable time, already). Instead, I am off to the kitchen to cook myself a nice meat-and-potatoes dinner!

  357. Anonymous[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @anonymous

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    Ratified treaties, including those agreeing to abide by the "laws of war" set forth, are part of the "supreme Law of the Land," along with the Constitution itself.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Ratified treaties, including those agreeing to abide by the “laws of war” set forth, are part of the “supreme Law of the Land,” along with the Constitution itself.

    So is legislation enacted by Congress. But both “ratified treaties agreeing to abide by the laws of war” (I note you had to add a nice long qualifier, capped with a vague reference) and legislation are trumped by the Constitution where they conflict with it. The Constitution is what is supreme.

  358. @J.Ross
    @whorefinder

    That's clearly not what he's saying. It would be self-explanatorily useful to the discussion if there was an earlier case to look at.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Anon

    Besides, an appeal to tradition is kind of what law is.

  359. @whorefinder
    @D. K.


    they have acceded to the claim that that person, who had never been naturalized, was, nonetheless, a natural-born citizen of the United States, under the 14th Amendment.
     
    Wrong. But thanks for playing, NPC.

    Where and when has any “anchor baby” provably born in the United States ever been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person’s parents’ status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child’s birth?
     
    About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!

    Replies: @D. K.

    “About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!”

    Thank you for conceding that no “‘anchor baby’ provably born in the United States ever [has] been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person’s parents’ status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child’s birth.”

    Your reply also demonstrates what absolutely shitty reading comprehension you possess, even when a straightforward statement of someone else’s opinion on the issue at hand is directed right at you, as a reply to one of your own replies to him:

    ***

    I am against birthright citizenship for the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called “green card”); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end– although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

    ***

    Your over-the-top hostility toward me, last night, was plainly ignited by my asking the following:

    ***

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    ***

    Your remarkably hostile reply to me failed to answer any of those questions. That was unsurprising, since there is no sense in which our government does not have jurisdiction over “anchor babies” present in the United States, nor even over their illegal-alien parents who are likewise present. They all can be taxed and regulated, the same as I am, and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration, the same as I was, back in 1974. They may be arrested, jailed, indicted, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and even executed for capital crimes– and there is nothing that any outside jurisdiction can do to stop that from happening; all that foreign jurisdictions may do is register their complaints and dissatisfaction over what is being done or had been done, already.

    Perhaps your over-the-top hostility actually was ignited by my asking what diplomatic cases would have to do with adjudging the right of “anchor babies” to claim or be granted American citizenship– as your reply to which I am replying, again, implicitly admits that they always have been granted– because my questioning your legal judgment– as a graduate of where, exactly? Harvard Law School? The top of your graduating class there?– displayed such impudence, coming from an alumnus of a mere public law school!?! Ah, well…. Such are the metaphorical crosses forever borne by all of you self-confessed geniuses and savants, old man!

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    @D. K.



    They all can be taxed and regulated, ... and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration

     

    I like where this is going.

    Imagine a Mexican man and his pregnant wife who live in Tijuana. They cross he border to see the San Diego donkey show. The spectacle is too much for the wife and in a state of shock goes into labor and is rushed to the San Diego hospital, where she gives birth. They then return to Tijuana. Eighteen yeas later the child grows up and gets his first job. The next year he recieves a letter from the IRS saying "your a US citizen, bro. Now pay your taxes on foreign earned income".
    , @Mr. Rational
    @D. K.


    In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?
     
    The United States can't tax them on personal income in other countries, can't draft them into the military, and can't prosecute them for treason (though it can deport or intern them as hostiles).

    In short, they have no duties or obligations which US citizens owe to the nation.  We should not presume that their children do either—nor should we assume that the children of even legal permanent residents do, unless they elect to assume such.  Children born to illegals or aliens on non-permanent visas should be given the same status held by their parents; no more anchor, child of tourist is tourist, child of illegal alien is illegal alien.
  360. I am a conservative with little in the way of a sense of humor.

    Again, excuse. I was not being deliberately obtuse.

    appreciate the response

  361. @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Changing the law would create chaos for many people born in the US

    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Rational, @EliteCommInc.

    imminent chaos and destruction have long been forecast and stirred by liberals and democrats —

    I am unmoved.

  362. @Mookie
    I'd like to see a poll of where Democratic voters stand on anchor babies.

    It's not going to be much of a winning Republican electoral strategy unless Democrats turn out to be strongly in favor of anchor babies. (I know, I know, people are going to say that of course Dems are in favor of anchor babies, but that is history and the political landscape is changing fast for both parties. What matters is what voters think not pundits and politicians.)

    I suspect most voters have no idea what anchor babies are and that simply educating them, if that's possible, would change the politics of the issue.

    Replies: @jon, @res

    I’d like to see a poll of where Democratic voters stand on anchor babies.

    So would I. I am having trouble finding anything recent, but this 2010 poll shows a fairly even split for Democrats: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-americans-split-over-birthright-citizenship/
    But 2010 predates the 2012-2013 changes Steve has been discussing recently. So who knows how that maps to the current reality. Another link about the same poll: https://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2010/06/03/rasmussen-poll-58-reject-anchor-baby-citizenship/

    Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats think children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become U.S. citizens. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party disagree.

    This June poll has a different focus, but might cast some light: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/06/03/majority-likely-voters-2018-swing-districts/

    Some interesting crosstabs:

    I find the difference between Democrat and Liberal interesting. That sixth (see weighted Ns) of the Democrat group has to be pretty heavily choosing worse to make the numbers work.

    I think this birthright citizenship backgrounder is useful (and very well referenced): https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-United-States

  363. Along with getting rid of the anchor babies, we need to get rid of anyone holding dual citizenship. Trump needs to bring this up.

  364. @D. K.
    @Drake

    Have all of the countless children born abroad to American military personnel and native women, over the past 172 years, been born stateless, as a matter of law, because their fathers were foreign soldiers, etc., while American law excluded them from being born American citizens, because they were born abroad to foreign women?

    Replies: @Jim Sweeney, @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @Drake, @res

    You have made a number of seemingly informative comments in this thread, but this one makes me wonder.

    First, it is a terrible comparison to anchor babies because the parties involved in your example have different immigration statuses.

    Second, my understanding is that immigration status based on parents tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So in your example I think the most common interpretation is the child is eligible for both citizenships but may have to make formal application.

    Third, you are wrong as a matter of simple fact (and since apparently you are a lawyer should know better). As Drake said (though he oversimplified) one American parent is all that is needed. Here are the details: https://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html

    Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered “U.S. soil” for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents.

    There are a wide variety of possible family arrangements, and each one has different citizenship implications.

    If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    – Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one of the parents lived in the U.S. at some point before the child was born; or
    – One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. Time spent serving the military or as a military dependent overseas counts as “time spent in the U.S.” for this purpose.

    If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    – The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth; or
    – Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child’s paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father’s written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents’ citizenship and the record of the child’s birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child’s U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @res

    How exactly can I be "wrong as a matter of simple fact" when posing a question, rather than alleging a fact?

    Here is the comment to which I responded:

    ***

    No. Historically there have been three categories of people who are understood to owe allegiance to other nations, and hence subject to foreign jurisdiction, even if they are born in US territory: children of diplomats, children of foreign soldiers, and children of Native Americans before they became citizens.

    There’s no reason why Congress can’t decide that children of illegal immigrants should be understood to owe allegiance to their parents’ country, just as with the examples above.

    ***

    Drake claimed that historically the children of foreign soldiers were not eligible for citizenship. Since foreign soldiers tend to leave their own women behind, and instead impregnate (willingly or otherwise) the native women in the countries that they invade, I was wondering whether, say, countries like Germany and Japan had the same restriction on citizenship, during the mid-century unpleasantness, which would have caused those conquered countries not to accord citizenship to the babies of foreign soldiers. If so, then a baby born to, say, a German woman impregnated (willingly or otherwise) by a GI passing through would have no legally recognized citizenship at birth, and would only be recognized as an American citizen, based on his father's American citizenship, if . . .

    ***

    . . . the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child’s paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father’s written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    ***

    Obviously, DNA testing was not available, during the war and the occupation. Assuming that the rules, otherwise, were essentially the same then as now, in the United States, then a German woman's baby would have been born without any legally recognized citizenship, if the American-GI father did not wish to seek American citizenship for the child, before it turned 18-- again, assuming that Germany had the same rule about not granting citizenship to children sired by invading soldiers. That was the point of my question. In reply to it, Drake wrote:

    ***

    No, children inherit the citizenship of their parents.

    Under US law, if one parent is American, the child is a US citizen.

    ***

    The first claim is in contrast to the claim that the children of foreign soldiers, etc., are not granted citizenship-- again, assuming that other countries, like Germany and Japan in World War II, followed that same rule.

    The second claim is not consistent with what you yourself have provided. It takes more than the mere accident of birth, in such a case, for a child of a GI and, say, an Afghani woman to be recognized as an American citizen. If Afghanistan has a similar rule about not recognizing as its citizens babies sired by invading or occupying military men, then such a bastard could be born without a legally recognized citizenship, if the GI did not recognize the child as his own and seek American citizenship for it.

  365. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqxVLO_UUAA275Z.jpg

    Replies: @res

    His Wikipedia page includes that quote and a reference to the original source (see bottom two thirds of center column of reference 2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

  366. @D. K.
    @istevefan

    ***

    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.

    ***

    You are missing a "nor" or two, in there, for it to mean what you (and many others) apparently believe it to mean. Regardless, as I noted above, the Supreme Court would need to find that the plain language of the clause at issue is legally ambiguous before it moved on to the issue of the legislative intent. Since it is an amendment, rather than a statute, there also would be the issue of the understanding an intent of all of the state legislatures who subsequently voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The assumption that there was "an intent" that was shared by everyone involved in its drafting, passage, and ratification is a tad presumptuous, to say the least.

    Replies: @anon, @J.Ross, @res

    You are familiar with the difference between spoken English and written legalese, right? The meaning of that passage is clear. In particular, pay attention to the placement of “but will include…”

    I initially took your many comments in this thread to be informative, accurate, and in good faith. I no longer think that.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @res

    Yes, the meaning of that passage is clear-- just as I have explained it, several times, above. The senator was not listing three separate categories of American-born children who were to be excluded from birthright citizenship; he was listing only one general category that was to be excluded, with the long clause modifying the preceding two words "foreigners" and "aliens," which both referred to the same category of people, as modified by that subsequent clause. As I myself noted, above, he was being redundant because he was speaking on the floor of the Senate, not writing a legal brief. That general category excluded from birthright citizenship the American-born children of both the members of sovereign Indian tribes and those foreigners officially received and granted diplomatic immunity. It did not exclude the American-born children of "illegal aliens"-- because there was no such animal, under federal law, when the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified!

  367. @Jim Sweeney
    @Buzz Mohawk

    People conflate jurisdiction with police power which is not what it means. It refers to one's allegiance. Everybody in any place is subject to the jurisdiction of the local police but are not subject to the duties imposed by citizenship, i.e., allegiance. Those are legally distinguishable and, without that distinction, this argument is not possible.

    Replies: @D. K.

    ***

    People conflate jurisdiction with police power which is not what it means. It refers to one’s allegiance. Everybody in any place is subject to the jurisdiction of the local police but are not subject to the duties imposed by citizenship, i.e., allegiance. Those are legally distinguishable and, without that distinction, this argument is not possible.

    ***

    Sorry for replying to this so late, but I just noticed it!

    Do “anchor babies” born in this country to illegal alien parents have an “allegiance” to the respective countries of their parents’ citizenship? (Those children might not even be told that their parents were in the country illegally!) Do the American-born children of green-cardholders have an “allegiance” to their parents’ respective countries of citizenship, making those children resident aliens rather than natural-born Americans? Does the fact that a country like Mexico now considers all people of Mexican descent in the United States to be Mexicans mean that those Mexican-Americans have “allegiance” to Mexico, and were categorically ineligible for birthright citizenship? Does an American-born child of a native-born American citizen who holds dual citizenship have an “allegiance” to the parent’s other country of citizenship, making the child ineligible for birthright citizenship? Would it matter whether the parent was a native-born citizen of the other country, despite being born in America, or only became a dual citizen after being born as a native-born American? Would it matter if the parent’s other citizenship was granted before or after the birth of the child whose own “allegiance” were at issue for birthright-citizenship purposes? Is an American-born baby who facially is entitled to birthright citizenship from multiple jurisdictions, as Barack H. Obama II apparently was, thereby ineligible to be a native-born American citizen? The alleged “allegiance” to another country is a rather tangled can of worms. There are illegal aliens who hate the countries in which they were born, and native-born Americans of old-American stock whose genuine allegiance lies with a country to which they have never been, and from which they did not descend– as was the case with the Soviet Union, back in the day.

    As I have noted above, there are many things that the American government, at any level, may do to illegal aliens, beyond merely the exercise of its police powers– such as taxing, regulating, and even conscripting them into military service. I ask again: what may the American government do to its own citizens, because it has jurisdiction over them, that it supposedly cannot do to illegal aliens, because it supposedly does not have jurisdiction over them, even as they illegally reside in this country, for years on end? All of that is really beside the point, of course, since the 14th Amendment does not refer to the legal status of parents– after all, under federal law, at the time of the 14th Amendment’s passage and ratification, there was no such thing as an “illegal alien” (and, thus, no such thing, colloquially, as an “anchor baby”)!– but rather only to the status of the children born within American territory. It is the jurisdiction that the American government does, or does not, have over those “anchor babies” (inter alia) that is at issue in the birthright-citizenship controversy, not the jurisdiction that the government does, or does not, have over any illegal-alien parents whose American-born children’s citizenship is at issue.

    In your very next comment, in this thread, you replied to me:

    ***

    No but it requires local registration with the US consulate/embassy and mucho subsequent paperwork with the CIS and State. For info, please see: The American Children Foundation – theacif.org – of which I’m president. That is the task we have set for the group – making citizens of children born abroad to at least one American parent.

    ***

    By your own line of thinking, does not a child born abroad to only one American parent, whose other parent, I assume, would usually be a citizen of the same foreign country in which that child was born, bear “allegiance” also– indeed, in most cases, first and foremost– to that other country, rather than to the United States? Why are you worried about “anchor babies” here– as, indeed, I am, as I have noted above!– while working to make foreign-born children who are not native-born American citizens, by the circumstances of their births to a respectively lone American parent, citizens of the United States?

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @D. K.


    but rather only to the status of the children born within American territory.
     
    Your argument does not work. If your claims are correct, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is superfluous. Your argument drains that phrase of any meaning. If it were not there, your interpretation would be identical to what it is now. But we know that phrases are not included in amendments in order to be ignored.

    The only interpretation that we can be certain of is that merely being born is not sufficient to bestow citizenship on the baby. Otherwise American Indians born before 1924 would have been citizens. But if that were true, there would have been no need to enact legislation that made American Indians American citizens. Elsewhere you wrote:

    In interpreting its language, the Supreme Court would resort to considering legislative intent only if the Court first found that that language itself is legally ambiguous.
     
    The plain misreading by the courts means that, in the best case, the language is ambiguous. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" prevents some subset of humanity from automatically becoming a US citizen. We can be sure the 14th applied to slaves and their progeny. But extending citizenship beyond that subset of humanity needs more justification than just the location of the birth (as the 1924 law demonstrates).

    Of course Sen. Howard provides intent:

    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.
     
    Foreigners (aliens) are excluded, and the plain meaning is that their progeny are precluded from becoming citizens. US vs. Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided (Ark was a legal alien, Howard testified to the exclusion of aliens, hence the decision was wrong). The correct interpretation is that citizenship comes from being born a child of at least one citizen. Bureaucrats implementing the mistaken decision can be reversed by an EO.

    Replies: @D. K.

  368. Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?

    Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?

    Should I go on?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @GamecockJerry

    "Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?"

    Since they are recognized, now, as native-born American citizens, as they always have been, yes, they are eligible to serve as President of the United States, or any other elective officer, so long as they meet the other listed requirements. Yes, they also may, can and do vote, just like other American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized.

    "Should I go on?"

    No, please, don't.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @eddy wobegon
    @GamecockJerry

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

    Regarding the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause:


    The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

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

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
     
    So the same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment codified by statue that children born in the U.S. "not subject to any foreign power" suggests the "under the jurisdiction" means more than that they are subject to U.S. legal proceedings, but that through their parents, that they have renounced loyalty to other countries.

    The difference between jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship is in play here.
  369. @Reg Cæsar
    @Chrisnonymous


    not to pass a law banning birthright citizenship, but to pass a law granting aliens some exemptions from US law
     
    Legal aliens are already exempt from Selective Service registration. Use that.

    Replies: @res

    That’s a good idea, but there may be a problem with it only applying to males between 18 and 25.

    https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration

    This document (linked there) goes into detail on which immigrants must register: https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/WhoMustRegisterChart.pdf
    I did not realize undocumented immigrants (in the US at that age) had to register.

  370. @Chrisnonymous

    This is democracy.
     
    Agreed. Was that a 300 reference? If so, nicely done. As to your original question...

    What do you think of the idea of Trump issuing an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship?
     
    It is a strategic mistake.

    An EO on birthright citizenship will result in a SCOTUS case that will put the conservatives on the Court in the position of either (a) upholding the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment or (b) making an "activist" and "political" decision against the current interpretation.

    The latter result is dishonest for conservatives and will prove to liberals that they are correct to oppose the appointment of conservative justices and judges at all costs.

    However, the former result would be worse. A SCOTUS case will allow the left time to martial all their arguments and present them in the relatively truthful and rational zone of the judiciary. A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment. A decision by the Court in favor of the left (especially one including the votes of conservative justices) would, in that case, make them appear to be on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American way, and, ultimately, make overturning the 14th Amendment through legislative action more difficult. On the other hand, if the left's initial presentation of its arguments is done in the context of a political debate over legislative action, all the liars on our side of the issue can muddy the waters for low-information voters and make it easier for us to overturn 14. As I said above, the current best way to deal with the issue is to pass some legislation extending privileges to aliens that makes them and and their children not entirely subject to US jurisdiction. The president can extend an EO after that.

    Replies: @Tulip, @res

    A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment.

    Do you have any evidence to support either of these claims?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @res

    He should know better than to tug on Michael Anton’s cape.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  371. @D. K.
    @Bubba

    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba? Regardless, the law is nothing else but an appeal to authority.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @res

    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba?

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

    But I think what you did is more accurately characterized as the opposite of an appeal to authority. In other words, attempting to discredit the people you are arguing against. Which is more accurately characterized as Ad hominem IMHO.

    My understanding is you are a former lawyer. If so, why the former? Were you just not very good at it?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @res

    If it is an ad hominem attack for me to point out that mere high-school graduates have taken it upon themselves to lecture me sternly about what the Citizenship Clause (inter alia) does and does not mean, as a matter of constitutional law, then fine; count me as an offender for so doing.

    I never was disbarred, suspended, sanctioned, cited, reported, nor sued, during my nearly fifteen years as an (unhappy) attorney. How good of a lawyer am I required to have been in order to comment here about a question of Constitutional Law? What "official" IQ level am I required to have scored before I may do so?

  372. @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    "About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!"

    Thank you for conceding that no "'anchor baby' provably born in the United States ever [has] been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth."

    Your reply also demonstrates what absolutely shitty reading comprehension you possess, even when a straightforward statement of someone else's opinion on the issue at hand is directed right at you, as a reply to one of your own replies to him:

    ***

    I am against birthright citizenship for the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called “green card”); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end– although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

    ***

    Your over-the-top hostility toward me, last night, was plainly ignited by my asking the following:

    ***

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    ***

    Your remarkably hostile reply to me failed to answer any of those questions. That was unsurprising, since there is no sense in which our government does not have jurisdiction over "anchor babies" present in the United States, nor even over their illegal-alien parents who are likewise present. They all can be taxed and regulated, the same as I am, and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration, the same as I was, back in 1974. They may be arrested, jailed, indicted, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and even executed for capital crimes-- and there is nothing that any outside jurisdiction can do to stop that from happening; all that foreign jurisdictions may do is register their complaints and dissatisfaction over what is being done or had been done, already.

    Perhaps your over-the-top hostility actually was ignited by my asking what diplomatic cases would have to do with adjudging the right of "anchor babies" to claim or be granted American citizenship-- as your reply to which I am replying, again, implicitly admits that they always have been granted-- because my questioning your legal judgment-- as a graduate of where, exactly? Harvard Law School? The top of your graduating class there?-- displayed such impudence, coming from an alumnus of a mere public law school!?! Ah, well.... Such are the metaphorical crosses forever borne by all of you self-confessed geniuses and savants, old man!

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Rational

    They all can be taxed and regulated, … and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration

    I like where this is going.

    Imagine a Mexican man and his pregnant wife who live in Tijuana. They cross he border to see the San Diego donkey show. The spectacle is too much for the wife and in a state of shock goes into labor and is rushed to the San Diego hospital, where she gives birth. They then return to Tijuana. Eighteen yeas later the child grows up and gets his first job. The next year he recieves a letter from the IRS saying “your a US citizen, bro. Now pay your taxes on foreign earned income”.

  373. @Anonymous
    @Ron Unz


    I’m just curious as to whether anyone can find a single judge or lawyer who had ever disputed the traditional “birthright interpretation” of the 14th Amendment prior to about 25 years ago…
     
    If there’s been a statute in place:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    8 USC 1401(a).


    Then what need has there been to have an interpretation of the birthright provision in the 14th Amendment?

    (I do not know how long the statute has been in effect.)

    Replies: @res

    This site has the history of the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    If I read that correctly it became effective in 1952.

    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    Interesting. Was there any kind of predecessor law that addressed citizenship of people born here?

    In any case, the 1952-2018 period covers a good chunk of time and a large proportion of the volume of illegal immigrants. People who claim there was a 14th Amendment "tradition" or "consensus" during that period have to contend with the fact that the constitutional provision was moot.

  374. @res
    @D. K.

    You have made a number of seemingly informative comments in this thread, but this one makes me wonder.

    First, it is a terrible comparison to anchor babies because the parties involved in your example have different immigration statuses.

    Second, my understanding is that immigration status based on parents tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So in your example I think the most common interpretation is the child is eligible for both citizenships but may have to make formal application.

    Third, you are wrong as a matter of simple fact (and since apparently you are a lawyer should know better). As Drake said (though he oversimplified) one American parent is all that is needed. Here are the details: https://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html


    Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered "U.S. soil" for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents.

    There are a wide variety of possible family arrangements, and each one has different citizenship implications.

    If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    - Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one of the parents lived in the U.S. at some point before the child was born; or
    - One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. Time spent serving the military or as a military dependent overseas counts as "time spent in the U.S." for this purpose.

    If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

    - The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child's birth; or
    - Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child's paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father's written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents' citizenship and the record of the child's birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child's U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.
     

    Replies: @D. K.

    How exactly can I be “wrong as a matter of simple fact” when posing a question, rather than alleging a fact?

    Here is the comment to which I responded:

    ***

    No. Historically there have been three categories of people who are understood to owe allegiance to other nations, and hence subject to foreign jurisdiction, even if they are born in US territory: children of diplomats, children of foreign soldiers, and children of Native Americans before they became citizens.

    There’s no reason why Congress can’t decide that children of illegal immigrants should be understood to owe allegiance to their parents’ country, just as with the examples above.

    ***

    Drake claimed that historically the children of foreign soldiers were not eligible for citizenship. Since foreign soldiers tend to leave their own women behind, and instead impregnate (willingly or otherwise) the native women in the countries that they invade, I was wondering whether, say, countries like Germany and Japan had the same restriction on citizenship, during the mid-century unpleasantness, which would have caused those conquered countries not to accord citizenship to the babies of foreign soldiers. If so, then a baby born to, say, a German woman impregnated (willingly or otherwise) by a GI passing through would have no legally recognized citizenship at birth, and would only be recognized as an American citizen, based on his father’s American citizenship, if . . .

    ***

    . . . the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child’s paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father’s written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.

    ***

    Obviously, DNA testing was not available, during the war and the occupation. Assuming that the rules, otherwise, were essentially the same then as now, in the United States, then a German woman’s baby would have been born without any legally recognized citizenship, if the American-GI father did not wish to seek American citizenship for the child, before it turned 18– again, assuming that Germany had the same rule about not granting citizenship to children sired by invading soldiers. That was the point of my question. In reply to it, Drake wrote:

    ***

    No, children inherit the citizenship of their parents.

    Under US law, if one parent is American, the child is a US citizen.

    ***

    The first claim is in contrast to the claim that the children of foreign soldiers, etc., are not granted citizenship– again, assuming that other countries, like Germany and Japan in World War II, followed that same rule.

    The second claim is not consistent with what you yourself have provided. It takes more than the mere accident of birth, in such a case, for a child of a GI and, say, an Afghani woman to be recognized as an American citizen. If Afghanistan has a similar rule about not recognizing as its citizens babies sired by invading or occupying military men, then such a bastard could be born without a legally recognized citizenship, if the GI did not recognize the child as his own and seek American citizenship for it.

  375. @silviosilver
    @Ron Unz

    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you're not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen.

    Since you're a busy man, I'll make it easy for you. Just answer YES or NO to the following question:

    Should America have birthright citizenship?

    (A one-word answer will be quite sufficient.)

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you’re not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen…Should America have birthright citizenship?

    Sure. I’m 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    But I think the odds of that happening in the foreseeable future are so extremely low it’s not something I much worry about…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Ron Unz


    Sure. I’m 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.
     
    Why?

    Why is it a good practice to give an illegal infiltrator the right to create an American by lunging over the border? How does it make sense to automatically give full membership rights in American citizenship to the child of parents who owe their allegiance to another country?
    , @vinteuil
    @Ron Unz


    I’m 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.
     
    Behold, Unz.com commentariat, and marvel.

    On the things that really matter, RKU is not on our side.

    But when it comes to marginal lunacy that only serves to discredit the right, he's totally on board.

    Think about that.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Issac, @Anon, @gabriel alberton

  376. @Jon Halpenny
    Ireland had a referendum on the issue of ending birthright citizenship in 2004. It was passed by a margin of almost 4 to 1, probably the biggest margin ever seen in an Irish referendum.

    Replies: @anon

    It was passed by a margin of almost 4 to 1, probably the biggest margin ever seen in an Irish referendum.

    Do you have a cite?

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    @anon

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#Result

  377. @res
    @Chrisnonymous


    A full debate on the topic will reveal that the Amendment was passed with eyes wide open, making birthright citizenship the de jure law of the land, and it will also probably reveal that birthright citizenship was the de facto law of the land prior to the Amendment.
     
    Do you have any evidence to support either of these claims?

    Replies: @Desiderius

    He should know better than to tug on Michael Anton’s cape.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Desiderius

    Michael Anton: https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  378. @res
    @D. K.

    You are familiar with the difference between spoken English and written legalese, right? The meaning of that passage is clear. In particular, pay attention to the placement of "but will include..."

    I initially took your many comments in this thread to be informative, accurate, and in good faith. I no longer think that.

    Replies: @D. K.

    Yes, the meaning of that passage is clear– just as I have explained it, several times, above. The senator was not listing three separate categories of American-born children who were to be excluded from birthright citizenship; he was listing only one general category that was to be excluded, with the long clause modifying the preceding two words “foreigners” and “aliens,” which both referred to the same category of people, as modified by that subsequent clause. As I myself noted, above, he was being redundant because he was speaking on the floor of the Senate, not writing a legal brief. That general category excluded from birthright citizenship the American-born children of both the members of sovereign Indian tribes and those foreigners officially received and granted diplomatic immunity. It did not exclude the American-born children of “illegal aliens”– because there was no such animal, under federal law, when the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified!

  379. @istevefan
    @J.Ross

    If you are referring to the snippet above, keep in mind that was from the dissenting opinion.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    My bad. But this thing has still not had much visibility and cannot possibly survive a vigorous discussion with modern circumstances. It is abundantly clear that nobody was thinking of the Merkelboner.
    NPR by the way is continuing with its “every Muslim stubbed toe” policy, interviewing a Sudanese woman who has been here for twenty-one years under Temporary Protected Status without seeking citizenship.

  380. @res
    @D. K.


    How exactly is ridicule a fallacy, Bubba?
     
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

    But I think what you did is more accurately characterized as the opposite of an appeal to authority. In other words, attempting to discredit the people you are arguing against. Which is more accurately characterized as Ad hominem IMHO.

    My understanding is you are a former lawyer. If so, why the former? Were you just not very good at it?

    Replies: @D. K.

    If it is an ad hominem attack for me to point out that mere high-school graduates have taken it upon themselves to lecture me sternly about what the Citizenship Clause (inter alia) does and does not mean, as a matter of constitutional law, then fine; count me as an offender for so doing.

    I never was disbarred, suspended, sanctioned, cited, reported, nor sued, during my nearly fifteen years as an (unhappy) attorney. How good of a lawyer am I required to have been in order to comment here about a question of Constitutional Law? What “official” IQ level am I required to have scored before I may do so?

  381. @GamecockJerry
    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?

    Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?

    Should I go on?

    Replies: @D. K., @eddy wobegon

    “Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?”

    Since they are recognized, now, as native-born American citizens, as they always have been, yes, they are eligible to serve as President of the United States, or any other elective officer, so long as they meet the other listed requirements. Yes, they also may, can and do vote, just like other American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized.

    “Should I go on?”

    No, please, don’t.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @D. K.


    Since they are recognized, now, as native-born American citizens, as they always have been, yes, they are eligible to serve as President of the United States, or any other elective officer, so long as they meet the other listed requirements.
     
    Sophist. If they are citizens by operation of statute, and the offspring of aliens, are they "natural born" for purposes of the Constitutional presidential eligibility clause?
  382. @JerryC
    @Prester John

    Here's the deal. The framers of the 14th Amendment wrote the thing up with present conditions in mind. Hence the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier, which was meant to exclude the American Indians/recognize the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. But illegal aliens and anchor babies weren't really a thing in 1868, so the original intent could not have been to grant them citizenship automatically.

    The common sense thing to do in this case would be to say that the constitution neither compels nor forbids anchor baby citizenship. It's a political question and should be decided through the normal legislative and administrative channels.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    That would be a great and entirely appropriate judicial punt. That’s what Scalia constantly reiterated: the Constitution is the national charter, not the operations manual. That’s what legislatures are for.

  383. @Mr. Rational
    @J.Ross


    Not necessarily, they can be grandfathered and the law can apply going forward.
     
    And we should absolutely NOT grandfather them.  They have to go back.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    I agree, I’m ready to volunteer to grab people and shove them into shipping containers. That’s not happening. With an alternate universe Trumpier Trump that dealt with the bureaucracy properly and built the wall, that still wouldn’t happen. What will happen is Grandma stays, people with no record who have been here beyond a certain threshold stay, and the vatos Obama pretended he could not see will go. So: fix the law, empower the agencies, but [they will probably] show mercy in practice with the least threatening cases.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @J.Ross

    ?vatos?  No comprende, and G. translate thinks it's Lithuanian for "watts".

  384. @3g4me
    @Ripple Earthdevil

    @98 Ripple Earthdevil: "OT: Resorts in Jamaica are facing a ‘historic’ sexual assault problem"

    Jamaica has been a dangerous shithole for decades. The all-inclusive resorts give clueless tourists a false image of the country and a false sense of security. Plus, American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually 'liberated' and open to interracial sex). If I had a couple of bucks for every blonde who came to the embassy for a fiance visa for her dreadlocked fiance whose acquaintance she'd made a week ago . . .

    Sorry, but regarding ignorant tourists partying in the Caribbean - particularly non-White tourists from Michigan - ZFG. Natural culling long overdue.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @YetAnotherAnon

    “American tourist women are incredibly stupid in their dealings with local men (casual conversation, even basic civility, is considered open flirting in a country where White American women are all considered sexually ‘liberated’ and open to interracial sex)”

    Yes, but some of these women will have been raised in whitopias where all the minorities they see are really nice people on TV (in the UK the cookery shows, mostly watched by women, are heavily diverse). Plus they’ve been taught that racism is the greatest sin so they want to be polite, even friendly.

    Unless they have parents who give them “The Talk”, how can they learn the facts of life without doing so the hard way?

  385. @Federalist
    @D. K.


    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:
     
    How magnanimous of you, ex-lawyer.

    The Wikipedia article you cite explains that a court would be unlikely to construe the term "motor vehicles" to include airplanes, even though airplanes are vehicles with motors.

    Similarly, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment. See this explanation previously suggested to you by The Alarmist: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @D. K.

    Similarly, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment.

    As should “person.” They couldn’t have intended it to include the offspring of invaders.

  386. @GamecockJerry
    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?

    Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?

    Should I go on?

    Replies: @D. K., @eddy wobegon

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

    Regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause:

    The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

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

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

    So the same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment codified by statue that children born in the U.S. “not subject to any foreign power” suggests the “under the jurisdiction” means more than that they are subject to U.S. legal proceedings, but that through their parents, that they have renounced loyalty to other countries.

    The difference between jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship is in play here.

  387. @Federalist
    @D. K.


    For the benefit of the lay majority, here, I will let Wikipedia.org explain:
     
    How magnanimous of you, ex-lawyer.

    The Wikipedia article you cite explains that a court would be unlikely to construe the term "motor vehicles" to include airplanes, even though airplanes are vehicles with motors.

    Similarly, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted according to its meaning in the context that it was used in the 14th Amendment. See this explanation previously suggested to you by The Alarmist: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @D. K.

    Thanks, but I do not care to read long articles, linked to in short comments, just in order to reply to other commenters, like you two, in an ongoing thread (that has taken up too much of my invaluable time, already). Instead, I am off to the kitchen to cook myself a nice meat-and-potatoes dinner!

  388. Anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    @silviosilver


    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you’re not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen...Should America have birthright citizenship?
     
    Sure. I'm 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    But I think the odds of that happening in the foreseeable future are so extremely low it's not something I much worry about...

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil

    Sure. I’m 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    Why?

    Why is it a good practice to give an illegal infiltrator the right to create an American by lunging over the border? How does it make sense to automatically give full membership rights in American citizenship to the child of parents who owe their allegiance to another country?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  389. Anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    @GamecockJerry

    "Are they eligible to become President of the Unites States, or a congressman? Can they vote?"

    Since they are recognized, now, as native-born American citizens, as they always have been, yes, they are eligible to serve as President of the United States, or any other elective officer, so long as they meet the other listed requirements. Yes, they also may, can and do vote, just like other American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized.

    "Should I go on?"

    No, please, don't.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Since they are recognized, now, as native-born American citizens, as they always have been, yes, they are eligible to serve as President of the United States, or any other elective officer, so long as they meet the other listed requirements.

    Sophist. If they are citizens by operation of statute, and the offspring of aliens, are they “natural born” for purposes of the Constitutional presidential eligibility clause?

  390. anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    @Anonymous

    This site has the history of the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    If I read that correctly it became effective in 1952.

    Replies: @anon

    Interesting. Was there any kind of predecessor law that addressed citizenship of people born here?

    In any case, the 1952-2018 period covers a good chunk of time and a large proportion of the volume of illegal immigrants. People who claim there was a 14th Amendment “tradition” or “consensus” during that period have to contend with the fact that the constitutional provision was moot.

  391. @D. K.
    @whorefinder

    "About to happen when Justice Kavanaugh writes the 5-4 decision, baby. I shall enjoy your pissing and wailing on that day!"

    Thank you for conceding that no "'anchor baby' provably born in the United States ever [has] been deprived of American citizenship by the government of the United States, based on that person's parents' status as illegal aliens, at the time of their child's birth."

    Your reply also demonstrates what absolutely shitty reading comprehension you possess, even when a straightforward statement of someone else's opinion on the issue at hand is directed right at you, as a reply to one of your own replies to him:

    ***

    I am against birthright citizenship for the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens and other non-immigrants (i.e., those without a so-called “green card”); since green cards themselves may be revoked, I even would be willing for the American-born children of green-cardholders to be made merely additional legal aliens, who would become eligible for citizenship only if and when their immigrant parents do, or else at a certain age. Although I believe that an executive order on birthright citizenship would be patently unconstitutional, I am not unhappy that President Trump is raising the specter of his issuing such an order. Although my personal opinion is that it would require a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship further (i.e., beyond diplomatic personnel and their families), I am not unhappy, either, that Senator Graham claims that he plans to introduce a bill, soon, toward the same restrictionist end– although I certainly doubt his motives! The sooner that the Supreme Court goes on record about whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or not, the better. That has been my opinion since long before Donald Trump ever took his famous Escalator ride in Trump Tower, well over three years ago.

    ***

    Your over-the-top hostility toward me, last night, was plainly ignited by my asking the following:

    ***

    Pray tell, in what sense are “anchor babies” who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States? What is our government proscribed from doing to those in either category that it may do to the native-born children of legal aliens, or to the native-born children of naturalized Americans, or to the native-born children of native-born Americans? What relevance would any diplomatic cases, involving those with diplomatic immunity under law, have to do with the issue of birthright citizenship for the American-born children of non-citizens who are not diplomats who are legally entitled to diplomatic immunity?

    ***

    Your remarkably hostile reply to me failed to answer any of those questions. That was unsurprising, since there is no sense in which our government does not have jurisdiction over "anchor babies" present in the United States, nor even over their illegal-alien parents who are likewise present. They all can be taxed and regulated, the same as I am, and the young men among them can be forced to register for conscription with the Selective Service Administration, the same as I was, back in 1974. They may be arrested, jailed, indicted, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and even executed for capital crimes-- and there is nothing that any outside jurisdiction can do to stop that from happening; all that foreign jurisdictions may do is register their complaints and dissatisfaction over what is being done or had been done, already.

    Perhaps your over-the-top hostility actually was ignited by my asking what diplomatic cases would have to do with adjudging the right of "anchor babies" to claim or be granted American citizenship-- as your reply to which I am replying, again, implicitly admits that they always have been granted-- because my questioning your legal judgment-- as a graduate of where, exactly? Harvard Law School? The top of your graduating class there?-- displayed such impudence, coming from an alumnus of a mere public law school!?! Ah, well.... Such are the metaphorical crosses forever borne by all of you self-confessed geniuses and savants, old man!

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Rational

    In what sense are even their illegal-alien parents who are physically present in the United States not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?

    The United States can’t tax them on personal income in other countries, can’t draft them into the military, and can’t prosecute them for treason (though it can deport or intern them as hostiles).

    In short, they have no duties or obligations which US citizens owe to the nation.  We should not presume that their children do either—nor should we assume that the children of even legal permanent residents do, unless they elect to assume such.  Children born to illegals or aliens on non-permanent visas should be given the same status held by their parents; no more anchor, child of tourist is tourist, child of illegal alien is illegal alien.

  392. @D. K.
    @Lucas McCrudy

    Even before the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law, in 1924, many American Indians already had been recognized by the American government as citizens of the United States:

    ***

    Native Americans and U.S. Citizenship[edit]

    In 1817, the Cherokee became the first Native Americans recognized as U.S. citizens. Under Article 8 of the 1817 Cherokee treaty, "Upwards of 300 Cherokees (Heads of Families) in the honest simplicity of their souls, made an election to become American citizens".[17][101]

    Factors establishing citizenship included:

    Treaty provision (as with the Cherokee)
    Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887
    Issuance of Patent in Fee simple
    Adopting Habits of Civilized Life
    Minor Children
    Citizenship by Birth
    Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
    Marriage to a U.S. citizen
    Special Act of Congress.

    After the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States".[102]

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#19th_century

    ***

    Under Article One of the United States Constitution, "Indians not taxed" were not counted in assessing the population of a state for purposes of apportionment. Some Native people could become citizens. The Dred Scott decision acknowledged that[1] but linked it to naturalization:

    They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.[2]

    In 1868, under the 14th Amendment, all persons

    born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were declared citizens. However, the jurisdiction requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary committee further clarified the matter: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States.[1]

    About eight percent of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship due to being "taxed."[1] Others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites or accepting land allotments,[3] such as those granted under the Dawes Act.[1] The exclusion of Native people from US citizenship was further established by Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."[4]

    The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put the numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million. The indigenous people who were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means; entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life were some ways that was done.[5]:121 Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship. The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person, however, and it was not until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all born on U.S. soil were citizens.[6]:16[7]:29

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act#History_and_background

    Replies: @Lucas McCrudy

    Baloney. Haven’t you ever hear of a SCOTUS decision Elk Vs. Wilkins from 1894 (two decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment!) where the justices held that Indians were NOT entitled to citizenship even though they were born within the territory of the US.
    I quote verbatim from that very deciosn: “The evident meaning of these last words (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” THAT IS AN EXACT QUOTE FROM THE SUPREME COURT in its majority opinion denying John Elk US citizenship because he failed the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance” to a foreign or quasi foreign (his tribe) nation at birth.

  393. @Desiderius
    @res

    He should know better than to tug on Michael Anton’s cape.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Jim Don Bob

    You guys,
    Anton is on the right side in the grand scheme of things, but he's not exceptionally brilliant. I can 't tell if he's fooled himself or slightly dishonest, but if you read the Congressional transcript in full for yourself instead of Anton's article, you can see there was disagreement over what the "jurisdiction" clause should mean, but the fact that some of the speakers said the Amendment would result in the children of non-Citizen residents (specifically, Chinese in California) becoming citizens shows that this outcome was known at the time. Yet the Amendment passed without being amended to clarify that children of non-Citizens were not "subject to jurisdiction" according to the Amendment.

    As I mentioned above, instead of insisting that those who passed the Amendment thought things it's not at all clear they thought, the subject of Indian status is the entree for conservatives.

  394. @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

    so-called “anchor babies”

    It figures that you’d be uncomfortable with that phrase. The metaphor is a little too vivid for you, I guess?

    What’s your…preferred nomenclature? Something like “dreamers-to-be,” perhaps?

    Or maybe you’d rather that we just don’t mention them at all?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  395. @D. K.
    @anon

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are "unambiguous." When a court finds the text at issue in a case to be so:

    ***

    Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’” 503 U.S. 249, 254.

    ***

    If my own legal judgment about the language of the 14th Amendment is wrong, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, if and when it takes up the issue of birthright citizenship for so-called "anchor babies"-- then the Court will rule on what it does mean. Either way, I do not believe an executive order will be held to be valid, in lieu of a statute.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @whorefinder, @Svigor, @vinteuil, @vinteuil

    Oh, and this:

    The courts, obviously, are the ones to judge whether the plain text of a statute, or of the Constitution itself, are “unambiguous.”

    Nuts. Merde. The courts have spent the last sixty years proving that they are just about the last people in the world to be trusted with any such judgment.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  396. @Ron Unz
    @silviosilver


    Hey Don Ronaldo, I get that you’re not a legal scholar and all that, but I wonder if you could tell us what you, personally, in your capacity as a citizen, would prefer to see happen...Should America have birthright citizenship?
     
    Sure. I'm 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    But I think the odds of that happening in the foreseeable future are so extremely low it's not something I much worry about...

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil

    I’m 100% in favor of birthright citizenship and think that getting rid of it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

    Behold, Unz.com commentariat, and marvel.

    On the things that really matter, RKU is not on our side.

    But when it comes to marginal lunacy that only serves to discredit the right, he’s totally on board.

    Think about that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @vinteuil


    Behold, Unz.com commentariat, and marvel.

    On the things that really matter, RKU is not on our side.
     
    I'm interested in his explanation for his position. (Or maybe it's a typo.) Let's hear him out.

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    , @Issac
    @vinteuil

    Transparency counts for something, surely. Liberals are your enemy to some extent, but honest liberals are the only platform remaining to you. The alternative is that you are treated like European dissidents: given no platform, jailed, and hounded by the antifa-police combo that white advocates in the US are only now becoming familiar with.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Anon
    @vinteuil

    The anti Jewish nutters will realize far to late what the Unzman is really up to . Hey , tell us a little more about youe posting career lolololozlzlzlzlzlzl

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @gabriel alberton
    @vinteuil


    Behold, Unz.com commentariat, and marvel.

    On the things that really matter, RKU is not on our side.
     

    Yea, but if you're surprised, I don't get it. A quick reading of Mr. Unz's Wikipedia article reveals a