Birthright Citizenship

mrincredible

Racist dogwhistle to gin up the base prior to the midterms.


nohero
Robert_Casotto said:
Adios amigo.
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
mrincredible said:
Racist dogwhistle to gin up the base prior to the midterms.

The only people who it "gins up" are the ignorant bigots.


mrincredible
nohero said:


Robert_Casotto said:
Adios amigo.
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
mrincredible said:
Racist dogwhistle to gin up the base prior to the midterms.
The only people who it "gins up" are the ignorant bigots.

 Who do you think is Trump's base?


dave23
Robert_Casotto said:
Adios amigo.


https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

Yes, conservatives are now okay with a POTUS dismissing a Constitutional amendment by Executive Order. Authoritarianism is acceptable as long as we are targeting minorities.


nohero

The article in the OP (the part that comes after the headline) details how Trump's "plan" is just nonsense on his part.  I'm sure that a whole lot of readers from "Stormfront" never got that far, and just pumped their fists about what the headline said.


Ridley

Wait, does this mean Nikki Haley CAN or CAN'T run for president?


dave23

Likely to happen the same day as the forthcoming middle class tax cut.


BG9
dave23 said:


Robert_Casotto said:
Adios amigo.


https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
Yes, conservatives are now okay with a POTUS dismissing a Constitutional amendment by Executive Order. Authoritarianism is acceptable as long as we are targeting minorities.

And maybe also the Federal courts considering they are being stacked with far right ideologues.

Will every citizen have to prove their parents citizenship when they were born here? Or will it be you're white, wink nudge, no need to prove in your case?

Obviously another attempt to gin his base up before elections.


Ridley

And the great health care package he has that covers everyone.


LOST

IMHO the post starting this thread is racist and should be taken down.



Ridley
LOST said:
IMHO the post starting this thread is racist and should be taken down.


 It can't be racist. He's saying goodbye to his friend. I'm sure Bobby feels very sad to see him go.


Roberto

How can we deny 14A birthright to children born in the U.S. to foreign Diplomats?


Have we no sense of decency?


https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat

  

“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”



Joseph
ridski said:
Wait, does this mean Nikki Haley CAN or CAN'T run for president?

 Look at the bright side; it includes Ted Cruz


ml1
Robert_Casotto said:
How can we deny 14A birthright to children born in the U.S. to foreign Diplomats?


Have we no sense of decency?



https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat

  
“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”



 this is a really stupid post. 


RealityForAll
GL2 said:


ridski said:
Wait, does this mean Nikki Haley CAN or CAN'T run for president?
 Look at the bright side; it includes Ted Cruz

 I think Ted Cruz has a birth situation analogous to the situations of George Romney (born in Mexico to US parents) and John McCain (born in Panama canal Zone to US parents). 

My understanding is that as long as one parent is a US citizen at the time of the child's birth then the child is eligible to be considered as US citizen (my understanding is that when overseas, the birth of a child to at least one US parent is generally contemporaneously registered with the US consulate in that jurisdiction so as to document the US citizenship).


Joseph

Laws against interracial marriage

Naturalization Act 1790 (free, white people)

After Spanish-American War, we could “own” Puerto Rico but people were “nationals” not “citizens” (SCOTUS)

Any number of bills limiting Asian immigration.

1924 immigration law favoring Brits, Germans, Scandinavians

Cable Act (1922) - an American woman marrying non-citizen Asian man loses her American citizenship


“When leading Nazi jurists assembled in 1934 to debate how to institutionalize racism in the new Third Reich, they began by asking how the Americans did it.”

Hitler’s American Model (Whitman, 2018)


DaveSchmidt

From “Roman Candle: The Life of Bobby Darin,” by David Evanier:

Bobby’s grandmother, Vivian Fern Walden, who called herself Polly, was a thrush. Saverio “Sam” Cassotto, his grandfather, was a small-time thug. Sam’s family was part of the wave of Italian Immigration between 1900 and 1910, when more than two million men, women, and children came to the United States from Italy.


RealityForAll
LOST said:
IMHO the post starting this thread is racist and should be taken down.


 Would you prefer any of the following:

a.  zài jiàn péng you

b.  Прощай, мой руг

c. oodbyegay iendfray

d. Abschied von meinem Freund

e.  None of the above



DaveSchmidt
ml1 said:


Robert_Casotto said:
How can we deny 14A birthright to children born in the U.S. to foreign Diplomats?

Have we no sense of decency?

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat
  
“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 this is a really stupid post. 

 On the contrary, it’s really smart: It even answers its own question.


Roberto

If I blow a 0.079 on the dot, is that legal or not legal?


RealityForAll
Robert_Casotto said:
If I blow a 0.079 on the dot, is that legal or not legal?

 Are you do the blowing in a public or private place?


And, how old is dot?


DaveSchmidt

I’m playing the wrong room.


dave23
RealityForAll said:


Robert_Casotto said:
If I blow a 0.079 on the dot, is that legal or not legal?
 Are you do the blowing in a public or private place?


And, how old is dot?

  oh oh 


Roberto
RealityForAll said:


Robert_Casotto said:
If I blow a 0.079 on the dot, is that legal or not legal?
 Are you do the blowing in a public or private place?


And, how old is dot?

 old enough.


LOST
DaveSchmidt said:
I’m playing the wrong room.

 Maybe you need a better agent.


Ridley

To be fair to the AP, the US is one of a tiny minority of countries where a person comes in and has a baby and that baby is essentially a citizen of the United States. You don't get that if you have the baby in Canada or, say, Argentina. So believe it or not, Trump is right.


Roberto

“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.”

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.


“The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.“


U.S. Supreme Court, Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36


drummerboy
Robert_Casotto said:


“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.”

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.


“The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.“


U.S. Supreme Court, Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36

 yeah, not so much. This is the precedent case, not Slaughterhouse.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were legally domiciled and resident there at the time and not employed by the Chinese government, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts." A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language". Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.