Is Trump violating the 14th Amendment with his "ANCHOR BABIES" crackdown?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" give an exception which would exclude those born of illegal immigrants?

There are contrary theories on the meaning, but the only interpretation which makes sense is that all persons, no matter who, if they were born in the legally-recognized boundaries of the U.S., and if they don't have diplomatic immunity, are automatically citizens.


The original intended meaning of "All persons . . . subject to the jurisdiction"

The technical argument to exclude illegal immigrants seems to be based on the following quote from the original writer of the Amendment:

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.
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

The quote does not say "who are foreigners, aliens OR members of the families of ambassadors . . ." etc. If this was the meaning, it could easily have been worded this way to make it clear. So it's not referring to all migrants who show up, i.e., to ALL foreigners, aliens.

Rather, it refers to those foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc. If the "foreigners" or "aliens" mentioned were not the same as those who belong to the families of ambassadors, there would be an "or" in the wording, to separate the different classes of persons not intended to be part of the "All persons born" in the U.S.

It nowhere makes exception for migrants who arrive in the country unofficially, on their own, such as refugees. The terms "foreigners" and "aliens" means certain recognized foreigners who are officially in the country as representatives of the foreign country.

What could the phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," etc. mean, if not specifically a reference to the foreign ambassadors mentioned? What is a "foreigner" born in the U.S.? If it means anyone whose parent was not a citizen, then how many U.S. citizens are excluded because their great great great great grandparent was not a citizen, and so therefore every descendant from them up to the present was also a non-citizen?

The above Senator explaining the Amendment would have defined his phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" if he did not intend by this phrase the foreign ambassadors, ministers, i.e., officially-recognized foreign representatives who are granted immunity.

It's impossible that this could have meant anyone except those officially recognized as foreigners representing another country, and thus having recognized official immunity. It can't mean every person who shows up from another country, because those persons ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they arrive, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations. In what way is a migrant who shows up NOT subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?

If those original writers of the Amendment intended to exclude unofficial migrants who show up, why didn't they say so specifically? If that's what they meant, they would have said: "This of course doesn't mean any migrant who happens to show up on a boat from somewhere" etc. There was language they easily could have used to express this idea.

The language they did use either means FOREIGN AMBASSADORS or REPRESENTATIVES or MINISTERS, etc., or else the word "foreigners" is meaningless. What does it mean, if it does not mean officially recognized foreign representatives or ministers and their families, who did have immunity and were technically not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?

As soon as anyone sets foot in the country, s/he is subject to the laws of the U.S. Or as soon as they emerge from the womb. Other than specific persons officially recognized as foreigners with immunity.

Native Americans on the Reservation are subject to U.S. laws, though their status may be different. They clearly are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. and state laws if they leave the reservation and commit robbery or murder etc.

But not ambassadors and their families. These can be kicked out of the country for bad behavior, but not prosecuted, even for murder. The country they're from can waive the right to immunity, so it's complicated. But technically they can even commit murder, which refugees arriving on a boat cannot:

https://www.quora.com/Does-diplomatic-immunity-actually-protect-diplomats-against-murder-charges

Does diplomatic immunity actually protect diplomats against murder charges?

In principle, yes. In practice, maybe. Much depends on the circumstances of the case, and (even more) on the relationship between the two countries concerned. The first thing to understand is that diplomatic immunity does not belong to the diplomat. It is something extended by the host government (i.e. the government of the country in which the diplomat is posted) to the sending government (i.e. the government that employs the diplomat). Once the host government has granted immunity, it cannot unilaterally revoke it. Only the sending government can agree to waive its diplomat's immunity. The diplomat concerned has no say in the matter.

If a diplomat is believed to have committed a serious crime such as murder, the host government may simply expel the diplomat (declare him or her persona non grata; the diplomat is said to be PNG'd), or may ask the sending government to waive immunity so that the diplomat can be arrested and prosecuted according to the applicable local laws. Whether the sending government agrees to the request will depend on many factors, including the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, its perception of the justice and penal system of the host country, whether the host country's penalties for the crime are comparable to those at home, and the state of the bilateral relationship (what would be the consequences of refusing or agreeing to the request - on trade deals, military cooperation, regional issues, current negotiations on X, Y or Z, votes for elections to the Security Council or other bodies, etc, etc, etc).

Whatever the case, if you are a diplomat who has committed a murder, you can be sure that your own government is deeply, deeply pissed off with you. If you are posted in a friendly country with which there are no big issues or tensions, the matter will be settled amicably between the two governments with minimum fuss, but it will not end well for you. Quite likely immunity will be waived and you will be jailed, at least for a time, in the host country. Possibly a deal will be struck where you serve part of your sentence in your home country. If immunity is not waived and you are PNG'd, you will quite possibly face charges in your home country, depending on the legal arrangements. You will certainly lose your job.

If you are posted in a country with which your country has a tense and difficult relationship (think India-Pakistan, US-Russia, Iran-anyone), you have just triggered a major diplomatic crisis and your name is mud. Provided everyone plays by the rules, immunity will be respected and you will most likely be PNG'd - in the end. But there will be all kinds of posturing and horse-trading, and it may be a long time before everything is settled. And when you do get home, do not expect a warm welcome.

It's pretty clear that this immunity is not something enjoyed in the U.S. by anyone other than an official ambassador. Maybe a Native American officially appointed to represent his tribe in Washington and accepted as an ambassador would also have diplomatic immunity. But not just any member of the tribe who wanders off the reservation and commits robbery, etc.

Also it doesn't apply to children of foreigners or anyone other than ambassadors who have an official position recognized by the host government. Anyone other than this is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and states.

So any reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment wording has to apply this phrase to all persons born in the U.S. who do not have official recognition granting them diplomatic immunity.

Pres. Trump is trying now to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude those born to illegal migrants. But this will require a constitutional amendment, unless the plain meaning of the text is disregarded. If the Right-wing joins him and wins this in Court, they can no longer claim to be strict constructionists. They will be flouting the original intent.

The meaning has to be that understood at the time of adoption, not by later pundits arguing over whether this was such a good idea. These arguments may have begun soon after adoption, but in 1868 when it was adopted, it meant ALL persons born in the U.S. other than those with official diplomatic immunity. If they had been worried about "anchor babies" at that time, they would have worded it differently, to exclude children of foreigners or illegals, etc.


question 2: Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

Should this be changed with a Constitutional Amendment?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" give an exception which would exclude those born of illegal immigrants?

There are contrary theories on the meaning, but the only interpretation which makes sense is that all persons, no matter who, if they were born in the legally-recognized boundaries of the U.S., and if they don't have diplomatic immunity, are automatically citizens.


The original intended meaning of "All persons . . . subject to the jurisdiction"

The technical argument to exclude illegal immigrants seems to be based on the following quote from the original writer of the Amendment:

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.
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

The quote does not say "who are foreigners, aliens OR members of the families of ambassadors . . ." etc. If this was the meaning, it could easily have been worded this way to make it clear. So it's not referring to all migrants who show up, i.e., to ALL foreigners, aliens.

Rather, it refers to those foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc. If the "foreigners" or "aliens" mentioned were not the same as those who belong to the families of ambassadors, there would be an "or" in the wording, to separate the different classes of persons not intended to be part of the "All persons born" in the U.S.

It nowhere makes exception for migrants who arrive in the country unofficially, on their own, such as refugees. The terms "foreigners" and "aliens" means certain recognized foreigners who are officially in the country as representatives of the foreign country.

What could the phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," etc. mean, if not specifically a reference to the foreign ambassadors mentioned? What is a "foreigner" born in the U.S.? If it means anyone whose parent was not a citizen, then how many U.S. citizens are excluded because their great great great great grandparent was not a citizen, and so therefore every descendant from them up to the present was also a non-citizen?

The above Senator explaining the Amendment would have defined his phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" if he did not intend by this phrase the foreign ambassadors, ministers, i.e., officially-recognized foreign representatives who are granted immunity.

It's impossible that this could have meant anyone except those officially recognized as foreigners representing another country, and thus having recognized official immunity. It can't mean every person who shows up from another country, because those persons ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they arrive, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations. In what way is a migrant who shows up NOT subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?

If those original writers of the Amendment intended to exclude unofficial migrants who show up, why didn't they say so specifically? If that's what they meant, they would have said: "This of course doesn't mean any migrant who happens to show up on a boat from somewhere" etc. There was language they easily could have used to express this idea.

The language they did use either means FOREIGN AMBASSADORS or REPRESENTATIVES or MINISTERS, etc., or else the word "foreigners" is meaningless. What does it mean, if it does not mean officially recognized foreign representatives or ministers and their families, who did have immunity and were technically not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?

As soon as anyone sets foot in the country, s/he is subject to the laws of the U.S. Or as soon as they emerge from the womb. Other than specific persons officially recognized as foreigners with immunity.

Native Americans on the Reservation are subject to U.S. laws, though their status may be different. They clearly are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. and state laws if they leave the reservation and commit robbery or murder etc.

But not ambassadors and their families. These can be kicked out of the country for bad behavior, but not prosecuted, even for murder. The country they're from can waive the right to immunity, so it's complicated. But technically they can even commit murder, which refugees arriving on a boat cannot:

https://www.quora.com/Does-diplomatic-immunity-actually-protect-diplomats-against-murder-charges

Does diplomatic immunity actually protect diplomats against murder charges?

In principle, yes. In practice, maybe. Much depends on the circumstances of the case, and (even more) on the relationship between the two countries concerned. The first thing to understand is that diplomatic immunity does not belong to the diplomat. It is something extended by the host government (i.e. the government of the country in which the diplomat is posted) to the sending government (i.e. the government that employs the diplomat). Once the host government has granted immunity, it cannot unilaterally revoke it. Only the sending government can agree to waive its diplomat's immunity. The diplomat concerned has no say in the matter.

If a diplomat is believed to have committed a serious crime such as murder, the host government may simply expel the diplomat (declare him or her persona non grata; the diplomat is said to be PNG'd), or may ask the sending government to waive immunity so that the diplomat can be arrested and prosecuted according to the applicable local laws. Whether the sending government agrees to the request will depend on many factors, including the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, its perception of the justice and penal system of the host country, whether the host country's penalties for the crime are comparable to those at home, and the state of the bilateral relationship (what would be the consequences of refusing or agreeing to the request - on trade deals, military cooperation, regional issues, current negotiations on X, Y or Z, votes for elections to the Security Council or other bodies, etc, etc, etc).

Whatever the case, if you are a diplomat who has committed a murder, you can be sure that your own government is deeply, deeply pissed off with you. If you are posted in a friendly country with which there are no big issues or tensions, the matter will be settled amicably between the two governments with minimum fuss, but it will not end well for you. Quite likely immunity will be waived and you will be jailed, at least for a time, in the host country. Possibly a deal will be struck where you serve part of your sentence in your home country. If immunity is not waived and you are PNG'd, you will quite possibly face charges in your home country, depending on the legal arrangements. You will certainly lose your job.

If you are posted in a country with which your country has a tense and difficult relationship (think India-Pakistan, US-Russia, Iran-anyone), you have just triggered a major diplomatic crisis and your name is mud. Provided everyone plays by the rules, immunity will be respected and you will most likely be PNG'd - in the end. But there will be all kinds of posturing and horse-trading, and it may be a long time before everything is settled. And when you do get home, do not expect a warm welcome.

It's pretty clear that this immunity is not something enjoyed in the U.S. by anyone other than an official ambassador. Maybe a Native American officially appointed to represent his tribe in Washington and accepted as an ambassador would also have diplomatic immunity. But not just any member of the tribe who wanders off the reservation and commits robbery, etc.

Also it doesn't apply to children of foreigners or anyone other than ambassadors who have an official position recognized by the host government. Anyone other than this is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and states.

So any reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment wording has to apply this phrase to all persons born in the U.S. who do not have official recognition granting them diplomatic immunity.

Pres. Trump is trying now to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude those born to illegal migrants. But this will require a constitutional amendment, unless the plain meaning of the text is disregarded. If the Right-wing joins him and wins this in Court, they can no longer claim to be strict constructionists. They will be flouting the original intent.

The meaning has to be that understood at the time of adoption, not by later pundits arguing over whether this was such a good idea. These arguments may have begun soon after adoption, but in 1868 when it was adopted, it meant ALL persons born in the U.S. other than those with official diplomatic immunity. If they had been worried about "anchor babies" at that time, they would have worded it differently, to exclude children of foreigners or illegals, etc.


question 2: Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

Should this be changed with a Constitutional Amendment?

So you don't think that foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of US law? There's a real easy test for this. Ditch your US ID. Imitate a foreigner, create false foreign ID. Then steal someone's car in the US and go on a joy ride. Please report back and let us know how it went!

 

[Jarhyn]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" give an exception which would exclude those born of illegal immigrants?

There are contrary theories on the meaning, but the only interpretation which makes sense is that all persons, no matter who, if they were born in the legally-recognized boundaries of the U.S., and if they don't have diplomatic immunity, are automatically citizens.


The original intended meaning of "All persons . . . subject to the jurisdiction"

The technical argument to exclude illegal immigrants seems to be based on the following quote from the original writer of the Amendment:



The quote does not say "who are foreigners, aliens OR members of the families of ambassadors . . ." etc. If this was the meaning, it could easily have been worded this way to make it clear. So it's not referring to all migrants who show up, i.e., to ALL foreigners, aliens.

Rather, it refers to those foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc. If the "foreigners" or "aliens" mentioned were not the same as those who belong to the families of ambassadors, there would be an "or" in the wording, to separate the different classes of persons not intended to be part of the "All persons born" in the U.S.

It nowhere makes exception for migrants who arrive in the country unofficially, on their own, such as refugees. The terms "foreigners" and "aliens" means certain recognized foreigners who are officially in the country as representatives of the foreign country.

What could the phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," etc. mean, if not specifically a reference to the foreign ambassadors mentioned? What is a "foreigner" born in the U.S.? If it means anyone whose parent was not a citizen, then how many U.S. citizens are excluded because their great great great great grandparent was not a citizen, and so therefore every descendant from them up to the present was also a non-citizen?

The above Senator explaining the Amendment would have defined his phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" if he did not intend by this phrase the foreign ambassadors, ministers, i.e., officially-recognized foreign representatives who are granted immunity.

It's impossible that this could have meant anyone except those officially recognized as foreigners representing another country, and thus having recognized official immunity. It can't mean every person who shows up from another country, because those persons ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they arrive, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations. In what way is a migrant who shows up NOT subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?

If those original writers of the Amendment intended to exclude unofficial migrants who show up, why didn't they say so specifically? If that's what they meant, they would have said: "This of course doesn't mean any migrant who happens to show up on a boat from somewhere" etc. There was language they easily could have used to express this idea.

The language they did use either means FOREIGN AMBASSADORS or REPRESENTATIVES or MINISTERS, etc., or else the word "foreigners" is meaningless. What does it mean, if it does not mean officially recognized foreign representatives or ministers and their families, who did have immunity and were technically not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?

As soon as anyone sets foot in the country, s/he is subject to the laws of the U.S. Or as soon as they emerge from the womb. Other than specific persons officially recognized as foreigners with immunity.

Native Americans on the Reservation are subject to U.S. laws, though their status may be different. They clearly are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. and state laws if they leave the reservation and commit robbery or murder etc.

But not ambassadors and their families. These can be kicked out of the country for bad behavior, but not prosecuted, even for murder. The country they're from can waive the right to immunity, so it's complicated. But technically they can even commit murder, which refugees arriving on a boat cannot:



It's pretty clear that this immunity is not something enjoyed in the U.S. by anyone other than an official ambassador. Maybe a Native American officially appointed to represent his tribe in Washington and accepted as an ambassador would also have diplomatic immunity. But not just any member of the tribe who wanders off the reservation and commits robbery, etc.

Also it doesn't apply to children of foreigners or anyone other than ambassadors who have an official position recognized by the host government. Anyone other than this is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and states.

So any reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment wording has to apply this phrase to all persons born in the U.S. who do not have official recognition granting them diplomatic immunity.

Pres. Trump is trying now to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude those born to illegal migrants. But this will require a constitutional amendment, unless the plain meaning of the text is disregarded. If the Right-wing joins him and wins this in Court, they can no longer claim to be strict constructionists. They will be flouting the original intent.

The meaning has to be that understood at the time of adoption, not by later pundits arguing over whether this was such a good idea. These arguments may have begun soon after adoption, but in 1868 when it was adopted, it meant ALL persons born in the U.S. other than those with official diplomatic immunity. If they had been worried about "anchor babies" at that time, they would have worded it differently, to exclude children of foreigners or illegals, etc.


question 2: Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

Should this be changed with a Constitutional Amendment?

So you don't think that foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of US law? There's a real easy test for this. Ditch your US ID. Imitate a foreigner, create false foreign ID. Then steal someone's car in the US and go on a joy ride. Please report back and let us know how it went!

Did you read his post? He didn't argue against the meaning of the 14th. He acknowledged that those born here even of illegal immigrants are - and have a constitutional right to be considered as - citizens, and anyone wanting to change that, including the president, must do so by amending the constitution.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Does the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" give an exception which would exclude those born of illegal immigrants?

There are contrary theories on the meaning, but the only interpretation which makes sense is that all persons, no matter who, if they were born in the legally-recognized boundaries of the U.S., and if they don't have diplomatic immunity, are automatically citizens.


The original intended meaning of "All persons . . . subject to the jurisdiction"

The technical argument to exclude illegal immigrants seems to be based on the following quote from the original writer of the Amendment:



The quote does not say "who are foreigners, aliens OR members of the families of ambassadors . . ." etc. If this was the meaning, it could easily have been worded this way to make it clear. So it's not referring to all migrants who show up, i.e., to ALL foreigners, aliens.

Rather, it refers to those foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, etc. If the "foreigners" or "aliens" mentioned were not the same as those who belong to the families of ambassadors, there would be an "or" in the wording, to separate the different classes of persons not intended to be part of the "All persons born" in the U.S.

It nowhere makes exception for migrants who arrive in the country unofficially, on their own, such as refugees. The terms "foreigners" and "aliens" means certain recognized foreigners who are officially in the country as representatives of the foreign country.

What could the phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," etc. mean, if not specifically a reference to the foreign ambassadors mentioned? What is a "foreigner" born in the U.S.? If it means anyone whose parent was not a citizen, then how many U.S. citizens are excluded because their great great great great grandparent was not a citizen, and so therefore every descendant from them up to the present was also a non-citizen?

The above Senator explaining the Amendment would have defined his phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" if he did not intend by this phrase the foreign ambassadors, ministers, i.e., officially-recognized foreign representatives who are granted immunity.

It's impossible that this could have meant anyone except those officially recognized as foreigners representing another country, and thus having recognized official immunity. It can't mean every person who shows up from another country, because those persons ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they arrive, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations. In what way is a migrant who shows up NOT subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?

If those original writers of the Amendment intended to exclude unofficial migrants who show up, why didn't they say so specifically? If that's what they meant, they would have said: "This of course doesn't mean any migrant who happens to show up on a boat from somewhere" etc. There was language they easily could have used to express this idea.

The language they did use either means FOREIGN AMBASSADORS or REPRESENTATIVES or MINISTERS, etc., or else the word "foreigners" is meaningless. What does it mean, if it does not mean officially recognized foreign representatives or ministers and their families, who did have immunity and were technically not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?

As soon as anyone sets foot in the country, s/he is subject to the laws of the U.S. Or as soon as they emerge from the womb. Other than specific persons officially recognized as foreigners with immunity.

Native Americans on the Reservation are subject to U.S. laws, though their status may be different. They clearly are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. and state laws if they leave the reservation and commit robbery or murder etc.

But not ambassadors and their families. These can be kicked out of the country for bad behavior, but not prosecuted, even for murder. The country they're from can waive the right to immunity, so it's complicated. But technically they can even commit murder, which refugees arriving on a boat cannot:



It's pretty clear that this immunity is not something enjoyed in the U.S. by anyone other than an official ambassador. Maybe a Native American officially appointed to represent his tribe in Washington and accepted as an ambassador would also have diplomatic immunity. But not just any member of the tribe who wanders off the reservation and commits robbery, etc.

Also it doesn't apply to children of foreigners or anyone other than ambassadors who have an official position recognized by the host government. Anyone other than this is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and states.

So any reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment wording has to apply this phrase to all persons born in the U.S. who do not have official recognition granting them diplomatic immunity.

Pres. Trump is trying now to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude those born to illegal migrants. But this will require a constitutional amendment, unless the plain meaning of the text is disregarded. If the Right-wing joins him and wins this in Court, they can no longer claim to be strict constructionists. They will be flouting the original intent.

The meaning has to be that understood at the time of adoption, not by later pundits arguing over whether this was such a good idea. These arguments may have begun soon after adoption, but in 1868 when it was adopted, it meant ALL persons born in the U.S. other than those with official diplomatic immunity. If they had been worried about "anchor babies" at that time, they would have worded it differently, to exclude children of foreigners or illegals, etc.


question 2: Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

Should this be changed with a Constitutional Amendment?

So you don't think that foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of US law? There's a real easy test for this. Ditch your US ID. Imitate a foreigner, create false foreign ID. Then steal someone's car in the US and go on a joy ride. Please report back and let us know how it went!

Did you read his post? He didn't argue against the meaning of the 14th. He acknowledged that those born here even of illegal immigrants are - and have a constitutional right to be considered as - citizens, and anyone wanting to change that, including the president, must do so by amending the constitution.

You're right. I didn't carefully read his post. I apologize. But Trump and many other people on the right do not believe that foreigners are subject to US laws while in the US. And that's a crazy argument.

{in my defense, the dude writes such long posts that I sometimes skip ahead, but I shouldn't do that}

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".....

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

- - - Updated - - -

...But Trump and many other people on the right do not believe that foreigners are subject to US laws while in the US. And that's a crazy argument....

Agreed on both points and one I'm sure the US courts will quickly shut down just like they did Trump's Muslim ban.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".....

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

- - - Updated - - -

...But Trump and many other people on the right do not believe that foreigners are subject to US laws while in the US. And that's a crazy argument....

Agreed on both points and one I'm sure the US courts will quickly shut down just like they did Trump's Muslim ban.

I hope that you're right, but the courts are now firmly in the hands of the republicans. We'll see...

 

[Max Rockatansky]

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

- - - Updated - - -



Agreed on both points and one I'm sure the US courts will quickly shut down just like they did Trump's Muslim ban.

I hope that you're right, but the courts are now firmly in the hands of the republicans. We'll see...

True about SCOTUS, but even they won't violate the Constitution. No judge ever, ever wants to see a judgment overturned which is why most are very conservative in their rulings (Conservative meaning following established precedent). There have been numerous rulings on what the 14th Amendment means. If Trump is stupid enough to sign the EO, he'll have his ass handed to him on a platter and take another hit to his favorability....which explains why his threat is 90% bullshit....as usual.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...ht-citizenship-with-an-executive-order-949387
Speaker Ryan: ‘You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order’

 

[Bomb#20]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".....

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

 

[Deepak]

Native Americans on the Reservation are subject to U.S. laws, though their status may be different. They clearly are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. and state laws if they leave the reservation and commit robbery or murder etc.

This is true now, in light of the Indian Citizenship Act and Indian Termination Policy, but from the early 19th century until the mid-20th century citizenship and jurisdiction were still treaty based, and crimes committed by natives who were members of tribes that did not have a jurisdictional treaty in place would be handled by the federal government negotiating with the tribal government as if it were an extradition from a foreign country. The original intent was to carve out an exception for both, just as Article One of the Constitution excepts non-taxed Indians, but with changes to laws only the exception for foreign diplomats remains.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".....

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

Correct about diplomats as noted several times previously. On illegals, why are you putting words in my mouth? I agree that the 14th Amendment makes them citizens. Why are you claiming I'm not supporting the 14th Amendment? Did you make a mistake or are you deliberately making a false statement about me?

 

[Jarhyn]

Aren't foreign migrants generally "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law?

There are 2 questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment make all "anchor babies" automatically citizens? and 2) Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?

The text says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".....

1) Yes.

2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

And I seriously still don't understand a particular canard of the republicans, or, more accurately, I don't think they understand it, with regards to what immigrant children get from us in terms of education and medical care: anywhere in the world one happens to be, two things are generally true, in addition to other not-germane things: if you are more educated, everyone else in the world will be better for it, as you will be less likely to do ignorant and damaging things to infrastructure, the world around you, and the people who your life is reliant upon; if you have access to immunization and preventative health, disease will be less likely to infect you and those around you, and this carries benefits to all other humans on the planet for YOU being so medically treated.

Give them good medical care, and educate them and their children, and we will all be better off for it. Education and Health are not things that it is ethical to hoard away from others.

 

[Deepak]

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

Correct about diplomats as noted several times previously. On illegals, why are you putting words in my mouth? I agree that the 14th Amendment makes them citizens. Why are you claiming I'm not supporting the 14th Amendment? Did you make a mistake or are you deliberately making a false statement about me?

Bomb's asking why you think the proposed change needs to happen, as you're calling for Congress to take action. We're trying to extract words from your mouth, not put them there.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

Correct about diplomats as noted several times previously. On illegals, why are you putting words in my mouth? I agree that the 14th Amendment makes them citizens. Why are you claiming I'm not supporting the 14th Amendment? Did you make a mistake or are you deliberately making a false statement about me?

Bomb's asking why you think the proposed change needs to happen, as you're calling for Congress to take action. We're trying to extract words from your mouth, not put them there.

Bullshit. Tell him to RTFQ and try to look deeper than his own prejudices. Both of you should read the Constitution and figure out what's required to change it. Perhaps that's the problem; too many Democrats...and now an increasing number of Republicans, don't know shit about the Constitution.

 

[Deepak]

Bomb's asking why you think the proposed change needs to happen, as you're calling for Congress to take action. We're trying to extract words from your mouth, not put them there.

Bullshit. Tell him to RTFQ and try to look deeper than his own prejudices. Both of you should read the Constitution and figure out what's required to change it. Perhaps that's the problem; too many Democrats...and now an increasing number of Republicans, don't know shit about the Constitution.

Bullshit? Look I've read the Constitution plenty of times - I still keep my pocket Constitution I got from the Cato guys in my glove box. The question isn't the process for making a change.

The point on children of diplomats has been pretty well beaten to the ground, and at this point I don't think there's any disagreement on what the context of question 2 is. Reading the Constitution won't tell me what changes need to be made, only what's in it. When you say:

Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?

What change are you trying to effect here? Or, alternately, which Article of the US Constitution should I read to get Max Rockatansky's opinion of what modifications the 14th Amendment needs?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Bullshit? Look I've read the Constitution plenty of times - I still keep my pocket Constitution I got from the Cato guys in my glove box. ...

If you know the Constitution, then you know the answer to the question of how to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't taking this action, then this entire ploy, started by Trump, is complete bullshit. Trump, Graham and anyone else can say or even write whatever they like, but SCOTUS will shoot down any bullshit. The only way to amend the 14th Amendment's "anchor baby" clause is to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't doing this, ipso facto, nothing will be done. This is all pre-election Republican bullshit.

 

[Deepak]

Bullshit? Look I've read the Constitution plenty of times - I still keep my pocket Constitution I got from the Cato guys in my glove box. ...

If you know the Constitution, then you know the answer to the question of how to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't taking this action, then this entire ploy, started by Trump, is complete bullshit. Trump, Graham and anyone else can say or even write whatever they like, but SCOTUS will shoot down any bullshit. The only way to amend the 14th Amendment's "anchor baby" clause is to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't doing this, ipso facto, nothing will be done. This is all pre-election Republican bullshit.

So to confirm I understand this correctly, your response to question 2 is really 'Yes, all persons born in the country should receive citizenship'?

I think Bomb and I were reading question 2 in the personal sense, and you were perhaps answering a third question about whether the Reps' are genuine in their pre-election blatherskite.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Bullshit? Look I've read the Constitution plenty of times - I still keep my pocket Constitution I got from the Cato guys in my glove box. ...

If you know the Constitution, then you know the answer to the question of how to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't taking this action, then this entire ploy, started by Trump, is complete bullshit. Trump, Graham and anyone else can say or even write whatever they like, but SCOTUS will shoot down any bullshit. The only way to amend the 14th Amendment's "anchor baby" clause is to amend the Constitution. Since Congress isn't doing this, ipso facto, nothing will be done. This is all pre-election Republican bullshit.

So to confirm I understand this correctly, your response to question 2 is really 'Yes, all persons born in the country should receive citizenship'?

I think Bomb and I were reading question 2 in the personal sense, and you were perhaps answering a third question about whether the Reps' are genuine in their pre-election blatherskite.

Yes, anyone born within the jurisdiction of the US is an American citizen.

I'm used to people making up their minds on who people are and then attacking them based on those preformed conclusions.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not all persons born in the country are automatically citizens, right now, without an amendment -- babies born here to foreign diplomats share their parents' diplomatic immunity and get their parents' citizenship. As for babies born to illegal immigrants, why do you say they should not automatically be citizens? It's not the babies' fault their parents broke the law.

Correct about diplomats as noted several times previously. On illegals, why are you putting words in my mouth? I agree that the 14th Amendment makes them citizens. Why are you claiming I'm not supporting the 14th Amendment? Did you make a mistake or are you deliberately making a false statement about me?

I'm certainly not deliberately making a false statement about you. Perhaps I made a mistake, or perhaps you did. I take for granted that you do support the 14th amendment in the sense that you support the courts enforcing it; but I understood you to mean you favored repeal or modification of the 14th amendment because you wrote:

"2) No, but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process. Why hasn't the Senate or the House initiated this action?"​

in answer to the question

"Should ALL persons born in the country automatically be citizens?"​

Since you replied "No", I inferred that you meant not all persons born in the country should automatically be citizens. If that's not what you meant, please explain why you said "No". I inferred that you weren't talking about the children of diplomats because you added "but it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the process", and there would be no need for an amendment if you meant those. By process of elimination, I concluded you meant babies born to illegal immigrants. If that's not who you meant shouldn't be citizens, please clarify who you meant.

Bomb's asking why you think the proposed change needs to happen, as you're calling for Congress to take action. We're trying to extract words from your mouth, not put them there.

... Tell him to RTFQ and try to look deeper than his own prejudices.

By "Q", do you mean Lumpenproletariat's question "2)"? I read it, and it was your answer to it that prompted my question to you. If you feel my reading of your reply to it was unreasonable, then you are assuming your reply expressed your intentions more clearly than it actually did, and you need to reread what you wrote and rephrase it more clearly.

If that's not what you mean by "Q", please clarify.

Both of you should read the Constitution and figure out what's required to change it.

I read it. I'm not sure why you think I don't know what's required to change it; in any event, I'm not feeling any overwhelming urge to change it. It seems pretty reasonable to me the way it is and I suspect any politically feasible change would be for the worse.

 

[Politesse]

An interesting case in terms of intent. When constitutionalism is raised as a topic, we get used to having arguments about what "the founders" wanted based on scant letters and historical portrayals of 18th c. social contexts. But in the case of interpreting the 14th amendment, there are hours of video and literal books worth of paper documentation showing quite clearly what the framers of that amendment intended by it.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

An interesting case in terms of intent. When constitutionalism is raised as a topic, we get used to having arguments about what "the founders" wanted based on scant letters and historical portrayals of 18th c. social contexts. But in the case of interpreting the 14th amendment, there are hours of video and literal books worth of paper documentation showing quite clearly what the framers of that amendment intended by it.

SCOTUS usually looks back at "intent" when making rulings. Obviously the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War, but also in an era of expansion and growth. It served a purpose, as did most countries, that people whose parents moved here and who were born here were American citizens.

Additionally, the 14th Amendment is backed by Article Two, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.