Ending Birthright Citizenship For Illegals

Author: Buddamoose ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 37
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    I find it mind-bogglingly puzzling that one could even interpret the 14th amendment as granting birthright citizenship to those born here from parents who are here illegally. 

    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 where they reside.”

    Paul Ryan came out and said he adhered to a plain text reading, but "plain-text" reading does not mean you abandon grammatical sensibility and historical records...

    The notion that the 14th amendment affords universal birthright citizenship, is itself debunked as asinine in the amendment itself. Why? If the purpose was to grant that, "subject to the jursisdiction thereof" would be superfluous/ asininely redundant. One need not even look at the Congressional Globe, transcripts of Congressional floor proceedings between 1833-73 to see reading birthright citizenship into the 14th amendment is wishful thinking at best, asinine at worst. 

    But what about Historical Records of Congressional floor proceedings regarding the 14th amendment? What did the drafters of the 14th amendment say regarding the meaning of the amendment itself? 

    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.” - Senator Jacob Howard (R)

    As one can see this definitively excludes foreign ambassadors and ministers along with their families. But is that all it excludes? 

    Of course not

    "Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - Senator Jacob Howard


    This not only establishes a further exclusion, but this was explicitly to maintain the sovereignty of Indian Tribes. To grant citizenship to Native Tribe members born on US soil would itself be an insult that undermines that sovereignty, as the US would be forcing jurisdiction, forcing allegiance to the US onto native tribes which still maintain their own sovereignty. 


    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.”(emphasis added in transcripts)-  Senator Lyman Trumbull (R)
    “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” - Senator Lyman Trumbull
     

    Here we clearly see that the 14th amendment actually established a 2 prong litmus test for being granted birthright citizenship. One being that you were born in the US, the other being that you not be subject to the jurisdiction, owe allegiance to, anybody else but the U.S.

    It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.” - Senator Edgar Cowan 


    Just in case one needs it plainly and explicitly stated that being born in the US does not in itself entitle oneself to the right to excercise political power(be a citizen) in the U.S.

    Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in 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.” - Senator Reverdy Johnson


    Again, more reinforcement of this point, regarding the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause".

    ______________________

    History of the 14th Amendment and the "Reconstruction Amendments

    Clearly, as illustrared, the 14th amendment does not afford universal birthright citizenship. It clearly extends beyond just the scope of foreign ambassadors and ministers. But why was the amendment made? 

    Consider the time it was ratified, 1868. Post Civil-War. This amendment to the Constitution was made in the face of Southern Democrats("Dixiecrats", that gave the US such stellar presidents like Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk /s) refusing to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children in the states they governed. 

    This was the middle amendment of three amendments that were focally about ending slavery and universally prohibiting it in the US(amendment 13) and addressing pardon my language, total dick moves made by the Dixiecrat South post Civil-War to totally disenfranchise freed slaves(Amendment 14 and 15). 

    Amendment 14 was in response to the refusal to grant citizenship 

    Amendment 15 was in response to the freed and minted citizens being denied the ability to vote in elections. 

    These three amendments are known as the "Reconstruction Amendments".

    _________________________
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Global Context of Birthright Citizenship

    President Trump's claim that the U.S. is "the only country" that affords birthright citizenship universally is false. Guy can't help but exaggerate. The number is actually 35, out of 193 countries currently established as sovereign nations in the world today. (195 if you include Palestine and The Holy See). So though we're not the only one, this practice is the exception to the general rule, and in this case, it is because the practice is terrible policy. 

    _______________

    Overturning it via Executive Order

    This actually is possible fmpov. In the laws regarding citizenship in statute, it uses the same language to
    dictate whom qualifies for birthright citizenship, 

    a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or [8 U.S.C. § 1401]

    There have also been further legislation that has specifically detailed further exceptions. Such as the 1924 Indian citizenship Act in light of service of so many Natives during WW1 for the United States Military. As well as further exceptions in additional amendments and additoons to statute. 

    I think it would be better for it to be legislated via congress, as they clearly have the authority and have legislated on these matters before. The notion that it would require a constitutional amendment is laughable at best fmpov, considering it only took an act of Congress to tweak exclusions in the 14th amendment on multiple occasions over the course of U.S. history. That ruling would result in invalidating numerous statute amendments to citizenship and naturalization laws that are well within the purview of legislative authority and have been considered as such consistently. 

    _____________________

    In closing  it's clear from the text, clear from congressional transcripts, and clear from overall historical context, that this amendment was not meant to afford a loophole into citizenship, an incentive to cross by any means necessary just to have a kid that is, no surprise, being exploited... how shocking.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,340
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    as far as the number of countries, only developed should really be counted or matter, with the obvious evidence that many can't control the borders and some are shit hole countries whom no one would really want to be a citizen of anyway, I think the comparison should only be of countries people would actually want to immigrate to, which leaves Canada with that policy.  Australia changed there's a while ago.  There's been a lot of interesting arguments from both sides.  This will w/o a doubt go the Supreme Court, should be interesting.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Buddamoose
    You literally want to kill babies at the border.
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    It's really crazy how the drift from originalism has lead us to have a country which doesn't even really have laws any more. The letter can just be interpreted any which way, and more and more as time goes on what goes into legislation text wise has little to no bearing on the policy's ultimate execution. As tortured as birthright citizenship is, it still can't touch the 'buttsex marriage' interpretation. If you went back in time and read them Obergefell v. Hodges, they would either shoot you, kickstart your 19th century comedic career, or institutionalize you.
  • ArgentTongue
    ArgentTongue avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 124
    0
    1
    5
    ArgentTongue avatar
    ArgentTongue
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    I agree. We need to have some semblance of finality to the accepted meaning of law, and the understanding that refusal to comply will result in consequences being leveled towards the offending party. Without consistency and commitment to the law, our country will decay into anarchy. I fully support the constitutional and orderly amendment of laws and legislation, however having a capricious and trivial attitude towards legal implications is dangerous water.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @Greyparrot
    When did Buddamoose say that?
  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @Buddamoose
    Are you a citizen of the United States, and if so, how was such a citizenship conferred?  
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @FaustianJustice
    Orange man bad.

    Citizenship bad.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,968
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Alec
    When did Buddamoose say that?
    Tongue in cheek.

    He sort of goes through threads leaving facetious one-liners or two-liners, usually in parody of left-wing rhetoric. To help you understand that he doesn't mean the remarks seriously he chose for his profile picture Serious McStoneFace. Which was the only logical option, obviously.
  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @Greyparrot
    Same question to you, then.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    I wonder what "pledging allegiance" to a nation is supposed to mean in a post-nation globalist world.
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 617
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    In terms of mental gymnastics, no decisions will ever top Roe v. Wade. You have a right to privacy guaranteed by a clause that doesn’t make mention of it, and this right to privacy includes the right to an abortion. Give me a break. 

    As for birthright citizenship it’s a transparently absurd policy but I don’t have much hope that Trump can successfully change it. The US isn’t a real country anymore, it’s an economy      
  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @thett3
    You make it sound like a collection of rich white guys, some of which whom owned slaves and had immediately vested interests in a local government rather than a distant monarchy shouldn't have been building a government.
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 617
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @FaustianJustice
    Pro tip, if you’re going to do the whole snark thing make sure that your post actually makes sense. Because as it is, I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make 

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @FaustianJustice
    Yes, it was conferred by birth from both of my parents who are both citizens of the US and only citizens of the US, one being a retired Chief Petty Officer of the USCG.

    I really hope ur not trying to conflate being born on US soil from parents who are here illegally with being born on US soil from parents who are both US citizens, cause that would be pretty dimwitted and not in the least bit clever 👍. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Castin
    (he's using the "NPC wojack" meme actually.)
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @thett3
    The US isn’t a real country anymore, it’s an economy      
    I've been thinking about this all day, the reason why the mantra: "strength is our diversity" holds any traction is that our economy is so good that people ignore the obvious culture frictions. Basically, the country is prosperous with the semi-free market economy in spite of the problems diversity inherently brings. 

    The economy is doing so well, people no longer fear for the future financially. We continue to have the fattest poor on the planet. People without fear for the future forget why it's necessary to have a nation with borders. They forget why it's important to take care of Americans first. They don't care about the gang violence, or the throngs of homeless on the street. Crapping on the flag and the anthem is simply a lifestyle choice. 

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Buddamoose
    The USA has no jurisdiction over foreign nationals illegally invading the country and giving birth.
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 617
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @Greyparrot
    yeah and a big part of that is that when times are good there’s really no reason for ethnic conflict to occur...there’s not a whole lot to fight about. But one of my top issues with modern society in general is how incredibly fragile everything is. Interconnectedness is great when things work out, but when they fail all it takes is one domino to fall to potentially knock down everything 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,440
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @thett3
    We are really a nation of gated walled-in communities, ghettos, and enclaves, and that is the hallmark of American culture and American civilization...the gated community....

    It's a culture totally foreign to most homogeneous European cities, although mass migration is slowly changing that...

    What happens when those gates and walls fail?

  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @Buddamoose
    .... so, "birth" is the short answer.

    Because both of your parents were born, and both of those parents were born, and both, etc etc etc.

    Sorry, chum.  "Its turtles all the way down" is not an answer to the question of how you became a citizen.

    Care to try again?

  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    --> @thett3
    Don't worry, I am sure you will get it.

    Eventually.

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @FaustianJustice
    You're conflating two things that are different. Citizenship being conferred to children born of citizens, is a wholly different standard than it being conferred to children born of non-citizens but legal permanent residentsb beyondthat, non-citizens present illegally differs even further. 

    "Its the same cause its by birth" is as asinine as saying a tiger and dog are the same cause they're both mammals. Again, your attempt at conflation is willfully obtuse. Two citizens conferring citizenship to their children by birth is the overwhelming standard across the globe. Citizenship being conferred by non citizen parents, is not even close to being a standard practice, its the overwhelming exception to the rule, because it's shitty policy, because it incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration. 

    And with illegal immigration, sexual assault, rape, and human trafficking come part and parcel. If you want to draw false equivalences, then let's draw equivalence between incentivizing illegal immigration and sexual assault/rape over 60% rate for women and teens who illegally immigrate from latin america to the US. 

    I guess that means you support rape and sexual assault if we're gonna start being obtuse
  • FaustianJustice
    FaustianJustice avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 146
    0
    1
    3
    FaustianJustice avatar
    FaustianJustice
    "You're conflating two things that are different. Citizenship being conferred to children born of citizens, is a wholly different standard than it being conferred to children born of non-citizens but legal permanent residentsb beyondthat, non-citizens present illegally differs even further. "  ---  I don't think I am.  The amendment in question doesn't make mention of either of those, so whatever two diversionary tactics you would like to present from that I leave you to play with.  The language of the amendment is clear and unambiguous.  

    "Two citizens conferring citizenship to their children by birth is the overwhelming standard across the globe"---  I agree.  The same holds true of the US, two citizens giving birth abroad birth a citizen.  Again, I fail to see why this is even close to the topic at hand, in so much as the amendment is talking about US soil.

    Illegal immigration is your bag, not mine, whatever you would like to poor out of it is your further distraction.

    The language of the amendment is clear and unambiguous.