Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Uncensored2008]

Are you that much of an asshole?

Just trying to figure out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I take it you advocate completely open borders?

 

[danielpalos]

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

yes, and the 14th is also very clear in its intent. Do you think that the writers of the 14th foresaw foreign women from mexico coming to the US to give birth so their kids could be americans and they could come to the US to care for them? of course not. This is foolishness.

it is an issue of federalism and separation of powers. the States no longer have any power over immigration since 1808; thus, no Constitutional basis to cognate the status of any Person from out of State or from out of state, usually.

 

[Redfish]

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

yes, and the 14th is also very clear in its intent. Do you think that the writers of the 14th foresaw foreign women from mexico coming to the US to give birth so their kids could be americans and they could come to the US to care for them? of course not. This is foolishness.

it is an issue of federalism and separation of powers. the States no longer have any power over immigration since 1808; thus, no Constitutional basis to cognate the status of any Person from out of State or from out of state, usually.

the issue here is the intent of the people who wrote and codified the 14th amendment. I doubt seriously if there was any discussion of anchor babies at the time. The 14th is being misinterpreted today.

 

[Syriusly]

Say you.

So say we all.

{Section 1. 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.}

The problem you have is that of domicile. Because the person has no legal right to be in the nation, they are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus not citizens..

Domicile is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

Only Jurisdiction.

And as pointed out in Plyler v. Doe- everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- other than accredited diplomats.

That is why illegal aliens can be arrested for robbing a bank, but an Ambassador can't.

 

[Syriusly]

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

yes, and the 14th is also very clear in its intent. Do you think that the writers of the 14th foresaw foreign women from mexico coming to the US to give birth so their kids could be americans and they could come to the US to care for them? of course not. This is foolishness.

it is an issue of federalism and separation of powers. the States no longer have any power over immigration since 1808; thus, no Constitutional basis to cognate the status of any Person from out of State or from out of state, usually.

the issue here is the intent of the people who wrote and codified the 14th amendment. I doubt seriously if there was any discussion of anchor babies at the time. The 14th is being misinterpreted today.

The 14th Amendment is being interpreted according to the actual language of the 14th Amendment.

The solution to fixing a Constitution you don't like is to amend it.

But you know that.

 

[Camp]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."

Oh, that SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue, so try again.

Why is it that Conservatives like yourself think you get to determine who is illegal- and who is not?

According to the U.S. Supreme Court a child born of illegal alien parents in the United States was recognized to be a U.S. citizen at birth.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:


By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is it that Conservatives like yourself think you get to determine who is illegal- and who is not?

Drunk already, huh?

The law determines who is illegal, to wit those who entered the country illegally.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court a child born of illegal alien parents in the United States was recognized to be a U.S. citizen at birth.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:


By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

What did the court rule?

{Held:

The refusal to reopen the suspension proceeding was within the Attorney General's discretion. If, as was required by the regulations, respondents' motion to reopen was based on intervening circumstances demonstrating 7-year residence and extreme hardship, the Attorney General, acting through the BIA, nevertheless had the authority to deny the motion. Although by the time the BIA denied the motion respondents had been in the United States for seven years, that was not the case when suspension of deportation was first denied; the seven years accrued during the pendency of respondents' baseless appeals. And the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying reopening based on respondents' flagrant violation of the immigration laws in entering the United States, as well as respondent husband's willful failure to depart voluntarily after his request to do so was honored by the INS. Pp. 449-452. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Try again.

 

[Camp]

A recognized Constitutional expert has finally come forward and given a scholarly examination of the current 14th Amendment controversy and debate. He goes into great detail about all the issues addressed in this thread. Unfortunately, he does not support the Trump contentions and those of the Trump supporters on this thread. Rather he confirms what the Trump critics have contended over these many pages. Trump and his ideas don't have a leg to stand on according to this guy.
Of course the claim will be made immediately that the source is not reliable and biased toward a liberal or Democrat spin. The messenger will be attacked. One problem, and it is a kind of a big one for anyone that tries to go that "attack the messenger route".
James Ho writes for the Federalist and was an attorney in the G.W. Bush administration. He was one of the authors of the famous memos that changed the way prisoners where treated. His contribution was the memo that determined that terrorist prisoners did not have to be treated in accordance with international treaties.
Hard core Republican conservative says this:

thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

Let the attacks on Ho begin.

 

[Boss]

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept.

Wong is only about citizenship by birth if you are an immigrant who has met the jurisdiction requirement which Wong did. An illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" until they become legal status. Now, maybe a Congress or President grants them such status? If so, they become citizens. But there is nothing in the Constitution or the 14th that grants automatic birthright citizenship... Nor can it, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution.

 

[Slyhunter]

Bill of rights are for legal citizens and legal visitors to our country not illegal ones.

 

[Camp]

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept.

Wong is only about citizenship by birth if you are an immigrant who has met the jurisdiction requirement which Wong did. An illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" until they become legal status. Now, maybe a Congress or President grants them such status? If so, they become citizens. But there is nothing in the Constitution or the 14th that grants automatic birthright citizenship... Nor can it, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution.

You can not find one constitutional scholar that support your concept. The issue you speak of is addressed in the link to the article I posted. My interpretation after reading the expert is that you are mistaken and misguided in your analysis.

 

[Syriusly]

Bill of rights are for legal citizens and legal visitors to our country not illegal ones.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

Hmmm who has legal authority....you or the Supreme Court......

 

[Syriusly]

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept..

Please explain the difference. I am really curious how about what kind of rationalizations make these two statements 'different'

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.

Tell me how the 14th Amendment uses the same word- to mean two different things- in the same paragraph.

 

[Unkotare]

Bill of rights are for legal citizens and legal visitors to our country not illegal ones.

That is factually incorrect.

 

[Syriusly]

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Wong is only about citizenship by birth if you are an immigrant who has met the jurisdiction requirement which Wong did. An illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" until they become legal status. Now, maybe a Congress or President grants them such status? If so, they become citizens. But there is nothing in the Constitution or the 14th that grants automatic birthright citizenship... Nor can it, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has only two requirements for citizenship by birth:

• Born in the United States and
• Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

Wong Kim Ark never once says that an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

But Plyler v. Doe certainly says that an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

• 
  
  

 

[Boss]

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept.

Wong is only about citizenship by birth if you are an immigrant who has met the jurisdiction requirement which Wong did. An illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" until they become legal status. Now, maybe a Congress or President grants them such status? If so, they become citizens. But there is nothing in the Constitution or the 14th that grants automatic birthright citizenship... Nor can it, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution.

You can not find one constitutional scholar that support your concept. The issue you speak of is addressed in the link to the article I posted. My interpretation after reading the expert is that you are mistaken and misguided in your analysis.

Funny.. .every Constitutional scholar I've heard has agreed with me.

 

[Syriusly]

A recognized Constitutional expert has finally come forward and given a scholarly examination of the current 14th Amendment controversy and debate. He goes into great detail about all the issues addressed in this thread. Unfortunately, he does not support the Trump contentions and those of the Trump supporters on this thread. Rather he confirms what the Trump critics have contended over these many pages. Trump and his ideas don't have a leg to stand on according to this guy.
Of course the claim will be made immediately that the source is not reliable and biased toward a liberal or Democrat spin. The messenger will be attacked. One problem, and it is a kind of a big one for anyone that tries to go that "attack the messenger route".
James Ho writes for the Federalist and was an attorney in the G.W. Bush administration. He was one of the authors of the famous memos that changed the way prisoners where treated. His contribution was the memo that determined that terrorist prisoners did not have to be treated in accordance with international treaties.
Hard core Republican conservative says this:

thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

Let the attacks on Ho begin.

And what does he say?

We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause. To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government.[8] The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey.

By the way- excellent article

 

[Syriusly]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept.

Wong is only about citizenship by birth if you are an immigrant who has met the jurisdiction requirement which Wong did. An illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" until they become legal status. Now, maybe a Congress or President grants them such status? If so, they become citizens. But there is nothing in the Constitution or the 14th that grants automatic birthright citizenship... Nor can it, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution.

You can not find one constitutional scholar that support your concept. The issue you speak of is addressed in the link to the article I posted. My interpretation after reading the expert is that you are mistaken and misguided in your analysis.

Funny.. .every Constitutional scholar I've heard has agreed with me.

Which 'Constitutional expert' would that be?

 

[Boss]

The same reason SCOTUS maintained slaves were property... they are wrong. The case was 5-4 and was largely upheld on the basis of established policy. The AG didn't want to prosecute, the Executive Branch didn't want to prosecute, Congress didn't care to intervene.

Again, the SCOTUS can't determine who gets to be a citizen. All they can do is rule on the basis of statutory policy. And Trump has said, he hopes that the issue of who is a citizen will be resolved.... it needs to be. But this isn't Gay Marriage and it's not up to SCOTUS... it one of the enumerated and plenary powers of Congress.

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution. They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born. Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Again, Wong is not about ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Wong Kim Ark is about citizenship by birth- doesn't mention illegal aliens at all.

But Plyler v. Doe did make clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that resolved any remaining legal questions.

Plyer v Doe is about due process rights. "subject to jurisdiction of law" is not the same as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. You are taking a different contextual meaning of a similar concept..

Please explain the difference. I am really curious how about what kind of rationalizations make these two statements 'different'

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.

Tell me how the 14th Amendment uses the same word- to mean two different things- in the same paragraph.

Because, moron... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not the same thing as "within its jurisdiction." It's speaking of two totally different things.

I've already pointed out to you... if the 14th means what you claim, the "subject to jurisdiction" part is totally pointless and unnecessary. It makes no sense to be in there, stuck in the middle of the sentence. Why not just say "all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens?"