Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Good article. The best raised point may be the debate over 'sojourners' and how they were intended to be excluded. That would eliminate (as the author says) "birth tourism", which I think we're pretty unanimously against

[iam416]

I think that's a good point. Anyway, I think the article's analysis is how an "originalist" would approach the provision and the other justices would at least have to engage though I suspect they'd rely on the plain text and posit that it's controlling unless there's a real fucking good reason why it shouldn't be.

As a final point, I'm interested in the concept of "subject to ANY jurisdiction" vs "subject to COMPLETE jurisdiction" such that, e.g., folks could be drafted. Though, if Gangs of New York taught me anything it's that off the boat Irish were subject to military service int he 1860s!

[Kapture1]

The authority to grant citizenship to ANY child born in the US comes from the language of the 14th Amendment itself. And the 1898 case determined that the child born is the US was a US citizen, even if its parents were not citizens. In that case the parents were legal residents. Like I said, the only way the 14th Amendment does not include children of illegals is if you believe that 5-word clause ("subject to") applies to them. And that requires making a non-originalist argument, a type of argument that the conservative Supreme Court justices will not enjoy making.

Which is why you probably would ultimately have to pass a new Amendment OR have radically tougher border enforcement.

no it doesn't and SCOTUS has backed that up. the 1898 case involved legal residents of the US. the much more recent case ruled that a child born to citizens of an indian tribe, not US citizens, is not a US citizen.

so if you are looking at the language of the 14th, clearly a case could be made that it doesnt apply to children of individuals under the jurisdiction of another country, ie illegal aliens. my point is the federal bureaucracy decided to interpret it one way... so why can't the head of that federal bureaucracy decide to interpret it the other way? well, he can. of course it will be challenged and of course it will go through the court system, and when the originalists on the court look at what was argued by the framers of the 14th, it is crystal clear this wasn't intended for parents who are citizens of a foreign government to give birth in America and their child be granted US citizenship. you know, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- to interpret the 14th Amendment as notapplying to the children of illegal immigrants isn't some out there creative interpretation. In fact, I would argue that it's the only reasonable interpretation that is consistent with traditional views of what nationhood and citizenship mean. Since you have argued that this historical scenario didn't apply back in the 1870s, then there is no "originalist" interpretation of the amendment. But we do know that it was created for the protection of freed slaves and to take power away from the states to confer citizenship, and none of that applies here. You aren't twisting any words or inventing any new clauses to say that you are not entitled to citizenship if you are born in our air space to non-citizens who are here illegally. It isn't loony reasoning on par with the Left Wing activist court decisions that have put the country into the state that it is now. The only thing that violates the original intent of the constitution is the President having broad enough powers to determine this himself when it should be a Congressional manner. But that ship sailed during the Obama administration. I view this about on par with Obama legislating car fuel mileage with the stroke of a pen. Now is not the time to suddenly rediscover the concept of checks and balances when the opponent never adheres to those principles. I don't like that this is where we are but I can't deny reality.

[iam416]

The authority to grant citizenship to ANY child born in the US comes from the language of the 14th Amendment itself.

Ha. I missed that. What an opportunity to be legally formalistic!

Actually Article 1, Section 8, clause 4 enumerates the power of Congress to grant citizenship ("To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"). You know, because all powers of Congress come from Article 1. The 14th A establishes a floor with respect to that clause that circumscribes their enumerated powers.

So, suck it!

[Hannibal]

Today in "The Margin of Error is Bullshit":

Two separate polls that came out within 24 hours of each other in Arizona are 11 points apart. (one is +7 R and one is +4 D).

[iam416]

to interpret the 14th Amendment as notapplying to the children of illegal immigrants isn't some out there creative interpretation

I didn't say it was. I did say I'm more persuaded by the contrary interpretation. That would mean we're at an impasse.

Now is not the time to suddenly rediscover the concept of checks and balances when the opponent never adheres to those principles.

I don't disagree with the predicate. I've made sure to go back and really push those I cautioned about Executive overreach during the Obama Administration on how they like them apples now. The ol' "well Congress wasn't going to act so he HAD to do SOMETHING" line sort of loses it's power when it's PDJT with the keys.

But, I do disagree with the ratchet. "Well, Obama did it" won't ever persuade me.

[AlabamAlum]

Ahem. New Yorker style, please.

[THE_WIZARD_]

FWIW...I do own a rocket launcher.

[iam416]

Ahem. New Yorker style, please.

I don't draw cartoons, Andy Capp.

[iam416]

Wiz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM5kHJUBRSE

[Kapture1]

Reading the NRO piece now but haha, virtually the same line is near the beginning:

rack up parking tickets with impunity. The U.S. government clearly does have jurisdiction, in this straightforward sense, over illegal immigrants; otherwise we would be powerless to deport them or or otherwise punish them for breaking our laws.

well anyone that commits murder in the US will be charged under our laws, regardless if they are a US citizen, a citizen of a Indian Tribe, or even the children of ambassadors and diplomats. So for sure that definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Wiz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM5kHJUBRSE

fucker

AA will be most displeased. But that's better than Jim F. Leyritz launching a 3 run shot on a Mark F. Wohlers inexplicable change up. Dumbass.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Today in "The Margin of Error is Bullshit":

Two separate polls that came out within 24 hours of each other in Arizona are 11 points apart. (one is +7 R and one is +4 D).

Three most recent polls are D +4, R+1.2, and EVEN

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/arizona/

[iam416]

A local Arizona polling group (ABC-15!) has it at +7 and they've been polling periodically for awhile. 538 may not have that in the hopper, yet.

It's not +7. Either way.