Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Talent -- don't get suckered in by the "you need Constitutional Amendment" argument. You need a high court case, not an amendment, and it does not take a creative or intellectually dishonest interpretation of the 14th Amendment by that court. You might consider it to be a long shot because of precedent, but it's less long than the shot at a Constitutional Amendment. That has zero percent chance of happening. And even if you got that amendment, Left wing judges would find some penumbra in it that would allow them to ignore it the way that they have ignored and creatively interpreted everything else. Trump's EO likely won't stand up but creating the court case is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Kapture1]

Originalists are probably obligated to read the 14th in the same way I just did. Ironically, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have to behave like activist judges to argue that the authors of the 14th intended it to apply to a concept that didn't even exist at the time of writing. A new Amendment is ultimately going to be the only real path (if ending birthright is the end goal) here other than immediate deportation at the border.

DqwyxaAX4AEyeCV.jpg:large.jpg


right there in the Congressional Record back in 1866

[iam416]

The analogy, btw, will be to whether or not the person born in the US owed allegiance to any other sovereign. That's principally how the "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" was used in the 1860s.

don't get suckered in by the "you need Constitutional Amendment" argument. You need a high court case, not an amendment, and it does not take a creative or intellectually dishonest interpretation of the 14th Amendment by that court. You might consider it to be a long shot because of precedent, but it's less long than the shot at a Constitutional Amendment. That has zero percent chance of happening. And even if you got that amendment, Left wing judges would find some penumbra in it that would allow them to ignore it. Trump's EO likely won't stand up but creating the court case is absolutely the right thing to do.

Well, sure, I agree that a favorable Supreme Court decision is way more likely than the zero chance of an Amendment. That doesn't mean that the Amendment process isn't the correct process.

PDJT's EO has more problems than just the Constitution.There is a Statute that addresses this issue -- codifies the 14th A -- and pretty much says that Congress is acting in this space so, you know, step off, bitches. So, the first hurdle for the EO is to argue that he even has the authority do so. The second hurdle is then whether the exercise of that authority is Constitutional.

There's no way, IMO, the EO clears the first hurdle.

[Hannibal]

There's no way, IMO, the EO clears the first hurdle.

1. I agree.

2. I don't care anymore. That whole "due process, checks and balances" ship has sailed.

[iam416]

As many know, my family came from Scotland in 1910. I am sympathetic to allowing people in. The vast majority need to be productive or self-suffcient, though. If not, we will devour ourselves.

Of course. I mean, conservative concerns aren't without legitimacy as a policy matter.

[iam416]

1. I agree.

2. I don't care.

Heh. Yeah. I get it. I'm just coming at it from a legal perspective. Switching gears to a policy perspective, I'm considerably more sympathetic.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Heh. Yeah. I get it. I'm just coming at it from a legal perspective. Switching gears to a policy perspective, I'm considerably more sympathetic.

Now ask hanni if he wants skills-based immigration or if race/ethnicity/religion are more important qualifications for him. Pretty sure I know the answer based on posts from him a little while back.

[froot loops]

If you read the debates on the 14th amendment in Congress it is pretty clear that the 14th amendment was understood to involve any child born in the US even with foreign born parents. They spent a lot of the time debating the Indians. But any member of the Senate voting for the 14th amendment understood that they were voting for birthright citizenship.

[Hannibal]

Now ask hanni if he wants skills-based immigration or if race/ethnicity/religion are more important qualifications for him.

You pose that question as if there is a difference between the two. Statistically speaking, there isn't.

[iam416]

Off topic briefly -- hooray from shale gas! CO2 Emissions from the US power sector are down 28% from 2005 and way below projected emissions: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37392

Ok, so it's more due to a decrease in demand (that I find puzzling given the growth in population), but, whatever.

[Kapture1]

If you read the debates on the 14th amendment in Congress it is pretty clear that the 14th amendment was understood to involve any child born in the US even with foreign born parents. They spent a lot of the time debating the Indians. But any member of the Senate voting for the 14th amendment understood that they were voting for birthright citizenship.

DqwyxaAX4AEyeCV.jpg

[iam416]

If you read the debates on the 14th amendment in Congress it is pretty clear that the 14th amendment was understood to involve any child born in the US even with foreign born parents.

They never debated illegals, though. So, it was never understood to include children of illegals. They couldn't because there was no such thing. Even the Supreme Court case dealt strictly with legal aliens.

[Dr. Strangelove]

You pose that question as if there is a difference between the two. Statistically speaking, there isn't.

Yeah so...there ya go. Hanni views skill as being tied to your race/ethnicity. Just so everyone is clear on what his real motivations and end-goals are.

[Dr. Strangelove]

DqwyxaAX4AEyeCV.jpg

I read the circled passage to apply exclusively to foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. Not ALL foreigners, else they would have included an "AND" in that sentence.

[Hannibal]

Yeah so...there ya go. Hanni views skill as being tied to your race/ethnicity. Just so everyone is clear on what his real motivations and end-goals are.

Statistically speaking, they are. Are you honestly in denial of this?