Not meant as political, even though it could turn that way.

In my opinion, everyone in the US except the "Lamanities" are descended from economic refugees. Even the pilgrims in New England crossed the Atlantic because they couldn't make a living in the old country.

Does anyone else see valid comparisons between these two groups?

In 50 years, will the US revere the Caravan peoples sacrifice? Similar to how the Morg revers the Handcart Pioneers?

Or like we currently look with respect on the Vietnamese Boat people from the 70's/ 80's?

Major difference. The caravan people are fleeing a nation that is persecuting and killing them for no reason. he mormons fled because they were being prosecuted because of their actions and crimes. The caravan people are seeking countries that will accept them and allow them to assimilate. Mormons were seeking a place where there were no people and to act with impunity.

Also, Mormons entered an area that was didn't have a closed border, didn't require citizenship or VISA's etc. to enter and settle.

Yup. Paragons of virtue, those Mormons were.

Never mind their polygamy, support for slavery, Danite violence, temple vows calling on God to destroy the United States, and attempt to set up an independent country in US territory. Never mind their refusal to let the federal government install judges in Utah, their extrajudicial killings during the Mormon Reformation, and what they did at Mountain Meadows.

Those Mormons were far more virtuous and respectful of US law than those scofflaw Latinos.

Like that scofflaw Rosa Parks.

I have been waiting for an opportunity to use the word "scofflaw" for decades.

As far as I know Mexico was a sovereign country that had borders. Most of the country had been owned by Spain until about 1810, then by the Catholic Church, they had vast plantations in the South West (San Diego, Monterry, the Central valley etc) where many Indians and Spaniards worked for the Church and Spain. The Mormons were not asked to invade and were not welcomed. Yankees, Russian, Germans, and Southerners started arriving in the early 1840s and started fur trading. But the Bear rebellion of California was by no means a pleasant undertaking. The Mexicans, Spaniards, and Whites who fought for freedom from the Church and the Mexicans were worried of getting hanged and all their goods stolen.

Luckily Winfield Scott fought those battles in Veracruz and Mexico City and California became American.

So no the Mormon's were stealing when they arrived just like the Caravan is trying to do now. the only difference is that the mormons work hard. And were great farmers.

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So no the Mormon's were stealing when they arrived
> just like the Caravan is trying to do now. the
> only difference is that the mormons work hard. And
> were great farmers.

How are the "caravaners" stealing?
Which of the "caravaners" don't work hard?
Which of the "caravaners" aren't great farmers?

Should we protect our borders or not? Trump said immigrants CAN come thru defined border entry points...just not thru ANY border they can get thru.

Shouldn't we, the US, pick and choose which immigrants to allow in this country?

By allowing andy/all unskilled laborers in the US, creates the secret 2nd/3rd class people (not citizens) that I saw in Calif, AZ, and are in many other cities..and puts a greater burden on resources that were originally created for US citizens

Shouldn't we protect our borders, we worked so hard to define?

Good info. Thanks!

"mormons fled because they were being prosecuted because of their actions and crimes."

A few more differences too. By the time of the handcarts, the fleeing for Mormons was over, they were in their own so-called Zion in the territory of Utah.

The handcart pioneers were mostly emigrants from Europe. Many who came earlier with the perpetual emigration wagons ended up keeping the wagons and continuing out of Utah and on to Oregon or California. Brigham Young wanted a way to prevent that and keep them trapped once they got to Utah and he wanted a cheaper way to get them there.

The way I see it, Mormon converts in Europe were lied to about polygamy, lied to about Utah and then lied to about how easy the handcart travel would be. And once they got to Utah they were screwed.

Actually, once they got to Utah the brown people were screwed. The shoe can’t be on the other foot because the white and delightsome are allowed to have double standards. It’s right there in the scriptures.

Yes, that Ephraim and Manasseh thing and the stuff in 1 Nephi 13.

Many handcart pioneers left the church. Some went to California or Oregon, some went back to Europe. Brigham's tyranny woke them up from the dream they had been fed by missionaries. The church still tries to tell the lie that not one from the Martin Company left and I know for a fact that is not true.

Huge difference!!!

Our ancestors had white skin. People coming from Central America have brown skin.

See there? - nothing alike.

And they don't even speak our language!!!!!


ETA: quelle horreur!!!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 08:47PM by elderolddog.

They do love to hold up their nations flag. So proud. You know, the one that has abused them and is too dangerous to continue living in. Go figure.

Trying to enter our country illegally is ,well, ILLEGAL.

Uninvited guests do no deserve special consideration.

Asking for asylum is not illegal. You have to enter to seek asylum.

As far as I understand.

...yes. Asylum claims are not processed at international US Embassies. They can only offer temporary protection for actual violence occurring in real-time to the applicant. Asylum claims are processed at US Ports of Entry border crossings.

They have to prove it is a valid claim. Then time is taken to adjudicate the claim.

Trying to get a better economic situation is an invalid asylum claim. 80% are denied and person deported...if they show up to court. 3% do that.

Only three percent of asylum seekers show up for their hearings at court?

You need to get out more. The administration's data show that 93% showed up in 2015, 91% in 2016, and 89% in 2017. So roughly 30 times what you suggest.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download#page=34

Again, almost all asylum applicants show up for their hearings. The rest is fake news.

Correct. That number is even higher for those that were given volunteer mentors but Trump closed down that program. Most of the people that are here illegally are here on expired visas. Maybe you can help me find hard numbers on that LW. I have not heard anything about cracking down on people doing this.

And let us not forget about Birth Tourism in bringing up the 14th Amendment. Russians just love it and Miami too! (sarcasm) The Sunny Isles Beach area and Trump-branded hotels are especially popular. Asians tend toward CA and HI. Hell, it is even talked about in the Crazy Rich Asian books it is so common. Again, I have not heard anything about cracking down on this issue.

There's little political value in demonizing people who are already in the United States, legally or illegally. The value arises when you conjure up images of barbarian hordes and terrorists attempting to invade the country.

It's all about the imagery. How you portray things. That's what influences people.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> And let us not forget about Birth Tourism in
> bringing up the 14th Amendment.

This is a real big problem too. India had to crack down on this in I think 2004 because Bangladesh citizens were doing something similar in India like they continue to do to United States.

The whole purpose for that is setting up your kid to take advantage of scholarships/grants catered to minorities and affirmative action at the Universities. Then at 21, the kid can then use Chain Migration to start picking his family members to be sponsored in U.S. and gain citizenship. Not very good for the country.

Would you apply the revocation of Chain Migration rights to Melania Trump's parents, who obtained their citizenship that way?

There is no good way to retroactively remove chain migration. If here parents hadn't already become citizens and they stopped chain migration and it affected Melania's parents I would fully support blocking their citizenship path and encourage them to apply a different way.

I don't know if we'll ever get this merit based immigration laws passed with the way Congress is setup and the drawn battle lines.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only three percent of asylum seekers show up for
> their hearings at court?
>
> You need to get out more. The administration's
> data show that 93% showed up in 2015, 91% in 2016,
> and 89% in 2017. So roughly 30 times what you
> suggest.
>
> https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/dow
> nload#page=34
>

Thanks for the link. Clearly I heard it wrong on the percentage that showed up. The denial rate for applicants whether they made an appearance or not is still very high.

Phazer,

You didn't mishear anything. Fox and other interested media have been spouting those false figures frequently. The problem is that they are lying.

And if the courts deny most of the asylum claims, as you state, then surely the existing system is working.

Sure,they can ask and get in line.
Not sure how such requests will be answered since their countries of origin are not at war.

Sadly,Violence and crime are a way of life in many of those countries.

Note that even the most formerly hospitable EU countries are now clamping down on economic refugees.
No one can take them all.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure,they can ask and get in line.

You don't know the law. Those who seek asylum come to the US and then get in line while they wait in US territory. I wish people would learn what the law is before they accuse others of violating it.


---------------------
> Not sure how such requests will be answered since
> their countries of origin are not at war.

Asylum claims are not based only on war. I wish people would learn what the law is before they accuse others of violating it.


-------------------------
> Sadly,Violence and crime are a way of life in
> many of those countries.

Irrelevant. Also ironic coming from someone who lives in a country that had three acts of domestic terrorism last week alone.



--------------------------
> Note that even the most formerly hospitable EU
> countries are now clamping down on economic
> refugees.

Irrelevant, surely. The US has to obey the US constitution (birthright citizenship) and US law (asylum and refugees).


------------------------
> No one can take them all.

No one asked anyone to.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------
> > Note that even the most formerly hospitable EU
> > countries are now clamping down on economic
> > refugees.
>
> Irrelevant, surely. The US has to obey the US
> constitution (birthright citizenship) and US law
> (asylum and refugees).
>
>
> ------------------------

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
-- David Horowitz


Clever lawyers have been using the 14th amendment as a base step stone to these silly birthright citizenship claims.

Congress has never passed such a statute giving children of illegals automatic citizenship. It isn't a law and it's just some policy lie that has been retold over over making us think it must be true. It hasn't been truly challenged yet and so now is the time to do that.

14th amendment was only for black slaves and their children to then become citizens following the end of the civil war.
Nobody at that time understood this 14th amendment 100+ years in the future would be used to argue for that inclusion og foreign children born on this soil by parents, illegally present, with no legal consent to be in the United States and that automatic gift citizenship should be granted.

If that was true, then every native american Indian at that time would also be citizens. Not one Indian became a citizen with the 14th amendment. It took Congress to pass the Native American Citizenship 1924 Indian Citizenship Act for citizenship to be extended to that class.

Why would Congress have to do pass that Act if Indian children born in America were already citizens? Indians lived here, worked here, had kids etc. but until Congress acted they were not citizens.

Ultimately, the SCOUTUS will have to make a judgement on this issue because the E.O. will be challenged on the same day or next once released.

I sincerely doubt that the president will issue the executive order he proposes. Why? Because this issue has been addressed by the supreme court on multiple occasions. There isn't any question about it.

The strumpets frequently declare their intentions about things and then drop them when they have served their purpose. That will happen this time as well

We shall find out next week. It will likely also deny asylum claims for a period of time.

section 212(f) of the INA, which reads as follows:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

The Supreme Court upheld Trump’s travel ban order on the basis of this provision, but an order suspending the entry of asylum seekers from Central America would be challenged in the same lower courts that flouted precedent to reject his travel ban.

Which means it will be fast tracked to the SCOUTUS and the President will win because Congress already gave him that power.

This is interesting but incomplete.

The bans that the lower courts rejected--and whose rejections the supreme court chose to accept--were because they were aimed at a race, culture, and religion. Why did the supremes accept the lower courts' decisions? Because they were based on illegal profiling. Trump's last ban was upheld because it was no longer a religion-based measure.

There's a clue there. The law, unlike what you claim, is that the president's freedom under that statute is limited by the US constitution. What you miss is that for the first three bans, the lower courts got it right. There is no flouting of the constitution when the courts require that the president tailor his executive orders to accord with that constitution.

I recall people going nuts over the E.O. as Muslim ban and then link to the rhetoric on the campaign vs what the language of the E.O. actually said.

Some of the most Muslim dominent countries were not banned on teh 1st, 2nd or 3rd edit. Ultimately, all the lower courts were Trumped by the Supreme court and had their asses handed to them including the 9th circuit again. The Doe et al. v. trump case was about a different matter.

https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban

Phazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congress has never passed such a statute giving
> children of illegals automatic citizenship.

Correct, they haven't. Because it's implicit in the 14th amendment.

If you'll bother to notice, the 14th Amendment's wording doesn't apply to *parents* of people born here being subject to US jurisdiction. It applies to the person born here.

> If that was true, then every native american
> Indian at that time would also be citizens. Not
> one Indian became a citizen with the 14th
> amendment. It took Congress to pass the Native
> American Citizenship 1924 Indian Citizenship Act
> for citizenship to be extended to that class.
>
> Why would Congress have to do pass that Act if
> Indian children born in America were already
> citizens?

Because Native American lands were/are considered sovereign nations, not part of the United States.
Have you even read the statute you referred to?
Doesn't seem that you have.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phazer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Congress has never passed such a statute giving
> > children of illegals automatic citizenship.
>
> Correct, they haven't. Because it's implicit in
> the 14th amendment.


I disagree with your interpretation understanding about the 14th amendment and in my opinion is wrong. Furthermore you've believed the lie for decades. That amendment was only created for black slaves and their children. Period. Period. Period.

You can read the exact intent of the amendment here in the middle of the page.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf

This will be used by the Supreme Court to finally explain exactly what this 14th amendment was about.



Exploration of it's meaning has been delayed if not deflected all for political reasons, none of them good, as it is used 100+ years from it's original intent.

If a time machine existed,you could go back and ask the author of the amendment along with the Jethros of south and Williams of the North about what it meant.

Who's in charge of the Federal Bureaucracy? President.

The President has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens.

The Jurisdiction will be defined and real law and order will be re-established.


> >
> > Why would Congress have to do pass that Act if
> > Indian children born in America were already
> > citizens?
>
> Because Native American lands were/are considered
> sovereign nations, not part of the United States.
> Have you even read the statute you referred to?
> Doesn't seem that you have.


I would consider illegal aliens and foreigners ALSO not part of the United States therefore not subject under the jurisdiction the 14th amendment is referring to.

Phazer, you clearly have not studied constitutional law. Your sources are wrong. You need to read/watch more broadly.


-----------------------
> I disagree with your interpretation understanding
> about the 14th amendment and in my opinion is
> wrong. Furthermore you've believed the lie for
> decades. That amendment was only created for
> black slaves and their children. Period. Period.
> Period.

The constitution is read as it is written, not as the people who composed parts of it, or voted for it, wanted. The reason is that sponsors propose measures and the rest of the participants then decide whether to adopt them or not. Their reasons for supporting the measure--every bit as important as the authors' themselves--may well differ from the author's. So courts don't give automatic deference to the original authors' views: they read what is written within "the four corners" of the document.

That's why the constitutional rights apply to the descendants of slaves and to women, neither of whom were covered by original intent. Original intent is informative but NEVER dispositive.



--------------
> This will be used by the Supreme Court to finally
> explain exactly what this 14th amendment was
> about.

The court has already addressed the issue. There are two supreme court decisions, the more important of which was US v. Wong, 1898. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649) The universal applicability of the amendment has not been challenged since because the interpretation was clarified long ago.

If I were you, I wouldn't listen to people like Pence who are simply dissembling when they deny the existence of the supreme court's decisions. The facts are out there.


--------------------
> Exploration of it's meaning has been delayed if
> not deflected all for political reasons, none of
> them good, as it is used 100+ years from it's
> original intent.

Proof? You are asserting that politics have gotten in the way of the definition of the 14th amendment. If you are correct, then there will be a number of challenges that the courts have struck down for political reasons. Can you list those cases? If not, perhaps you'll have to reject the (false) notions about political interference.



-----------------
> If a time machine existed,you could go back and
> ask the author of the amendment along with the
> Jethros of south and Williams of the North about
> what it meant.

Actually, you can't. Because almost none of the "Jethros" who enacted the amendment left records of their deliberations and conclusions.



-----------------
> Who's in charge of the Federal Bureaucracy?
> President.
>
> The President has the authority to issue an
> executive order clarifying how the executive
> branch will interpret the 14th Amendment
> concerning the citizenship status of children born
> in the United States to illegal aliens.

The president has the right to clarify its implementation of the constitution and the law within the parameters of the constitution and the law. That is why is first several bans were disallowed and why the White House cannot simply ignore supreme court history regarding the 14th amendment.



-------------------
> The Jurisdiction will be defined and real law and
> order will be re-established.

The order you want "re-established" will in fact not be "re-established" because it is unconstitutional. The issue has already been decided.

I repeat that the president will almost certainly not press the issue. He will use it to whip up his base, then after Tuesday he will drop it. Why? Because the White House and its lawyers know that they stand no chance of succeeding. Watch what happens.




---------------
> I would consider illegal aliens and foreigners
> ALSO not part of the United States therefore not
> subject under the jurisdiction the 14th amendment
> is referring to.

You are welcome to hold and express that opinion. There is, however, constitutional law on this point. The answer is that there are multiple levels of constitutional protection. Legal citizens within the US get full protection. Illegals within the US get partial protection--otherwise the government could lock up, and torture, any illegal--or any American whom the government decides to treat as an illegal. The courts have held that there are things the US government cannot do to illegals, enemies, even illegal serial killers. There is also a third tier of constitutional rights that apply to non-citizens abroad--again things like limitations on arbitrary murders and torture.

You can ignore these facts if you want, but they are still facts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2018 02:17PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phazer, you clearly have not studied
> constitutional law. Your sources are wrong. You
> need to read/watch more broadly.
>
>
> -----------------------
> > I disagree with your interpretation
> understanding
> > about the 14th amendment and in my opinion is
> > wrong. Furthermore you've believed the lie for
> > decades. That amendment was only created for
> > black slaves and their children. Period.
> Period.
> > Period.
>
> The constitution is read as it is written, not as
> the people who composed parts of it, or voted for
> it, wanted. The reason is that sponsors propose
> measures and the rest of the participants then
> decide whether to adopt them or not. Their
> reasons for supporting the measure--every bit as
> important as the authors' themselves--may well
> differ from the author's. So courts don't give
> automatic deference to the original authors'
> views: they read what is written within "the four
> corners" of the document.
>
> That's why the constitutional rights apply to the
> descendants of slaves and to women, neither of
> whom were covered by original intent. Original
> intent is informative but NEVER dispositive.
>
>
>
> --------------
> > This will be used by the Supreme Court to
> finally
> > explain exactly what this 14th amendment was
> > about.
>
> The court has already addressed the issue. There
> are two supreme court decisions, the more
> important of which was US v. Wong, 1898.
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169
> /649) The universal applicability of the amendment
> has not been challenged since because the
> interpretation was clarified long ago.
>
> If I were you, I wouldn't listen to people like
> Pence who are simply dissembling when they deny
> the existence of the supreme court's decisions.
> The facts are out there.
>
>
> --------------------
> > Exploration of it's meaning has been delayed if
> > not deflected all for political reasons, none
> of
> > them good, as it is used 100+ years from it's
> > original intent.
>
> Proof? You are asserting that politics have
> gotten in the way of the definition of the 14th
> amendment. If you are correct, then there will be
> a number of challenges that the courts have struck
> down for political reasons. Can you list those
> cases? If not, perhaps you'll have to reject the
> (false) notions about political interference.
>
>
>
> -----------------
> > If a time machine existed,you could go back and
> > ask the author of the amendment along with the
> > Jethros of south and Williams of the North
> about
> > what it meant.
>
> Actually, you can't. Because almost none of the
> "Jethros" who enacted the amendment left records
> of their deliberations and conclusions.
>
That may be true and we aren't going to use their journals but you can see what Congress recorded right here by the author of the amendment. https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment

The PRESIDENT
pro tempore
. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan,[Mr. HOWARD.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I donot propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed inthis body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simplydeclaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the UnitedStates, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to thefamilies of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will includeevery other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what personsare or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence andlegislation of this country.

Who isn't included? Repeat "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to thefamilies of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will includeevery other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what personsare or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence andlegislation of this country."

>
> -----------------
> > Who's in charge of the Federal Bureaucracy?
> > President.
> >
> > The President has the authority to issue an
> > executive order clarifying how the executive
> > branch will interpret the 14th Amendment
> > concerning the citizenship status of children
> born
> > in the United States to illegal aliens.
>
> The president has the right to clarify its
> implementation of the constitution and the law
> within the parameters of the constitution and the
> law. That is why is first several bans were
> disallowed and why the White House cannot simply
> ignore supreme court history regarding the 14th
> amendment.

Certain areas of the country were used to file challenges to the E.O. bans signed by the President giving Judges with limited jurisdiction to then mandate their ruling Nationally. It was ridiculous and ultimately the Supreme Court slapped all of those courts. Some of the judges should of been penalized for politicizing their judgements. It was a real circus and ultimately all these lower courts were overturned.
>
> -------------------
> > The Jurisdiction will be defined and real law
> and
> > order will be re-established.
>
> The order you want "re-established" will in fact
> not be "re-established" because it is
> unconstitutional. The issue has already been
> decided.
>
> I repeat that the president will almost certainly
> not press the issue. He will use it to whip up
> his base, then after Tuesday he will drop it.
> Why? Because the White House and its lawyers know
> that they stand no chance of succeeding. Watch
> what happens.

I will watch with you. I hope birthrigh citizenship as it is interpreted now will be more clearly defined and the loop hole be closed ending birth tourism from all these foreign countries and decrease medical costs. More births in Los Angeles are from foreigners than 10 or 14 states birthrates combined which costs I think upwards to $2 Billion dollars a year. These VISA visiting birthing mothers aren't picking up the hosipital bills.
>
>
>
> ---------------
> > I would consider illegal aliens and foreigners
> > ALSO not part of the United States therefore
> not
> > subject under the jurisdiction the 14th
> amendment
> > is referring to.
>
> You are welcome to hold and express that opinion.
> There is, however, constitutional law on this
> point. The answer is that there are multiple
> levels of constitutional protection. Legal
> citizens within the US get full protection.
> Illegals within the US get partial
> protection--otherwise the government could lock
> up, and torture, any illegal--or any American whom
> the government decides to treat as an illegal.
> The courts have held that there are things the US
> government cannot do to illegals, enemies, even
> illegal serial killers. There is also a third
> tier of constitutional rights that apply to
> non-citizens abroad--again things like limitations
> on arbitrary murders and torture.
>
> You can ignore these facts if you want, but they
> are still facts.

The fact is the Supreme court will make a final ruling because you say it's the law and it is not. The law is that the 14th amemenment was for black slaves and their children. Period.

I appreciate, Phazer, your providing the transcript of part of the debate. I repeat, however, that that is irrelevant to constitutional interpretation. The constitution was written by, and for, a small group of wealthy white men. Yet lo and behold, it now applies to all sorts of riff-raff: women, black people, Asians, Latinos, even working- and middle-class white men. That is a violation of original intent, but I doubt you want to go back to the 1780s.

Or do you?




----------------
> Certain areas of the country were used to file
> challenges to the E.O. bans signed by the
> President giving Judges with limited jurisdiction
> to then mandate their ruling Nationally.

False. Federal courts have jurisdiction nationally. District courts (that's what they are call) decide on national interests. Those decisions are binding unless overturned by Circuit Courts or the Supreme Court.

If you don't like that system, I suggest you file suit against the government and take it to a District Court. That's how it works.


--------------
> It was
> ridiculous and ultimately the Supreme Court
> slapped all of those courts.

False. The first three of the bans were overturned by the District Courts and the Supreme Court refused to overrule the District Courts. It was the White House that got "slapped."

The White House revised its fourth ban to abide by the constitution (by rendering it independent of religious bias) and THAT was upheld by the Supreme Court. So the "slap" score, if you want to think of it that way, is 3-1 in favor of the District Courts.




--------------

> Some of the judges
> should of been penalized for politicizing their
> judgements. It was a real circus and ultimately
> all these lower courts were overturned.

Blatantly and utterly false. See above. If the president were to promulgate his first, or second, or third ban again, it would be rejected again. Why? Because the Supremes upheld the District Courts' and Circuit Courts' decisions.



------------------
> I will watch with you. I hope birthrigh
> citizenship as it is interpreted now will be more
> clearly defined and the loop hole be closed ending
> birth tourism from all these foreign countries and
> decrease medical costs.

The "loophole" is the 14th Amendment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 in such sweeping terms that no one has challenged it since. If you want the "loophole" (some of us would consider it "the constitution") overturned, you will need to amend the constitution.




-------------------
> The fact is the Supreme court will make a final
> ruling because you say it's the law and it is not.
> The law is that the 14th amemenment was for black
> slaves and their children. Period.

You didn't read the Wong case, did you. If you had, you would know that the supreme court held that the 14th Amendment covers all illegal aliens resident in the US. Period.

But I am an optimist--triumph of hope over experience--and hence will provide links, yet again, to the actual law. You may want to read them, assuming that you care what the law actually is. Otherwise, you are merely repeating talking points you got from TV and didn't bother to double-check.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-1074/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

We shall see what the real lawyers and policy makers are able to do blessed by supreme court.

Some situations:

1.An illegal alien enters USA illegally crossig the border. Meets up with another illegal alien later in life, and has a
baby with that person. The child is gifted U.S. Citizenship

2. An illegal alien couble enters USA illegally crossig the border. Have a baby in the hospital. They now assume Jose is gifted U.S. Citizenship.

3. Foreign couple pay a company to get them the VISAs and hotels for a stay in the U.S. the corresponds for when they will give birth to a new child. They have a baby on U.S. soil. Stay for a bit of time. Leave the U.S. and stiff the hospital with the unpaid bill. They go back to origin country. Live cheap, raise their kid. Wait until the child is 18 and then start the paperwork that the child is U.S. Citizen and start picking Universities, apply for scholarships, and can't wait until Chain migration process will bring the rest of the family to the 1st world and out of their 3rd world nation.


4. An illegal alien enters USA illegally crossing the border. Meets up with another legal U.S. resident who's domicile is in the U.S. later in life and they have a baby together. -- This one might see it's way through to gifting the child U.S. Citizenship

5. I'm sure there are many other situation that abuse this current interpretation of the 14th amendment.


For all these above situations we are told that the 14th amendment covers it "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

It sounds like you are for in agreement to accept this or think , well what is done is done and we must accept this practice because we understand it as such. Nothing to do here.


Then there is the issue with these parents to claim welfare benefits to a country they care nothing about or pay into.
Just setup a bank account in the states. Draw from it abroad.


The magnet that draws people here -- possible citizenship through your child or straight up hope that amnesty will pass "one day" needs to stop. Birth Tourism guide. http://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/10/10/birth-tourism-countries-that-give-citizenship-by-birth/


I hope these abuses of the system are stopped cold.

Phazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> For all these above situations we are told that
> the 14th amendment covers it "All persons born or
> naturalized in the United States...are citizens of
> the United States and of the State wherein they
> reside. "

I would advise you not to take others' word for it. Go ahead and read the 14th Amendment. To make that easier for you, the opening sentence of that amendment reads: "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."

So yes, the people you describe are constitutionally US citizens.



--------------
> It sounds like you are for in agreement to accept
> this or think , well what is done is done and we
> must accept this practice because we understand it
> as such. Nothing to do here.

My feelings about the matter are irrelevant. The constitution says what it says.


-----------------
> Then there is the issue with these parents to
> claim welfare benefits to a country they care
> nothing about or pay into.
> Just setup a bank account in the states. Draw from
> it abroad.

Talking points. False. Money earned here is taxed here. Immigrants, legal or illegal, pay the same income taxes American citizens do.



-----------------
Foreign couples get their children in the US to get citizenship and then, in your words, "wait until Chain migration process will bring the rest of the family to the 1st world and out of their 3rd world nation."

Let me get this right. After arguing that the 14th Amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional, you now argue that "chain migration," which has no constitutional status at all, is legitimate? Why would you assume such an inconsistent position? Could it be that you approve of someone famous who just used chain migration to get her parents citizenship?

Inconsistent, to say the least.



-------------------
> I hope these abuses of the system are stopped
> cold.

The constitution is not an "abuse of the system:" it IS the system. If you don't like it, get the constitution amendment to remove the provision that Congress and the States adopted and that the Supreme Court has sanctioned.

“An illegal alien enters USA illegally crossig the border. Meets up with another illegal alien later in life, and has a
baby with that person. The child is gifted U.S. Citizenship”

Culture is not transmitted by DNA. Any baby born and raised in the US is going to adopt American culture and actually be an American, who most likely contributes to society a lot more than he/she consumes. This is especially true with parents coming from repressive regimes, who really want their kids to succeed.

So it’s a big win for the U.S. All of the xenophobia is rhetorical, designed by the big movers to herd us like sheep.

Horowitz is smoking dope on Wong. Here's the actual case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The conclusion is precisely the opposite of what Horowitz says. The case holds that Wong's children were born US citizens due to the 14th amendment despite the fact that he was an illegal alien.

Read it. See for yourself.

Wong Kim Ark parents were legal U.S. Residents in 1871 up unto 1890 [subject to jurisdiction of the U.S.] and Wong was born 1873.


In any case, I'm glad the topic has come up and the Exec branch will be able to dictate what the 14th amendment covers once and for all.

Wong's parents had no legal standing in the US. The supremes held that Wong was a citizen by dint of being born in the country regardless of his parents' status.

You write, "I'm glad the topic has come up and the Exec branch will be able to dictate what the 14th amendment covers once and for all."

That indicates that you haven't read the constitution in a while. The reason the constitution exists is to CONSTRAIN the powers of the executive; it is the executive that is the greatest threat to personal liberty in any state. That's why the document was written.

It follows, both literally and logically, that the executive branch does not, to employ your term, "dictate" what the constitution provides. There is no more basic principle of republican government.

Interpreting the constitution is the express purview of the courts. And the courts have already ruled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2018 04:18PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wong's parents had no legal standing in the US.
> The supremes held that Wong was a citizen by dint
> of being born in the country regardless of his
> parents' status.


I don't understand why you said there was not legal standing.


"The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:"

"That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.

That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."


--Unless I'm reading that incorrectly, it sounds like the parents were legal U.S. permanent residents.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/permanent-resident-vs-citizen-difference.html

Then again this back in the late 1800s.




You write, "I'm glad the topic has come up and the
> Exec branch w>ill be able to dictate what the 14th
> amendment covers once and for all."
>
> That indicates that you haven't read the
> constitution in a while. The reason the
> constitution exists is to CONSTRAIN the powers of
> the executive; it is the executive that is the
> greatest threat to personal liberty in any state.
> That's why the document was written.
>
> It follows, both literally and logically, that the
> executive branch does not, to employ your term,
> "dictate" what the constitution provides. There is
> no more basic principle of republican government.
>
> Interpreting the constitution is the express
> purview of the courts. And the courts have
> already ruled.

===============================

The courts can given their view on the interpretation of a law. It doesn't stop there because Congress can always amend a law. Re-write it. Or pass something else that supersedes a law.

The Exec branch can also create and modify policies and execution of the law. A court can in theory render an decision and the but has zero power to enforce that decision if the executive branch decides not to.

So, I don't think the matter is settled as you keep saying that it is.

Phazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lot's Wife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------


> I don't understand why you said there was not
> legal standing.

You have been arguing that someone whose parents are not citizens does not get automatic citizenship at birth. If your position is correct, then Wong had no constitutional right to claim citizenship. The court held that he was a citizen by right of birth. So he went into the judicial process with no status, or indeterminate status, and emerged with citizenship.



----------------
> The courts can given their view on the
> interpretation of a law. It doesn't stop there
> because Congress can always amend a law. Re-write
> it. Or pass something else that supersedes a law.


First, no law is at issue here. What is at issue is the constitution. The courts' interpretation of the constitution is final.

Regarding the constitutionality of any particular law, which isn't relevant in this situation, Congress does not get to overrule the Supreme Court. Congress can pass a law that circumvents a constitutional problem that the Supreme Court has previously identified, but no one overrules the court's decisions.

This is a bit like the Executive Order fiasco that we discussed above. The courts found that an EO was unconstitutional. The president rewrote it, and the courts found the next one unconstitutional. Ultimately the White House came up with a formulation that avoided the constitutional quagmire, and the Supreme Court found that one acceptable. In none of these cases, law or EO, did Congress or the presidency overrule the court's decisions.

Returning to the issue at hand, the only way to remedy the unconstitutionality that you claim regarding immigrant citizenship is to amend the constitution. That requires 2/3 of the Senate and the House, and 3/4 of the states. Do you believe that you and those who agree with you can achieve that? I don't.



---------------------
> The Exec branch can also create and modify
> policies and execution of the law. A court can in
> theory render an decision and the but has zero
> power to enforce that decision if the executive
> branch decides not to.

You are right. If the executive and the legislature both agree to ignore the Supreme Court, the court's decisions are meaningless.

And you live in Venezuela.

Companies that manufacture camping equipment (Tents) and doing really well with a increase in orders. Buy some stock.

"In my opinion, everyone in the US except the "Lamanities" are descended from economic refugees."

The "lamanites" are simply immigrants from an earlier time.

"Native American" - how many generations before one can use that designation?

JoeSmith666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Native American" - how many generations before
> one can use that designation?

Oh, that's easy: back to the generations before we Europeans showed up here. :)

JoeSmith666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In my opinion, everyone in the US except the
> "Lamanities" are descended from economic
> refugees."
>
> The "lamanites" are simply immigrants from an
> earlier time.
>
> "Native American" - how many generations before
> one can use that designation?


Nevermo question:

I have always assumed that the "Lamanites" were a fiction, and that this created fictional overlay had then been applied to the actual Native Americans (in other words: real human beings whose ancestors [at least mostly] came to this, at that time humanly uninhabited, hemisphere from Asia).

Has my assumption been wrong?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2018 07:08PM by Tevai.

You are right. Joe is speaking ironically.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right. Joe is speaking ironically.

Thank you!

The so called "caravan" will magically disappear after the election.

Estimates of the caravan size have ranged from 4,000-7,200, with numbers toward the higher end being more likely. Of these 1,699 have requested asylum from Mexico, and 495 Hondurans have requested repatriation. So at present, there may be roughly 5,000 migrants headed toward the U.S. Apparently a number of these migrants are under the misconception that the U.S. will take them no matter what.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/24/caravan-migrants-what-is-it-where-from-guatemala-honduras-immigrants-mexico

There was a similar, but smaller caravan last spring (migrants try to travel in large groups for safety) that was greatly diminished in numbers when it finally arrived at the U.S. border. I think this caravan will diminish as well.

In 2017, the U.S. took in 29,022 refugees from Inauguration Day to Dec. 31st, with a cap of 45K refugees. Canada took in ~41.5K and Mexico took in ~14.6K.

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/immigration/papas-refugee-facts.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/23/amnesty-international-report-mexico-migrants/1059523001/

Only a fraction of asylum requests in each country are granted. Mexico grated asylum to refugees at about a 13% rate in 2017. The U.S. grated less than 11K refugees asylum. Of these, only a little more than 3,200 were from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador combined.

Although the number of refugees in the caravan seems huge, I think when everything shakes out there will end up being a fairly normal number of refugees for the year.

There will be 2 or 3 hundred.

If there is a credible way to reject bogus asylum claims without tieing up the courts and incurring needless costs to entertain clearly fraudulent claims, then we should follow that path. Mexico has offered asylum to everyone in the first caravan. The Mexican government offered to let them all stay in Mexico and to find places for them to live in one of the southern Mexican states. The people in the caravan rejected that offer of asylum and said they won't stop until they reach the United States. That proves that when they reach the US, the people in the caravan are economic refugees, not anyone with a legitimate asylum claim. They were offered asylum by Mexico and they rejected the asylum that they were offered. Asylum is not what they want, nor what they need. What they want is to tie up the US courts with fraudulent claims in hope of getting financial benefits that they do not qualify for by law. Entertaining such fraud is not what our country should be doing. Whatever it takes, those caravans need to be stopped from entering the US.

So you are a supreme court justice now? I mean, you are now the entire supreme court, because you are proposing that the US government not enforce the laws as written?

Wouldn't it be better for you to wait until the overwhelming pro-Trump vote in both the House and Senate that you were predicting with such messianic confidence? Then the president can change the laws as you propose, put you on the supreme court, and let you enforce the new laws as you propose.

Your lack of respect for the constitution and the laws is, frankly, vicariously embarrassing.