President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[swampfrog]

I am no expert (the few times immigration law issues have popped up in my cases I have hired specialists to help) and have not even read the entire opinion you linked, but I don't think this authority says what you assert. There is no analysis of whether the 14th amendment language applies to children of illegal aliens. The parents in the cited opinion were domiciliaries of the US at the time in question which, as I understand the law applicable at the time, was another way of saying that they were legal residents but not citizens. In addition, it looks like this case provides implicit support for the interpretation of the 14th amendment urged by Trump.

Again, no expert here and this is just based on a quick perusal of the case.

Maybe, still reading and digesting, but from the article again:

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while[p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

[smokymountainrain]

i've heard him talk and seen his tweets. trump is dumb. period. can't imagine that when doing business, a switch flips that somehow makes him smart.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Trump was a good businessman, as defined by success. The average entrepreneur goes bankrupt several times before finding success. He was perhaps not ethical, and certainly not moral, but he was shrewd and successful. I agree, however, that his economic knowledge has some major shortcomings, though I think that's pretty standard for most presidents. We've only had three presidents since WWII who understood the economy reasonably well, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and even they all made their share of mistakes.

We're due for a recession, but Trump has not been bad for the economy overall. The expectation of efficiency through less regulation has given the economy a huge boost. His trade decisions drive me bonkers, and I'm with Commando on immigration, so don't interpret me as thinking he's done a good job. In fact, those two things alone have the potential to make the next recession steep and deep, given the money supply in circulation after quantitative easing.

What this country, and our economy, needs is a cheerleader that let's criticism roll off his back while he cheers the American workers on. Reagan got that better than anyone, but Clinton was a close second. I didn't agree with Clinton on much, but the guy at least understood that the economy needs more optimism and less divisiveness. In reality, Clinton had the good fortune of benefitting from a huge tech boom, but he could have easily screwed it up like Obama did with pretty much every industry he meddled in.

While agreeing with your broader point (and sharing your antipathy toward Trump the human), I have to pile on here and take issue with the bolded language. Trump is demonstrably a terrible businessman, and is regarded as such by the business elite in NYC (note how he and his family can no longer raise money from any reputable U.S. banks, opting intead for Russian and other foreign sources). U.S. banks and VC's invest in start-ups more on the basis of the human element than in the concept itself. If businesspeople had ratings, as corporations do, in seeking financing, Trump’s would certainly be in the C (junk) range, at best. And the average, ultimately successful, entrepreneur doesn’t file for bankruptcy multiple times. True, most have failures, but few resort to the bankruptcy courts once, let along multiple times.

Trump’s known failures are legion (e.g., Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Travel, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage, Trump Taj Mahal and [too lazy to look up the many others]). And there are many entities that he endorsed, but didn’t own, personally raking in millions in fees while the suckers who followed his counsel lost life savings (e.g., ACN, a “can’t miss” company that came up with the brilliant idea of land-line videophones, even with smartphones just hitting the market--a salesperson from this MLM pitched me on joining his downline for this stupid product, and showed me a video, available on YouTube, of Trump telling me how this would make me rich beyond the dreams of avarice).

But give Trump his due, I can’t think of anyone more masterful at self-marketing and self-promotion. He exudes supreme self-confidence and people gravitate to that. He built his {smaller than he claims) fortune on the backs of stiffed creditors and investors. Trump’s a brilliant marketer, not a businessman.

[Commando]

^^^^ exactly. A good businessman knows how to run an organization. A good marketer knows how to convince others to let him run it. That's the distinction we're dealing with here with the Worst President Ever. "But he's such a great businessman!!"

[smokymountainrain]

While agreeing with your broader point (and sharing your antipathy toward Trump the human), I have to pile on here and take issue with the bolded language. Trump is demonstrably a terrible businessman, and is regarded as such by the business elite in NYC (note how he and his family can no longer raise money from any reputable U.S. banks, opting intead for Russian and other foreign sources). U.S. banks and VC's invest in start-ups more on the basis of the human element than in the concept itself. If businesspeople had ratings, as corporations do, in seeking financing, Trump’s would certainly be in the C (junk) range, at best. And the average, ultimately successful, entrepreneur doesn’t file for bankruptcy multiple times. True, most have failures, but few resort to the bankruptcy courts once, let along multiple times.

Trump’s known failures are legion (e.g., Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Travel, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage, Trump Taj Mahal and [too lazy to look up the many others]). And there are many entities that he endorsed, but didn’t own, personally raking in millions in fees while the suckers who followed his counsel lost life savings (e.g., ACN, a “can’t miss” company that came up with the brilliant idea of land-line videophones, even with smartphones just hitting the market--a salesperson from this MLM pitched me on joining his downline for this stupid product, and showed me a video, available on YouTube, of Trump telling me how this would make me rich beyond the dreams of avarice).

But give Trump his due, I can’t think of anyone more masterful at self-marketing and self-promotion. He exudes supreme self-confidence and people gravitate to that. He built his {smaller than he claims) fortune on the backs of stiffed creditors and investors. Trump’s a brilliant marketer, not a businessman.

even those things, i have to believe come by accident. they are simply personality traits he was born with and they happen to "work".

[Jeff Lebowski]

While agreeing with your broader point (and sharing your antipathy toward Trump the human), I have to pile on here and take issue with the bolded language. Trump is demonstrably a terrible businessman, and is regarded as such by the business elite in NYC (note how he and his family can no longer raise money from any reputable U.S. banks, opting intead for Russian and other foreign sources). U.S. banks and VC's invest in start-ups more on the basis of the human element than in the concept itself. If businesspeople had ratings, as corporations do, in seeking financing, Trump’s would certainly be in the C (junk) range, at best. And the average, ultimately successful, entrepreneur doesn’t file for bankruptcy multiple times. True, most have failures, but few resort to the bankruptcy courts once, let along multiple times.

Trump’s known failures are legion (e.g., Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Travel, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage, Trump Taj Mahal and [too lazy to look up the many others]). And there are many entities that he endorsed, but didn’t own, personally raking in millions in fees while the suckers who followed his counsel lost life savings (e.g., ACN, a “can’t miss” company that came up with the brilliant idea of land-line videophones, even with smartphones just hitting the market--a salesperson from this MLM pitched me on joining his downline for this stupid product, and showed me a video, available on YouTube, of Trump telling me how this would make me rich beyond the dreams of avarice).

But give Trump his due, I can’t think of anyone more masterful at self-marketing and self-promotion. He exudes supreme self-confidence and people gravitate to that. He built his {smaller than he claims) fortune on the backs of stiffed creditors and investors. Trump’s a brilliant marketer, not a businessman.

Brilliant? How about extremely narcissistic and tireless?

[creekster]

Maybe, still reading and digesting, but from the article again:

Yes, but remember the 14th amendment was not adopted until several years after the civil war and was drafted in the context of ensuring rights to all post war inhabitants of the USA. I am not sure the commentary from prior to its drafting and adoption will be applicable or persuasive. Moreover, "political condition or allegiance" implies to whom the person is a subject, or to which sovereign allegiance is owed, and is from a time of no immigration laws for the USA, before such sovereign connection was defined in congressional enactments. But even the commentary you are quoting says that birth is not enough, that the person must also be born "within the ligeance" of the government, implying, as supporters of the change apparently argue, that a person must be allegiant to the government. If you have entered a sovereign nation in contravention to the government's laws, you do not possess and cannot achieve ligeance.

[old_gregg]

Yes, but remember the 14th amendment was not adopted until several years after the civil war and was drafted in the context of ensuring rights to all post war inhabitants of the USA. I am not sure the commentary from prior to its drafting and adoption will be applicable or persuasive. Moreover, "political condition or allegiance" implies to whom the person is a subject, or to which sovereign allegiance is owed, and is from a time of no immigration laws for the USA, before such sovereign connection was defined in congressional enactments. But even the commentary you are quoting says that birth is not enough, that the person must also be born "within the ligeance" of the government, implying, as supporters of the change apparently argue, that a person must be allegiant to the government. If you have entered a sovereign nation in contravention to the government's laws, you do not possess and cannot achieve ligeance.

lol. everybody is a textualist until they’re not!

[PaloAltoCougar]

Brilliant? How about extremely narcissistic and tireless?

Even better, but I give him credit for knowing how to push the right buttons. The narcissism is painfully obvious; the "tireless" really surprises me, esp. given his girth, his refusal to exercise, and terrible dietary regimen. A very lucky gene pool, I assume.

[creekster]

lol. everybody is a textualist until they’re not!

I tend to be. Do you know something about this? If so, please share.

[Uncle Ted]

I already cited the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0169_0649_ZO

From 1898 no less.

I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.

It seems that the birthright citizenship of children of illegal immigrants hasn't been challenged in the Supreme Court... yet.

In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller's dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...e-constitution

I am sure this guy would love to write an opinion on it:

[swampfrog]

Yes, but remember the 14th amendment was not adopted until several years after the civil war and was drafted in the context of ensuring rights to all post war inhabitants of the USA. I am not sure the commentary from prior to its drafting and adoption will be applicable or persuasive. Moreover, "political condition or allegiance" implies to whom the person is a subject, or to which sovereign allegiance is owed, and is from a time of no immigration laws for the USA, before such sovereign connection was defined in congressional enactments. But even the commentary you are quoting says that birth is not enough, that the person must also be born "within the ligeance" of the government, implying, as supporters of the change apparently argue, that a person must be allegiant to the government. If you have entered a sovereign nation in contravention to the government's laws, you do not possess and cannot achieve ligeance.

It still reads to me after trying to understand the decision that the intent was to only exclude children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, and children of hostile occupational forces, and later some exclusions based on when citizenship would restrict other rights, as in belonging to some Indian tribes. It will be interesting if Trump goes forward to see where the courts take it.

Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger[p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

[cowboy]

Trump’s known failures are legion ...

But give Trump his due, I can’t think of anyone more masterful at self-marketing and self-promotion. He exudes supreme self-confidence and people gravitate to that. He built his {smaller than he claims) fortune on the backs of stiffed creditors and investors. Trump’s a brilliant marketer, not a businessman.

Despite his failures, he has rebounded, and his net worth continues to grow and provide him with a lavish lifestyle. I'm not defending his methods, and think many of his business deals would keep an honest man awake at night, but he knew how to 1) create and market a brand, and 2) prepare to survive failed ventures. Neither of these things are easy.

^^^^ exactly. A good businessman knows how to run an organization. A good marketer knows how to convince others to let him run it. That's the distinction we're dealing with here with the Worst President Ever. "But he's such a great businessman!!"

Well, you can define 'good businessman' however you want, but I define it as success. The fact that he is wealthy even though he's had tremendous flameouts suggests that he has found a way to grow a fortune and live a lifestyle of the rich and famous.

I can't believe I'm defending him, but he's not the complete dufus he appears. I don't think he's a genius, or brilliant, or even that smart, but he is shrewd. He knows the value of a brand, has created and developed a brand, and it has made him wealthy. It also made him the POTUS which, despite the pain it causes to admit he did anything right, is an impressive accomplishment.

[creekster]

It still reads to me after trying to understand the decision that the intent was to only exclude children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, and children of hostile occupational forces, and later some exclusions based on when citizenship would restrict other rights, as in belonging to some Indian tribes. It will be interesting if Trump goes forward to see where the courts take it.

Geez, am I missing something? It states "born of resident aliens", right? If you are an illegal alien, you cannot simultaneously be a resident alien. Remember, this opinion issued before there were congressionally enacted laws that defined legal resident status.

Your quotation says:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

[frank ryan]

Despite his failures, he has rebounded, and his net worth continues to grow and provide him with a lavish lifestyle. I'm not defending his methods, and think many of his business deals would keep an honest man awake at night, but he knew how to 1) create and market a brand, and 2) prepare to survive failed ventures. Neither of these things are easy.


Well, you can define 'good businessman' however you want, but I define it as success. The fact that he is wealthy even though he's had tremendous flameouts suggests that he has found a way to grow a fortune and live a lifestyle of the rich and famous.

I can't believe I'm defending him, but he's not the complete dufus he appears. I don't think he's a genius, or brilliant, or even that smart, but he is shrewd. He knows the value of a brand, has created and developed a brand, and it has made him wealthy. It also made him the POTUS which, despite the pain it causes to admit he did anything right, is an impressive accomplishment.

I don't know about shrewd but he has an advantage over most of the people on this board, he's not restained by a conscious or moral framework. Empathy doesn't get in the way of his selfishness. So that is one inconvenience he doesn't have to worry about.