Germany 1, Krugman 0

[wuapinmon]

Wuap if you want to be the guy who says "LAH! LAH! LAH! I can't HEAR you" when authorial intent (AKA - the actual meaning of the law) comes up, then at least acknowledge what the LETTER of it actually says - it says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which explicitly excluded several groups at the time and was emphatically understood to do so.

The notion that the 14th amendment was meant to be universally inclusive of every individual born on American soil doesn't just reject "authorial intent" but the actual applications of the amendment that followed after 1868. The shift is rather difficult to explain, a bit like the Church on blacks and the priesthood, there isn't ever a "doctrinal" moment that justifies it in relation to the 14th (as Krugman points out, the 1982 SCOTUS language fails to provide any justification).

So we're not just talking about authorial intent - we're talking about real live application. Universal inclusion in birthright citizenship is flatout contradicted by both the language and the application of the 14th amendment.

Wrong! If I go to Germany and kill Krugman, I will be subject to Deutsches-Jurisdiktion very quickly. If you are in a land, you are subject to its jurisdiction, unless excluded, like embassies, the Captain Cook Memorial in Hawaii, and the Canal Zone (prior to 1999).

[oxcoug]

Wrong! If I go to Germany and kill Krugman, I will be subject to Deutsches-Jurisdiktion very quickly. If you are in a land, you are subject to its jurisdiction, unless excluded, like embassies, the Captain Cook Memorial in Hawaii, and the Canal Zone (prior to 1999).

No. You're indiscriminately mixing the jurisdiction of criminal law with the jurisdiction of citizenship. An American citizen in Germany is ONLY subject to German jurisdiction if he/she breaks German law or becomes an object of state interest in some other way. To the extent that he/she observes German law Germany claims no jurisdiction.

But well done bringing up Germany since if you and your wife were to go have a child there - or in the UK or in Australia - that child wouldn't have any automatic claim to citizenship in any of those countries because they recognize how nonsensical it would be to make that possible.

[oxcoug]

Wrong! If I go to Germany and kill Krugman, I will be subject to Deutsches-Jurisdiktion very quickly. If you are in a land, you are subject to its jurisdiction, unless excluded, like embassies, the Captain Cook Memorial in Hawaii, and the Canal Zone (prior to 1999).

BTW, as far as I can tell your whole argument so far consists of "it's the American way" - which has to feel odd for you seeing as (a) you're a very smart guy to make such a flimsy argument and (b) those very words are routinely used by ultra-conservatives and xenophobes in a variety of arenas.

Do you have any other arguments? Like that unqualified citizenship benefits for the children of illegal immigrants is somehow good for the state? Somehow good for taxpayers? Somehow a sensible incentive to orderly immigration?

Or any answer to the claim that it's obviously and undeniably a perverse incentive to illegal immigration that undercuts the integrity of an ordered immigration system?

[wuapinmon]

BTW, as far as I can tell your whole argument so far consists of "it's the American way" - which has to feel odd for you seeing as (a) you're a very smart guy to make such a flimsy argument and (b) those very words are routinely used by ultra-conservatives and xenophobes in a variety of arenas.

Do you have any other arguments? Like that unqualified citizenship benefits for the children of illegal immigrants is somehow good for the state? Somehow good for taxpayers? Somehow a sensible incentive to orderly immigration?

Or any answer to the claim that it's obviously and undeniably a perverse incentive to illegal immigration that undercuts the integrity of an ordered immigration system?

I have 140+ years of the 14th Amendment and judicial interpretation on my side. I'm a fucking brilliant guy to be making such a flimsy argument.

[oxcoug]

I have 140+ years of the 14th Amendment and judicial interpretation on my side. I'm a fucking brilliant guy to be making such a flimsy argument.

No, you don't.

From the Yale/NYU law prof:

"By 1868, Congress had come to view citizenship as a mutual relationship to which both the nation and the individual must consent. This explains why it passed — one day before the citizenship clause was ratified — the Expatriation Act, allowing Americans to shed their American or foreign citizenship.

Particularly relevant to today’s controversy was the floor debate on the citizenship clause. It suggested that the American-born children of resident aliens would indeed be citizens, a suggestion confirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court decision involving the son of a resident Chinese couple.

Congress did not, however, discuss the status of children of illegal immigrants — at the time, federal law didn’t limit immigration, so no parents were here illegally.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country. The Supreme Court has never squarely held otherwise."

[oxcoug]

I have 140+ years of the 14th Amendment and judicial interpretation on my side. I'm a fucking brilliant guy to be making such a flimsy argument.

But I do respect a bravely attempted default-to-authority maneuver as a way dodging the need to make an intelligent argument.

[wuapinmon]

But I do respect a bravely attempted default-to-authority maneuver as a way dodging the need to make an intelligent argument.

Don't view my maneuver as dodging anything other than your condescending tone. "You're smarter than this" leaves you dead in the water with me, unless you have gray hairs and I call you "Papa" or "BYU71."

[Jacob]

Props to the NYT for running this on the front page today

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/op...k.html?_r=1&hp

Germany had the picture from the start, Britain is getting it and in the US Chris Christie is leading the charge on facing fiscal realities.

The link goes to the birthright op-ed. What is the article you are referring to? I'm interested in anything that demonstrates Krugman's idiocy--as if his own writing doesn't do the trick. But if you can narrow it down to the one article, that's be much appreciated.

[oxcoug]

The link goes to the birthright op-ed. What is the article you are referring to? I'm interested in anything that demonstrates Krugman's idiocy--as if his own writing doesn't do the trick. But if you can narrow it down to the one article, that's be much appreciated.

Sorry man - here it is

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/wo...14germany.html

It's actually not a direct hit on Krugman as he is never mentioned - but since Germany did exactly the opposite of what the US did and what Krugman insisted every country should be doing in the crisis, this article is a pretty strong refutation of his BS.

[wuapinmon]

Your main man's op-ed breezily dismisses the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision as not applying to illegal immigrants. He frames his argument around the Expatriation Act centering on "resident" aliens, and claims that the Wong verdict supports this, while failing to hint that there were no "legal aliens" (in New York) at the time because immigration was open in most cases, except for "Celestials" as the insult of the times then went regarding the Chinese Exclusion Act. In Wong's case, his parents had returned to live in China. He was given jus soli.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country.

It's hard to believe that Congress thinks it has the right to strip citizenship from people (even unborn people) based on jus sanguinis.

You run into potential problems with Afroyim v. Rusk supported by the failed Titles of Nobility Amendment from 1810. That Congress tried to amend the Constitution to give itself the right to strip citizenship from people, even prior to the passage and ratification of the 14th, to me, shows that the natural born concept is not something that can be changed by Congress. Ergo, mess with jus soli, and the SCOTUS, looking at Afroyim v. Rusk, will overturn any and every attempt.

And the repeated insistence and findings of the SCOTUS for jus soli (e.g. Perkins v. Elg) natural-born citizenship clearly show this citizen that it is the American Way!