President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Non Sequitur]

Yeah! Drumpf looked like he was having racist thoughts while talking to Kanye West.

Do honestly think that Trump has an ounce of respect for Kanye West? I'd love to hear the pet names Trump has for Kanye when there's no one in the room but Donald and Turd Jr.

[myboynoah]

Pittsburgh synagogue shootings deepen divide in Jewish community over Trump

I thought this was brilliantly obvious:

Lieberman said that those who think Trump “can’t be anti-Semitic because he has a Jewish daughter don’t believe he can be sexist because he has a wife and can’t be anti-immigrant because his wife is an immigrant.”

[frank ryan]

Sounds like Trump is going to try and end birthright citizenships with an executive order. Should be fun.

[BlueK]

Sounds like Trump is going to try and end birthright citizenships with an executive order. Should be fun.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any Republican who tries to back him on this needs to give back their "I love the Constitution" badge if they haven't already.

I think Trump needs to get checked and balanced, but the flip side of that I think is if the dems do take some of Congress and start doing that, he'll try to get even crazier.

[Uncle Ted]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You didn't highlight the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part... For illegal immigrates, given they are breaking the law, it is unclear if they are being "subject to the jurisdiction" but I am going to wait until commando has had a chance to weight in on this.

I think Trump needs to get checked and balanced, but the flip side of that I think is if the dems do take some of Congress and start doing that, he'll try to get even crazier.

Yeah, someone needs to light a fire under congress' collective butts to do something about immigration.

[BlueK]

You didn't highlight the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part... For illegal immigrates, given they are breaking the law, it is unclear if they are being "subject to the jurisdiction" but I am going to wait until commando has had a chance to weight in on this.

Anyone inside our borders are under the jurisdiction of US law. They can't suddenly rob a store and claim it doesn't count because they aren't citizens. That's an absurd way to try to get around it. The Supreme Court has also already set the precedent on this more than once: people born in the US are citizens no matter how much the white nationalist movement might prefer it not to be true.

[Uncle Ted]

Anyone inside our borders are under the jurisdiction of US law. They can't suddenly rob a store and claim it doesn't count because they aren't citizens. Absurd. The Supreme Court has already set precendent on this. People born in the US are citizens no matter how much the white nationalist movement might prefer it not be true.

So if someone that is not a citizen and here illegally robs a store are they really subject to full US law? In other words, they must serve time in an US prison and can never be deported back to the country they came from until their sentence is served? Are they really under the jurisdiction of the full US law? If a country requests they be deported doesn't that country still lay claim to them as a citizen. Do they not get to claim any of their babies (born in the US) as well? IDK... just asking. Where is commando when we need him?

[swampfrog]

Anyone inside our borders are under the jurisdiction of US law. They can't suddenly rob a store and claim it doesn't count because they aren't citizens.

This is the best I could find with a quick search that supports that view. Seems to uphold what you stated.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/national...ht-citizenship

In the middle of the 19th Century, being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States versus being “subject to a foreign power” had very specific national security consequences. Indeed, the language had nothing to do with immigration. As even critics of modern immigration policy admit, the 14th Amendment was passed at a time when there were basically no immigration laws. It was a time of open borders. Citizenship, to be sure, held significance in terms of political rights and duties. But, as a general rule, individuals could come and go at will. Being “subject” to the laws of a particular power was a question of “jurisdiction” in its oldest and most technical sense. To what government does one owe allegiance in exchange for legal protection? And as a matter of U.S. constitutional history, mere presence, regardless of citizenship, was sufficient. It did not matter that you might owe allegiance by virtue of your citizenship to a foreign country. While you were here, you enjoyed the full protection of American laws and owed your full allegiance in return, such that you could even be prosecuted as a traitor in times of war.

[frank ryan]

You didn't highlight the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part... For illegal immigrates, given they are breaking the law, it is unclear if they are being "subject to the jurisdiction" but I am going to wait until commando has had a chance to weight in on this.



Yeah, someone needs to light a fire under congress' collective butts to do something about immigration.

Congress won’t be able to do a damn thing with Trump and his cronies on the far right in power. That’s pretty clear by now. You can weight for Commando but I think we can all guess how he is going to come down on this.

Goddamn Ted, you really quit with the whole being a libertarian thing.

[Uncle Ted]

This is the best I could find with a quick search that supports that view. Seems to uphold what you stated.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/national...ht-citizenship

This seems a little more clear on what "subject to the [complete] jurisdiction thereof" means:

Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/

If someone subject to another countries' allegiance, as with an illegal immigrate, then it seems the 14th amendment does not apply. When are the arm chair constitutional lawyers around here going to weight in?

[Eddie]

I was having a conversation with my wife this morning regarding immigration and the whole caravan thing.

I guess I'm curious as to what people think the right answer is as far as making immigration easier and accepting folks like those in the caravan into the country.

I think it's really easy to say that we don't want to bring in criminals. OK. And it's easy to say that anyone who wants to come here to escape violence and other bad things in their homeland and contribute to society here is welcome. OK.

But what are the limits? Should there be any? What is the capacity of the US to absorb groups like this? Quite frankly, during my time as a missionary in Guatemala I knew of many people who wanted to move to the US. Some had applied and were on waiting lists. Others were saving up money for a coyote. And many others talked about it longingly, though they didn't have the money to apply and weren't willing to take the risks of hiring a coyote. And that was just in one country!

Many people say we need to accept and process this caravan when they arrive. Who are we to not share what we have and to limit who else can have it based solely on winning the lottery of being born in the right country. And I agree - I really don't believe I deserve what I've got here any more than anyone else.

But what is our capacity? And if this group is fully accepted in, does that bring other groups - perhaps larger groups? If I was living in Guatemala and learned that by making my way to the US I would be accepted at the border - I'd be packing my backpack for the trek.

So - should there be limits? And what should those limits be? (I accept that they are likely much higher than the current acceptance rate) - and will the limits EVER be high enough to meet the demand? Or will it just allow more people in, without really reducing the number of people who aren't accepted and aren't going to wait and/or deal with a crazy bureaucracy?

[cowboy]

Yeah don't worry about White Nationalists, the crazy uptick in anti-Semitic violence over the past 2 years in America and people *checks notes* shooting up synagogues because they're mad at immigrants applying for asylum (gotta be the Jews' fault!). Sorry to interrupt your nap.

Violence is actually down: 56 incidents in 2015, 38 in 2016, and 19 in 2017. Total "incidents" is the number that is up substantially. Harassment and vandalism have doubled since 2015. Also, the shooter was not a Trump lover; he was quoted as saying Trump was a globalist and controlled by Jews. Trump is responsible for a lot of stupid stuff, but pinning anti-semitism on him is a stretch.

Alternatively, an executive order overturning the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS is all him. This action probably ranks at the top of the stupidity list, which is quite an accomplishment.

[swampfrog]

This seems a little more clear on what "subject to the [complete] jurisdiction thereof" means:


http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/

If someone subject to another countries' allegiance, as with an illegal immigrate, then it seems the 14th amendment does not apply. When are the arm chair constitutional lawyers around here going to weight in?

I'm pretty sure that the job of Senators is not to interpret the constitution, last I checked that was specifically excluded from their responsibilities. The courts (who have specifically been granted this right) have ruled on this as cited in the article I posted. The interpretation is based on English Common law which is cited.

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

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm pretty sure that the job of Senators is not to interpret the constitution, last I checked that was specifically excluded from their responsibilities. The courts (who have specifically been granted this right) have ruled on this as cited in the article I posted. The interpretation is based on English Common law which is cited.

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

Those senators help created the 13th and 14th amendments, as I understand it, so they were asked to give what they meant.

[Uncle Ted]

Here is Drumpf on birthright citizenship...

Oh wait... NVM. That is just some dumbass.