Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones. As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with. You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.
You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.
We now have a very secure border without any new laws. Something you believed impossible without new ones.
And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.
So much for your judgment capabilities.
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
I think we should commission a new statue. One of you flipping the double bird to all incoming boats.
I would be a big, beautiful statue. One of the best statues.
And then there is the Sanctuary City. The concept flies directly in the face of US law. No different than how the Confederate States of America acted against the Union.
You cannot support Sanctuary Cities and States and also be for due process and the rule of law at the same time.
Dear God, have someone review your posts before you send them. There is absolutely no parallel between Sanctuary Cities and the Confederate States. It isn't even close to apples and oranges... it's like zebras to mushrooms.
Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.
The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ
in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .
I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.
How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?
There are only two classes of people not "subject to the laws of the United States" within our borders: diplomats and people acting in official capacity of a foreign country. Read on. You'll find this conclusion:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The child's parents weren't diplomats or operating in official capacity of another country, so they don't fall under the very narrow exceptions to the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship.
If you have the patience read the debate over the amendment in Congress:
The draft Fourteenth Amendment was introduced in the House of
Representatives in May 1866, and adopted by the House without any
citizenship language.82 The Journals of the Joint Committee of Fifteen thus
shed no light on its drafting; neither do the initial debates on the draft
amendment in the House, because the draft did not address citizenship
when adopted by the House. The only debate that can shed light on its
intent is that which took place on the Senate floor during the process of
adoption and amendment of the citizenship language.
When it came to the floor of the Senate on May 23, Senator Benjamin
Wade proposed an amendment that would remove the word âcitizenâ from
what became the âprivileges or immunitiesâ clause and substitute language
barring states from abridging âthe privileges or immunities of persons born
in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereWade explained,
the word âcitizenâ. . . is a term about which there has been a good deal of uncertainty in our Government.The courts have stumbled on the subject, and even here, at this session, that question has been up and it is still regarded by some as doubtful.I regard it as settled by the civil rightsbill,and,indeed,inmyjudgment,it was settled before. I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States; but by the decisions of the courts there has been a doubt thrown over that subject; and if the Government should fall into the hands of those who are opposed to the views that some of us maintain, those who have been accustomed to take a different view of it, they may construe the provision in such a way as we do not think it liable to construction at the time, unless we fortify and make it very strong and clear.
This is an unmistakable reference to the restrictive reading of citizenship
given by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, and Wadeâs change seemed to
be designed to forestall a racial reading of citizenship by later judicial
construction of the Civil Rights Act. Wadeâs definition of citizenship, in
his words, was that âevery person, of whatever race or color, who was born
within the United States was a citizen of the United States.
An instructive colloquy ensued between Wade and Senator William Pitt
Fessenden of Maine, chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. As
reported by Wade, âhe Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an
undertone, that persons may be born in the United States and yet not be
citizens of the United States. Most assuredly they would be citizens of the
United States unless they went to another country and expatriated
themselves . . .
Fessenden then suggested the very question that concerns us today:
âSuppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this
country. Wade answered,
The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside "near" the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington. I agree to that, but my answer to the suggestion is that that is a simple matter, for it could hardly be applicable to more than two or three or four persons; and it would be best not to alter the law for that case.
Debate then turned to the meaning of other provisions of the draft
amendment, particularly the language regarding apportionment of
representation to states that restricted the franchise by race. After
adjournment that day, Senate Republicans met in a private caucus to
consider the issues that Wadeâs amendment had brought up.
When the measure returned to the floor on May 30, Senator Jacob
Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee and the Senate
sponsor of the draft amendment, proposed new language: 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.â 91 The
debate on this new language forms the core of the evidence for a restrictive
reading of the Citizenship Clause; but read in full, the debate suggests
precisely the opposite reading.
Howard explained the meaning of the new language as
simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that
every person born within the limits of the United States, 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 the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of persons.
As for law and order...I believe in something far more important: the rule of law. As written, debated in legislatures, and duly passed. Not the law as imagined in the fever swamp of a bigot's skull, where whatever is convenient for his agenda at the moment must carry the day, but the actual law. The law that must be knowable and applied to all equally.
The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong.
It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies.
That is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is that immigration must be a planned and orderly process in order to maintain economic stability.
Instead of a planned and orderly process, we had an invasion of at least 12 million people. With no resources available to properly deal with the invaders.
Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones. As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with. You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.
You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.
We now have a very secure border without any new laws. Something you believed impossible without new ones.
And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.
So much for your judgment capabilities.
Guess you didn't like facts and logic about the 14th Amendment....
The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong. It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies.
This entire myth of the "bad ones who just come here to steal our benefits/way of life/live off of our backs, etc." is pure bullshit contrived for political reasons. Even if there are "bad ones" or immigrants just here to reap state benefits, of which there are no doubt a few, their kids are nevertheless a major resource, that with the right education will generate far more in wealth for the nation than any cost involved to look after their parents.
Even if they are the 'bad ones' just sucking up support resources, they turn around and spend those resources on groceries, movies, clothes, haircuts, records cds music downloads, coffees, tires, and all the other things that keep a local economy humming along.
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
BTW.. California, that cesspool of immigration, recently overtook Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world.
The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong. It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies.
This entire myth of the "bad ones who just come here to steal our benefits/way of life/live off of our backs, etc." is pure bullshit contrived for political reasons. Even if there are "bad ones" or immigrants just here to reap state benefits, of which there are no doubt a few, their kids are nevertheless a major resource, that with the right education will generate far more in wealth for the nation than any cost involved to look after their parents.
Dunno what it is like in the States but here in Germany, the ones most vocal about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are the ones at the losing end who just want someone else lower in the pecking order that they can stamp on so as not to feel like the losers they are or the ones with the least contact with immigrants who buy into political scaremongering because they are afraid of change or the future or whatever and are happy to hitch their irrational fears on something more tangible, yet totally unwarranted.
BTW.. California, that cesspool of immigration, recently overtook Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world.
And then there is the Sanctuary City. The concept flies directly in the face of US law. No different than how the Confederate States of America acted against the Union.
You cannot support Sanctuary Cities and States and also be for due process and the rule of law at the same time.
Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.
The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ
in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .
I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.
How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?
No, they don't have to be here legally. That's kind of the point. You are subject to our laws, including birthright citizenship, even if you are here 'illegally'. Illegally here, really only applies to the civil 'crime' of not having the correct paperwork. Many of the people you want to screw over are in the process of doing that paperwork (which you have joyfully made onerous and complicated).
You almost have a point with 'domiciled'. But even that falls short for many who are fleeing violence or oppression (side note: How bad must it be in their homeland, when your racist oppression and violence looks like a great option for them). Even for those who have just entered illegally for work or other opportunities, they are looking to domicile here even if they haven't yet. There are some, I'm sure who intend to domicile back in their home country, but if you would support a sane/rational/non-bigoted immigration policy that had work visas for these people, this problem would go away too.
No one is 'in favor' of illegal immigration. Most of us realize that if we simply had a proper policy the problem would go away. But if the problem goes away, what will your media mind use to whip you into a fervor over? And if you are all about law and order and due process, you would have a fucking cow over the treatment of these people. Because they ARE entitled to due process, and are subject to ALL of our laws. But since they are mostly brown, you toss your simplified values out the window in favor of cruelty, harshness and inhumanity.
Edit to add: you are using as your starting point, the loosing side of an argument that was settled 127 years ago and has been consistently accepted ever since.
Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones. As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with. You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.
You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.
We now have a very secure border without any new laws. Something you believed impossible without new ones.
And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, The part that you deliberately did not highlight, is where the rubber meets the road. While that has been interpreted regarding those here legally seeking citizenship it has not been decided on regarding those here illegally. In the past I have brought up this issue only to be summarily rejected as it being irrelevant, to be kind describing the reactions. Here is were the matter was settled for those whose parents were here legally. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
No, it settles the issue for all persons, just like it says in the 14th amendment. Did you even read the opinion you cited?
The legal status of the parents has nothing to do with it.
Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.
The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .
I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.
How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?
