Los Angeles Clashes between ICE and demonstrators, Trump sends in the National Guard.

[stanfordgrad]

Sorry to jump in but would such an amendment to the law require a Constitutional amendment or merely a regular law passed by Congress? It seems to be a sneaky way to amend the protections of the Constitution without really amending it.

Such a law woud have major implications: it could open the door to deportations without due process for illegal aliens. SCOTUS would be very very hesitant to create such a loophole.

Isn't crossing the border and having a baby to become a US citizen a serious loophole in the first place ?

 

[Developereo]

Isn't crossing the border and having a baby to become a US citizen a serious loophole in the first place ?

The US Constitution gives rights to everybody who is on American soil unless they are expressly excluded. It prefers to err on the side of protection rather than exclusion so illegals are covered unless expressly excluded.

 

[j_hungary]

I never said diplomatic immunity came from the 14th. But if the diplomat is immune from certain US laws, they are also excluded from certain US rights, liberties, and privileges, one of the exclusion is that their children, if borne on US soil, cannot be AUTOMATIC citizen.

Green Card for a Person Born in the United States to a Foreign Diplomat | USCIS

A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This person...

www.uscis.gov

A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This person may, however, be considered a permanent resident at birth and able to receive a Green Card through creation of record.​

The exclusion of certain US rights, liberties, and privileges carried over to the child. The diplomat cannot buy a gun and neither can his children. Citizenship is no different.

That did not excluse anyone's right, that mean they either are or are not under US jurisdiction, again, the issue here is 14A does not exclusively say anyone born to a diplomat is excluded from being a US citizens, because they still allow them to if they had one parent who is not, which mean that did not say anything about who were excluded from 14A, rather who is not within the Jurisdiction of the United States.

If 14A does say that, then regardless of whether or not one of the parent is a diplomat, their children won't get Citizenship.

There is no way, from 1868 to today, can we list out exclusions from the 14th, hence the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction'. We have two exclusions without being constitutionally and literally explicit:

1- Diplomats
2- Invading/occupying army

If we have to be explicit, the US Constitution would end up voluminous and cumbersome. The problem now, for the Left, is whether SCOTUS will allow illegal aliens to fall under the same exclusion as diplomats and foreign army without requiring a constitutional convention.

If I entered the US legally, it means immediately I am 'subject to the jurisdiction' of US laws, and if I have a child on US soil, my child would automatically be US citizen.

An illegal alien, by virtue of breaking the first US law encountered -- immigration -- he essentially refused to be such 'subject'. Therefore, his children should be granted automatic citizenship.

No need to change the constitution.

Only that none of what you said is listed in the constitution, the only thing that was said in the constitution is that you are going to be a citizens if you were born in the US and under US jurisdiction.

And if you want all those you said to be part of the law, you either need to pass a law to specifically say that, or alter the constitution.

In fact, I can go further and say, nowhere within our constitution have outlaw people who enter the country illegally. Thus, you can literally argue there were no crime committed when you enter the country illegally, if so, how are you going to define the consequence?

On the other hand, this is NOT how subject is interpreted, you enter a country, you are willingly submit to its jurisdiction, that happened automatically, that the same if you enter someone's home, whether or not you enter legally (as in they ask you to) or illegally (you break in) you are subject to their jurisdiction, I can't say "Oh, since I break in to your home, I refused to allow to be your subject and thus I can do whatever I wanted), If they ask you to leave, and you don't, then whether or not you enter that person's home legally or illegally, you are subject to his command, and if you don't they call the cops, the cops are NOT going to take your side.

That's what jurisdiction is, it does not transfer or deny whether one wants to.

I think you better consult your attorney wife for that error.

You want to talk to her instead?

Absolutely we enforce morality -- via LAWS.

Morality is about a set of belief, a mindset, and conviction. Law is about explicit behaviors.

If we say someone is a 'moral' person, we are saying that at the least, that person is obeying the laws. Maybe not even a driving violation. His sense of morality restrained his behaviors without the need for external compulsion. For all we know, he maybe a Satan-ist in the privacy of his home and have not been caught about animal sacrifices.

Laws are EXPRESSIONS of morality. Law enforcement is about compelling the people to ACT according to a set of morality. If we have a nude beach, it means we can be nude only when we are on the confines of that location. Nowhere else. That is affecting BEHAVIORS.

No, we don't enforce morality, otherwise there will not be p0rn site and you are not allow to drink or gamble or commit any sin, we don't live in religious law, which do enforce morality via law, we don't we preserve the society as a whole to follow the law, as I explained, law sometime is illogical or immoral, but we will have to abide by it regardless

No one in the United States enforce morality, maybe in Saudi Arabia or Iraq they do, we don't do them in the US. Which loast I check, we, including you, are opposing that idea.

 

[j_hungary]

US law applies to anyone on US soil - invaders, diplomats, illegal aliens. That does not mean they are under our jurisdiction.

There are 1 million h1b Indian software engineers. If Trump decided to draft all of them how many them will comply with the Trump's draft order ? I am sure 95% will claim to be Indian citizens and whimp away

They are under our jurisdiction means we can hold them responsible, that is 1 of the 3 parts of any law enforcement procedure.

Every one from 18-27 hs to registered for Selective Service in the US, it does not matter if you are a Citizen or just visiting, this is when and if the US government allowed to draft, that give them a base to draft from, so in your case, no, if those H1B indian stays in America, they can't tell the draft office they are Indian and get exempted.

And the reverse is also true, because if you do not have jurisdiction on someone, be it legal or illegal alien, then you do not have the right to their body, which is the basis of Hebeas Corpus, which mean US law WILL NOT be able to apply on them, which mean States law would probably not applies, because you simply do not have jurisdiction of said person. You can't try people you do not have jurisdiction over; that's how most of the US servicemen and their spouses got away with prosecution in a host country because they do not have jurisdiction over them.

Death of Harry Dunn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[j_hungary]

The US Constitution gives rights to everybody who is on American soil unless they are expressly excluded. It prefers to err on the side of protection rather than exclusion so illegals are covered unless expressly excluded.

That's is exactly why loopholes are legal, because it did not specify you can't do it, which means it existed on a grey area, and to charge someone with something, you need to have an express charge laid against it, it is the same be it's law or constitution.

 

[j_hungary]

Thank you. Likewise, you would be welcome in my home as well. where it counts we see eye to eye.

It’s true as voters and citizens we haven’t held the politicians to account. Perhaps letting Trump play out we create the forest fire that will clear away the dead wood of both parities at let new voices, middle class voices come up.

That's because as voter and citizen, we don't care about that anymore, we stopped caring about what happening to our country and to us since late 2000s, we live in the fast lane and we buy whatever shit our politician told us, and that's the issue to begin with.

Not remember if that is from George Carlin, but someone once said those politician spew out beautiful lies so you buy their shit and fatten you up to slaughter. And then when you realise what you've been up to, what ya gonna do about it? You take your money and walk away and keep voting on the same person who abuse you because they make you "happy"

Or as Ted Danson said in Becker, we voted in a generation of idiotic politicians who gather a bunch of idiots voter, and than create another generation of idiotic politician and it turn out another generation of idiotic voter.

The people are getting dumber and they don't care as long as they have their iphone and snap chat or Instagram. Geez, you don't know how much we have become China, there is a phase in Chinese "馬照跑 股照炒 舞照跳" which literally translate to Horse keep Racing, Stock keep Investing and Dancer keep Dancing. That is a "Slogan" Deng pitched to Thratcher to delinate people from Politics, because as long as you were promised to keep the horse racing and keep the dancer dancing, nothing is going to change and you don't need to care about politics, which what people don't know is, yes, they literally just changes EVERYTHING other than these superficial things. And when you already knee deep in that, what's you gonna do? Well, you keep bet on Horse and invest in the market and pretend nothing is happening.

This is the same as voter in the US now, they don't care, as long as they can keep Facebooking or keep doing what they did, They just don't care.

 

[stanfordgrad]

They are under our jurisdiction means we can hold them responsible, that is 1 of the 3 parts of any law enforcement procedure.

Every one from 18-27 hs to registered for Selective Service in the US, it does not matter if you are a Citizen or just visiting, this is when and if the US government allowed to draft, that give them a base to draft from, so in your case, no, if those H1B indian stays in America, they can't tell the draft office they are Indian and get exempted.

The only way to find out is have Trump draft them.

Consular Notification and Access

travel.state.gov

If h1b is arrested they have the option of notifying the Indian diplomatic mission. That implies USA does not have complete jurisdiction

And the reverse is also true, because if you do not have jurisdiction on someone, be it legal or illegal alien, then you do not have the right to their body, which is the basis of Hebeas Corpus, which mean US law WILL NOT be able to apply on them, which mean States law would probably not applies, because you simply do not have jurisdiction of said person. You can't try people you do not have jurisdiction over; that's how most of the US servicemen and their spouses got away with prosecution in a host country because they do not have jurisdiction over them.

Death of Harry Dunn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USA has explicit treaties and agreements with foreign states on dealing with the crimes of US servicemen on their soil

 

[stanfordgrad]

The US Constitution gives rights to everybody who is on American soil unless they are expressly excluded. It prefers to err on the side of protection rather than exclusion so illegals are covered unless expressly excluded.

There is a key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"

If birthright citizenship is so cut and clear how come most of the old world does not have it ?

 

[j_hungary]

The only way to find out is have Trump draft them.

Consular Notification and Access

travel.state.gov

If h1b is arrested they have the option of notifying the Indian diplomatic mission. That implies USA does not have complete jurisdiction



USA has explicit treaties and agreements with foreign states on dealing with the crimes of US servicemen on their soil

Jurisdiction is when you are within one's land.

Those Indian can notify Indian Consulate but what do you supposed Indian Consulate could do? Kidnap them and bring them back to India? There are already MANY cases when foreigner committed a crime. even capital crime in the United States and the consulate can do nothing because they don't have the jurisdiction over their own citizen if they were in the US. most consulate service only provide legal aid or comfort for their citizen (like sending their parent over or letting their parent know they are okay) but they can't do anything other than that, just because they are Indian, that does not mean they can legally escape US jurisdiction when they are in the US...

Treaty and Diplomacy can alter jurisdiction, but that's not universally applies, and can ONLY APPLIES WHEN SUCH TREATY EXISTED.

 

[Developereo]

There is a key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"

If birthright citizenship is so cut and clear how come most of the old world does not have it ?

I don't understand your question.
What do any country's laws have to do with what other countries do?

Italy just tightened up its citizenship laws based on ancestry.

 

[RescueRanger]

I don't understand your question.
What do any country's laws have to do with what other countries do?

Italy just tightened up its citizenship laws based on ancestry.

For a Stanford garden he's not very bright, is he?

 

[j_hungary]

T

There is a key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"

If birthright citizenship is so cut and clear how come most of the old world does not have it ?

Actually, most of the old world DOES have it and then progress to changing their law once they were in modern time.

Australia did away their birthright citizenship in 1986

Why did Australia abolish birthright citizenship?

Citizenship in Australia is not a constitutional right, leaving Australian citizenship law vulnerable to political whims.

rightnow.org.au

The UK did away their Birthright Citizenship in 1981

British Nationality Act 1981 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Zealand did away with theirs in 2006

NZ Citizenship - By Birth, by Descent, or by Grant – what’s the difference?

NZ Citizenship - By Birth, by Descent, or by Grant – what’s the difference?

www.qcl.co.nz

Ireland effectively ditched their Birthright Citizenship in 2005

Irish Citizenship: A Guide to Become an Irish Citizen

There are different ways to apply for Irish citizenship. Click here to find out if youare eligible, how to apply, and how much it costs.

www.globalcitizensolutions.com

France did away with the Birthright Citizenship in 1993

Loi du 22 juillet 1993 réformant le droit de la nationalité — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

Most of the old world DID have it as it was the basis of Common Law. Countries migrated to Jus Sanguinis because it is a more equal approach to nationality than the old world, again, I am as oppose to Birthright citizenship than the next person, but you need to change the law like all the countries I mentioned above. Not just say "hey that's not applies anymore"

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

The US Constitution gives rights to everybody who is on American soil unless they are expressly excluded. It prefers to err on the side of protection rather than exclusion so illegals are covered unless expressly excluded.

It appears we got a good view earlier today on what the SCOTUS thinks.

 

[gambit]

You want to talk to her instead?

Sure. But I think at this point, it is needless considering SCOTUS latest ruling.

- Trump Admin said the children of illegal aliens cannot be automatic US citizens
- A district judge put a nation wide injunction on that EO
- Trump Admin appealed all the way to SCOTUS
- SCOTUS said nation wide injunction is invalid

Sure, SCOTUS said nothing about the legal status children of illegal aliens.

But SCOTUS, in my opinion, put a burden on the Democratic Party that even though they probably knew could happen also realized would be extraordinarily difficult to proceed.

SCOTUS essentially ordered lower district courts to stop issuing nation wide injunctions, including the one that stymied Clump. This put the challenge to Frump's EO back on a plaintiff to plaintiff basis, meaning each illegal alien can only represent SELF as in arguing why his children, borne on US soil, must be US citizen. He can win, as in US v Wong Kim Ark, but that would be only for himself and not for other illegal aliens who would be on their own.

Class action suit? These people are already 'illegal' status. They would be fearful that if they poke their heads, meaning getting an attorney, they could be at risk from ICE deportation even before their cases go thru the legal system. How many would put up their names? If one illegal alien failed his petition, others would...???

Next...This would effectively put an end to 'US birth tourism' where foreign, Chinese famously, expectant mothers would travel to the US, give birth where the child would have automatic US citizenship, and return home.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

Next...This would effectively put an end to 'US birth tourism' where foreign, Chinese famously, expectant mothers would travel to the US, give birth where the child would have automatic US citizenship, and return home.

Or hopefully any "anchor" baby. Been many a documented case where an illegal female would cross the border as her water broke and have her baby on this side.

I've friends who are still AD BP. They've seen this many a time.