Hong Wu wrote:My commentary: the key phrasing in the 14th amendment may be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Until the 1960s, illegal aliens were perhaps not considered to be fully/naturally subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. To try and explain that briefly, think of concepts like diplomatic immunity; a foreign citizen is arguably not fully subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country in the same way that a native is.
That phrasing basically means you have a duty of allegiance to the United States. Illegal aliens and foreign diplomats do not.
One Degree wrote:Well, this could just be a Trump deflection also. I think the timing is a mistake, but I am sure he has been advised differently. This may be rally the voters rhetoric, but imo a miscalculation.
I do support the idea due to our current situation. There are other possible solutions though. Such as deport the parents and they will take the children with them. If not, the children are better off with us.
That's not saying much though. The illegal alien who killed Tibbets is better off in a US prison than in a Mexican one, too.
Hong Wu wrote:Like what? I know that personally, my mind is blown... I had assumed the US would need a constitutional amendment but clearly I hadn't read into it very much. The use of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was always curious to me but I never paid it much thought.
SCOTUS has never ruled on illegal aliens, but previous administrations extended welfare benefits to people born here whether they were entitled to citizenship or not.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It will be Christianity that brings down the red menace of the East. Mark my words.
......but I digress.
True, and that's why we need them over there.
Suntzu wrote:The 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship to children of foreign nationals either not in the country legally or foreign nationals such as diplomats. This very point was brought up during the debate in congress before passage.
It wasn't intended to confer a right to abortion either. Basically, it was intended to grant citizenship to blacks, because the 13th Amendment didn't do that expressly, and also to discharge the debts of the confederacy and 5th Amendment liabilities to former slave owners.
Hong Wu wrote:Although it's not clear what they mean by "the political class", it looks like this is a winning issue for Trump and the GOP, of the variety where the left cannot let it go even though it's a loser for them.
It's a winning issue for GOP voters. GOP officials is another matter. That's why it's so sweet to see Paul Ryan taking parting shots as he heads for the exits. He's 100% globalist. Buh bye Paul!
Torus34 wrote:We now seem to have the President proposing to legislate from the Oval Office. I've yet to hear how conservatives feel about it.
It will get litigated. It's an easy way to cut welfare spending. Now that the court has a solid conservative majority, they may get something like that upheld by the Court.
Hong Wu wrote:So he can't say that he's going to do it by executive order and then not do so without angering his base, which he wouldn't deliberately do.
By saying this, Trump is forcing leftists and RINOs in to the open. They have to react, and by reacting they expose who they really support, and it isn't Americans.
@Suntzu, you are a gentleman and scholar. Well done! I enjoyed reading the Slaughterhouse cases as much as the Insular decisions.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden