Walker (and others) join Trump, calling for ending birthright citizenship

[Slander and/or Libel]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

[jimrtex]

Why did SCOTUS spend so much time articulating three exceptions to birthright citizenship that had nothing to do with the facts of Wong Kim Ark?

In their decision they spent considerable time emphasizing that statements made in an opinion that were not directly related to the facts of case shouldn't be considered as setting a precedent.

You're saying that someone who sneaks across the border from Windsor to Detroit to deliver because they would have to wait another 9 months under Ocanadacare, is like the case of someone who has lived and worked for decades in California, since the parents are not diplomats, members of an Indian tribe, or part of an invading army.

[ag]

Most people, who come to the US for the purpose of having US-citizen kids, do so with a visa and, frequently, flying in first class.  Nothing illegal about that.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why did SCOTUS spend so much time articulating three exceptions to birthright citizenship that had nothing to do with the facts of Wong Kim Ark?

In their decision they spent considerable time emphasizing that statements made in an opinion that were not directly related to the facts of case shouldn't be considered as setting a precedent.

You're saying that someone who sneaks across the border from Windsor to Detroit to deliver because they would have to wait another 9 months under Ocanadacare, is like the case of someone who has lived and worked for decades in California, since the parents are not diplomats, members of an Indian tribe, or part of an invading army.

Are you claiming that people sneak across the Canadian border to deliver a child because the Canadian health care system would make them wait an extra nine months to deliver over what the US health care system would? That makes less than no sense.

[jimrtex]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

Is there a distinction to be made between: (1) someone who crosses the border while in labor; (2) someone who crosses the border legally a month before their due date; (3) someone who is 3-months pregnant who flies to "visit their cousin" and later delivers in the USA; (4) someone who is pregnant, but unaware of that fact who visits their cousin and later delivers in the USA; (5) someone who visits their cousin, and engages in certain activities that cause her to become pregnant and delivers in the USA; (6) someone who enters the country illegally, "to work", and during the course of their illegal presence in the USA becomes pregnant and delivers in the USA?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

Is there a distinction to be made between: (1) someone who crosses the border while in labor; (2) someone who crosses the border legally a month before their due date; (3) someone who is 3-months pregnant who flies to "visit their cousin" and later delivers in the USA; (4) someone who is pregnant, but unaware of that fact who visits their cousin and later delivers in the USA; (5) someone who visits their cousin, and engages in certain activities that cause her to become pregnant and delivers in the USA; (6) someone who enters the country illegally, "to work", and during the course of their illegal presence in the USA becomes pregnant and delivers in the USA?

I don't know whether you meant to ask me that question. I'm not talking about hypotheticals. It was asserted that this was something happening on a huge scale, and I haven't seen evidence presented to convince me that's the case.

[ag]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

Is there a distinction to be made between: (1) someone who crosses the border while in labor; (2) someone who crosses the border legally a month before their due date; (3) someone who is 3-months pregnant who flies to "visit their cousin" and later delivers in the USA; (4) someone who is pregnant, but unaware of that fact who visits their cousin and later delivers in the USA; (5) someone who visits their cousin, and engages in certain activities that cause her to become pregnant and delivers in the USA; (6) someone who enters the country illegally, "to work", and during the course of their illegal presence in the USA becomes pregnant and delivers in the USA?

According to the US law, none. Should there be? I can see no obvious reason why, or whom should such distinction favor. Would you mind clarifying your - highly non-obvious - point? Are you saying that foreigners should not be allowed to have sex in the US? Perhaps, if you try to "think" you may become a little bit clearer.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

The Pew Research Center stated that in 2008, there were 340,000 children born to illegal immigrants in the US.  You tell me if this is a "huge" scale or not.  I suppose "huge" is in the eye of the beholder.

[SteveRogers]

You're saying that someone who sneaks across the border from Windsor to Detroit to deliver because they would have to wait another 9 months under Ocanadacare, is like the case of someone who has lived and worked for decades in California, since the parents are not diplomats, members of an Indian tribe, or part of an invading army.

Yes, the outcome for the baby is the same. (Also, gestation takes twice as long in Canada )

Is there a distinction to be made between: (1) someone who crosses the border while in labor; (2) someone who crosses the border legally a month before their due date; (3) someone who is 3-months pregnant who flies to "visit their cousin" and later delivers in the USA; (4) someone who is pregnant, but unaware of that fact who visits their cousin and later delivers in the USA; (5) someone who visits their cousin, and engages in certain activities that cause her to become pregnant and delivers in the USA; (6) someone who enters the country illegally, "to work", and during the course of their illegal presence in the USA becomes pregnant and delivers in the USA?

No, there is not a distinction between the babies that would be born as a result of those hypotheticals. We don't hold children responsible for the sins of their parents, so the subjective intent inside the minds of a newborn baby's parents, criminal or otherwise, should not affect that baby's legal status at birth.

[Famous Mortimer]

We're not holding babies accountable for their parent's sins. We're not punishing babies. Not getting US citizenship isn't a punishment. They will be citizens of Mexico or wherever their parents came from. Just like Americans would be Americans if they were born in Mexico to American parents.

[jimrtex]

Why did SCOTUS spend so much time articulating three exceptions to birthright citizenship that had nothing to do with the facts of Wong Kim Ark?

In their decision they spent considerable time emphasizing that statements made in an opinion that were not directly related to the facts of case shouldn't be considered as setting a precedent.

You're saying that someone who sneaks across the border from Windsor to Detroit to deliver because they would have to wait another 9 months under Ocanadacare, is like the case of someone who has lived and worked for decades in California, since the parents are not diplomats, members of an Indian tribe, or part of an invading army.

Are you claiming that people sneak across the Canadian border to deliver a child because the Canadian health care system would make them wait an extra nine months to deliver over what the US health care system would? That makes less than no sense.

Patient: I would like to schedule delivery, eh.
Doctor: When would you like, eh.
Patient: November, eh.
Doctor: I'm booked up until April, eh.
Patient: What can I do, eh.

It would make no sense to wait in Canada.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Cute vignette. Any proof that it's anything close to true?

[jimrtex]

Are we all in agreement, though, that this practice is something happening "on a huge scale"? I haven't really seen any evidence that that is true.

Is there a distinction to be made between: (1) someone who crosses the border while in labor; (2) someone who crosses the border legally a month before their due date; (3) someone who is 3-months pregnant who flies to "visit their cousin" and later delivers in the USA; (4) someone who is pregnant, but unaware of that fact who visits their cousin and later delivers in the USA; (5) someone who visits their cousin, and engages in certain activities that cause her to become pregnant and delivers in the USA; (6) someone who enters the country illegally, "to work", and during the course of their illegal presence in the USA becomes pregnant and delivers in the USA?

I don't know whether you meant to ask me that question. I'm not talking about hypotheticals. It was asserted that this was something happening on a huge scale, and I haven't seen evidence presented to convince me that's the case.

You asked about "this practice". I was clarifying what you meant about this practice.

[jimrtex]

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

Texas is being sued because it won't issue birth certificates for children whose parents can not prove their identity with a document such as a US-issued visa.

[ag]

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

Texas is being sued because it won't issue birth certificates for children whose parents can not prove their identity with a document such as a US-issued visa.

The children whose mothers came to the US for the explicit purpose of giving birth to US citizen children are not involved. They do have visas - and tonnes of money for lawyers if anything goes wrong.

Of course, as I understand, you simply believe that being illegally in the US implies sex is also illegal. BTW, should sexual activity in the US be licenced?

[jimrtex]

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

Texas is being sued because it won't issue birth certificates for children whose parents can not prove their identity with a document such as a US-issued visa.

The children whose mothers came to the US for the explicit purpose of giving birth to US citizen children are not involved. They do have visas - and tonnes of money for lawyers if anything goes wrong.

Of course, as I understand, <drivel snipped>?

You do not understand.

Even if the birth tourists are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens/

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because you hold the sole power to interpret the constitution and everybody else for the last 150 years has been wrong?

[jimrtex]

Because you hold the sole power to interpret the constitution and everybody else for the last 150 years has been wrong?

Congress has the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. That it has not acted, likely indicates incompetence. Just because someone is orange does not make them superior.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because you hold the sole power to interpret the constitution and everybody else for the last 150 years has been wrong?

Congress has the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. That it has not acted, likely indicates incompetence. Just because someone is orange does not make them superior.

They haven't acted to enforce your tortured reading of the 14th Amendment. That doesn't indicate incompetence. That indicates that your opinion is on the fringe.

[ag]

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

Texas is being sued because it won't issue birth certificates for children whose parents can not prove their identity with a document such as a US-issued visa.

The children whose mothers came to the US for the explicit purpose of giving birth to US citizen children are not involved. They do have visas - and tonnes of money for lawyers if anything goes wrong.

Of course, as I understand, <drivel snipped>?

You do not understand.

Even if the birth tourists are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens/

"Birth tourists", almost without exception, are rich people with valid visas. It would be less correct to call the people you hate "birth tourists" than to call you a "cannibal".

[jimrtex]

Because you hold the sole power to interpret the constitution and everybody else for the last 150 years has been wrong?

Do you know how to use the quote option?

[jimrtex]

The children whose mothers came to the US for the explicit purpose of giving birth to US citizen children are not involved. They do have visas - and tonnes of money for lawyers if anything goes wrong.

Even if the birth tourists are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens.

"Birth tourists", almost without exception, are rich people with valid visas.

Even if the "birth tourists" are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens.

Would you prefer some other appellation?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because you hold the sole power to interpret the constitution and everybody else for the last 150 years has been wrong?

Do you know how to use the quote option?

Yes. But was it somehow unclear that I was addressing you?

[ag]

The children whose mothers came to the US for the explicit purpose of giving birth to US citizen children are not involved. They do have visas - and tonnes of money for lawyers if anything goes wrong.

Even if the birth tourists are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens.

"Birth tourists", almost without exception, are rich people with valid visas.

Even if the "birth tourists" are issued birth certificates, their offspring are not US citizens.

Would you prefer some other appellation?

Well, to be a US citizen you have to be a human being, so, at least, that clarifies your own status. Which apellation do you prefer, BTW?