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

[jimrtex]

Was this the understanding at the time the Amendment was ratified?  Has it, in fact, been interpreted that way?  Court cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The 'Wong Kim Ark' decision is based on the SCOTUS' interpretation of common law:

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."

If someone is born in a hospital in El Paso, does that make the parents, "residents"?

Are illegal aliens capable of establishing residence?  If they owe a temporary allegiance to the sovereign, are they not violating that allegiance by deliberately remaining in the country.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally domiciled in California and conducting a lawful business at the time of his birth.

[jimrtex]

But illegal immigrants are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so loud TV host is obviously right and Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on for the reasons that ag states.

Plus, even if Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment were plausible, federal law indepently establishes  that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, so yes Trump's plan would in fact still entail revoking existing citizenship. (Yes, the statute mirrors the language of the constitutional provision, but when every federal agency has always understood that as granting you citizenship, guess what, you're a citizen and that can't be taken away without due process).

I'm not going to search the entire US Code to prove that there is no such provision.  Cite the code section.

8 U.S.C. § 1401- Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;"

Why is subsection (b) necessary?

[Frodo]

It's only a matter of time before Trump proposes the 21st century version of the 1924 Immigration Act -and with every other GOP candidate falling in line when it proves wildly popular in the polls.... 

[Mehmentum]

Was this the understanding at the time the Amendment was ratified?  Has it, in fact, been interpreted that way?  Court cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The 'Wong Kim Ark' decision is based on the SCOTUS' interpretation of common law:

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."

If someone is born in a hospital in El Paso, does that make the parents, "residents"?

Are illegal aliens capable of establishing residence?  If they owe a temporary allegiance to the sovereign, are they not violating that allegiance by deliberately remaining in the country.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally domiciled in California and conducting a lawful business at the time of his birth.

Yes, according to US v. Kim Wong Aark, there are only 4 exceptions to birthright citizenship.

a). Native American reservations that don't pay taxes to the government.
b). Foreign diplomats and rulers.
c). Those born on foreign public ships
d). Hostile occupying armies.

They very clearly state that there are no additional exceptions.

[SteveRogers]

But illegal immigrants are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so loud TV host is obviously right and Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on for the reasons that ag states.

Plus, even if Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment were plausible, federal law indepently establishes  that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, so yes Trump's plan would in fact still entail revoking existing citizenship. (Yes, the statute mirrors the language of the constitutional provision, but when every federal agency has always understood that as granting you citizenship, guess what, you're a citizen and that can't be taken away without due process).

I'm not going to search the entire US Code to prove that there is no such provision.  Cite the code section.

8 U.S.C. § 1401- Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;"

Why is subsection (b) necessary?

Because Native American tribes have a unique and peculiar relationship with the United States government, and as the second clause of (b) makes clear, special clarifications are needed for children who at birth simultaneously become citizens of both the United States and an Indian reservation that is itself a sovereign nation.

[ag]

It's only a matter of time before Trump proposes the 21st century version of the 1924 Immigration Act -and with every other GOP candidate falling in line when it proves wildly popular in the polls....  

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would have a bit of a difficulty doing that. Because, unlike the others, they would, actually, understand what the Telemundo nightly news, etc., would have to say about it. A sustained campaign of that nature in the Anglo media for a year - and blacks would become the relatively less overwhelmingly democratic constituency, when compared to Hispanics. The anglos, like Walker or Cruz would not be aware till it, actually, hits them. But Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio actually speak Spanish.

[jimrtex]

8 U.S.C. § 1401- Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;"

Why is subsection (b) necessary?

Because Native American tribes have a unique and peculiar relationship with the United States government, and as the second clause of (b) makes clear, special clarifications are needed for children who at birth simultaneously become citizens of both the United States and an Indian reservation that is itself a sovereign nation.

Why couldn't Congress add a new section (b) and renumber the remaining sections:

"(b) a person born in the United States to two permanent resident aliens who have resided in the United States for five years."

Does common law make an exception for Indians?  Why did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 use different language than the 14th Amendment, if the intent of the 14th Amendment was to lock in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

[SteveRogers]

8 U.S.C. § 1401- Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;"

Why is subsection (b) necessary?

Because Native American tribes have a unique and peculiar relationship with the United States government, and as the second clause of (b) makes clear, special clarifications are needed for children who at birth simultaneously become citizens of both the United States and an Indian reservation that is itself a sovereign nation.

Why couldn't Congress add a new section (b) and renumber the remaining sections:

"(b) a person born in the United States to two permanent resident aliens who have resided in the United States for five years."

Because the Constitution and and subsection (a) already say that you don't need to have resided here for five years. You just need to be in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

Does common law make an exception for Indians?

I honestly have no idea. Indian tribes are dependent sovereigns within the United States. It's a weird situation, and my guess was that it probably wasn't covered very well by common law.

Why did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 use different language than the 14th Amendment, if the intent of the 14th Amendment was to lock in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

I don't know enough about the specifics there, but probably because although similar in goals, one was a law while the other is a constitutional amendment designed to stand the test of time, and they both go through different processes before enactment, and constitutional amendments require a 2/3 majority in congress. Not sure what that has to do with this topic.

[Gass3268]

Remember when the RNC came out with a report that they needed better Hispanic outreach? Good times...

[ag]

Remember when the RNC came out with a report that they needed better Hispanic outreach? Good times...

I really want to see some polling

[Likely Voter]

In another profile in courage, Walker is now waffling on birthright citizenship, with one of his trademark responses....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

[Jacobtm]

Remember when the RNC came out with a report that they needed better Hispanic outreach? Good times...

I really want to see some polling

You can google "Trump Leads Hispanic Voters", if you didn't already know that he is in fact leading them among Republicans.

Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote last time to Romney's 28%. I would guess Trump does something like that same number, a recent poll showed him doing slightly better than that.

[ag]

Remember when the RNC came out with a report that they needed better Hispanic outreach? Good times...

I really want to see some polling

You can google "Trump Leads Hispanic Voters", if you didn't already know that he is in fact leading them among Republicans.

Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote last time to Romney's 28%. I would guess Trump does something like that same number, a recent poll showed him doing slightly better than that.

Hispanic Republicans are what is usually called a biased sample

There are already signs of a Hispanic registration drive getting on the way, though. 

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It's only a matter of time before Trump proposes the 21st century version of the 1924 Immigration Act -and with every other GOP candidate falling in line when it proves wildly popular in the polls....  

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would have a bit of a difficulty doing that. Because, unlike the others, they would, actually, understand what the Telemundo nightly news, etc., would have to say about it. A sustained campaign of that nature in the Anglo media for a year - and blacks would become the relatively less overwhelmingly democratic constituency, when compared to Hispanics. The anglos, like Walker or Cruz would not be aware till it, actually, hits them. But Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio actually speak Spanish.

lol at American policy being dictated by Telemundo.

[ag]

It's only a matter of time before Trump proposes the 21st century version of the 1924 Immigration Act -and with every other GOP candidate falling in line when it proves wildly popular in the polls....  

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would have a bit of a difficulty doing that. Because, unlike the others, they would, actually, understand what the Telemundo nightly news, etc., would have to say about it. A sustained campaign of that nature in the Anglo media for a year - and blacks would become the relatively less overwhelmingly democratic constituency, when compared to Hispanics. The anglos, like Walker or Cruz would not be aware till it, actually, hits them. But Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio actually speak Spanish.

lol at American policy being dictated by Telemundo.

And Univision

Or do you believe American policy should be indepdendent of the desires of American citizens?

[ag]

Remember when the RNC came out with a report that they needed better Hispanic outreach? Good times...

I really want to see some polling

You can google "Trump Leads Hispanic Voters", if you didn't already know that he is in fact leading them among Republicans.

Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote last time to Romney's 28%. I would guess Trump does something like that same number, a recent poll showed him doing slightly better than that.

The last big poll we have specifically of Hispanic voters to the best of my knowledge was the Univision one from July 16. At that point 79% considered Trump comments offensive. 27% was what Jeb Bush was getting on the voter intention, not Trump. Do you have more recent data?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Well, that was quick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

[ag]

Well, that was quick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

Musth ave seen some polling

[ElectionsGuy]

Well, that was quick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

Classic Walker back peddle.

[ag]

Well, that was quick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

Classic Walker back peddle.

What is he selling?

[/]

If banning birthright citizenship occurred, I'm pretty sure Rubio and Jindal wouldn't be citizens.

[ElectionsGuy]

Well, that was quick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/scott-walker-talks-birthright-citizenship.html

Classic Walker back peddle.

What is he selling?

Whatever he wants to sell. He's flip flopped on so many issues now.

If banning birthright citizenship occurred, I'm pretty sure Rubio and Jindal wouldn't be citizens.

They wouldn't.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

WaPo sheds some light on why Walker has flipped yet again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fading-in-the-polls-scott-walker-aims-to-attract-trump-voters/2015/08/18/48d0b900-45ab-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

If banning birthright citizenship occurred, I'm pretty sure Rubio and Jindal wouldn't be citizens.

What a terrible loss that would be for the United States. Could the country survive without the likes of Bobby Jindal? I'm doubtful.

[Likely Voter]

WaPo sheds some light on why Walker has flipped yet again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fading-in-the-polls-scott-walker-aims-to-attract-trump-voters/2015/08/18/48d0b900-45ab-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

While in this case a candidate's Billionaire backer moved him away from the crazy cliff, it is sad to see Walker bounce around this week like this. What else will Walker do once demanded by a single donor? What if Hubbard told Walker that he wanted to make Taco Tuesday Federally mandated? 

This kind of single guy with an agenda thing is what kept Gingrich alive so long last time. Sheldon Adelson single handedly fueled Newts campaign as long as Newt kept taking a hardline on Adelson's pet issue, Israel.

I hate to say it but this is one area where Trump has it right, the Super Pac donors are puppet-masters. Spending all their time with donors gets the candidates talking about donor issues like the "death tax" and ending Dodd Frank.

[Likely Voter]

Today Walker evolved again, completing his flip flop...after being repeatedly pressed by George Stephanopoulos and trying to filibuster his way out of not talking about it, Walker finally said he was not for repealing the 14th amendment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scott-walker-hes-seeking-repeal-14th-amendment/story?id=33248403

So that is his position for now, let's see where it goes next week.