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

[ag]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Yes, of course. You would need to abolish the following "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" : it is called the fourteenth amendment. Unless, of course, you are willing to make the children of illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

[ag]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

There have been bills introduced in Congress to end birthright citizenship by redefining what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. The latest by Iowa's Steve King (perhaps Walker is angling for a King endorsement?) and in the Senate by David Vitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But even if it did pass, I suspect it would end up at SCOTUS

Well, as long as you do not prosecute illegal aliens and their children in a US court for any crime they may commit, I guess, you could pull this off.

Of course, the scary part may be that you would then create gigantic Guantanamos without the courts. If SCOTUS were to rule THAT constitutional, I guess, it would make foreign travel on a US passport a rather perilous proposition, though.

[ag]

Anyway, I guess, all thought of Republicans doing better among the Hispanics has been abandoned. The White Party has oficially been born.

[ag]

Looks like the GOP has made its decision.  Democrats are going to have a 85-90% lock on the Latino vote for generations to come at this rate....    

Well, they are increasingly the White Party. Should change the color schemes on the maps

[ag]

I am noticing a bit of a realignment: a lot of the happiest posters here are Red avatars. Of course, no realistic Dem national candidate in his or her right mind  would be proposing any of this in the foreseable future. I really think it would be neat if these gentlemen were to find their natural home in the Republican party. If and when they switch, my respect for the Democratic party would, most definitely, substantially increase.

Of course, I am a Mexican

[ag]

The funny thing is that the practice of giving birth in the US to gain citizenship is, of course, common precisely among the rich Mexicans, with a visa and all. I know of a lot of people who did that: and, without exception, these are among the wealthiest people I know. Urbane, English-speaking, comfortably Mexican, frequently back home after years studying in the US themselves. They are not planning to migrate to the US at all: they are just doing this for convenience. Flying to Houston business class, etc.

And, of course, that is very natural. A poor migrant woman has no clue how to negotiate the US healthcare, even if she dares to cross the border pregnant. It is very difficult for her to do any planning that is implicit in giving birth in the US. And an illegal border crossing is not the easiest thing for a pregnant woman to do anyway. Even for most middle class women, even those with a US visa, this is not a very easy thing to decide for: at the very least, doing it in a way that is not damaging to a child is costly, and those costs few can (or want to) afford. This is for the rich, really.

[ag]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

[ag]

I don't speak Spanish or any language.

Apparently, not even English.

[ag]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

A hard line against illegal immigration is what Republican Primary voters want.

Sure. But, I guess, they also want to win the general election. And Trump is doing his best to inflame Hispanics and make sure their voting patterns approximate those of the Blacks.

[ag]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.
"

To the best of my understanding, "not subject to US jurisdiction" means they could not be tried by the US laws in US courts.  That, in fact, has been the interpretation historically: diplomats, occupying troops, etc. By repeatedly bringing these people to court for crimes committed in the US, the US has, most clearly, asserted its jurisdiction. Of course, it would be possible to pass a law renouncing jurisdiction in the future, but how would that affect the cases of people who were, clearly, born under the US jurisdiction? Or else, what is the meaning of being "subject to jurisdiction"?

[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.

[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

[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. 

[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?

[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

[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?

[ag]

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

Marco Rubio's parents were naturalized when he was four.  He would have been covered under his parent's naturalization.  They had also resided in the USA for 15 years when he was born.

Bobby Jindal was born 6 months after his parents came to the USA for post-graduate study at LSU. I assume they are naturalized citizens, but I don't know. If not, Jindal could have been naturalized in his own right when he became an adult.

Neither would be eligible to run for president though.

[ag]

What's the reasonable reading of "subject to the jurisdiction" that says it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants? We've seen the other side's reading: illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of  the US when they're hear, and can be and are arrested for violating them. So what about the other side? Let's see what the argument is for what these words mean if not that.

You could simply deport those who commit crimes without prosecuting them. It may create interesting incentives, though.

Alternatively, you could invite some other country to create courts in the US that would deal with crimes commited by foreign nationals in US territory. Turkey used to do this, as did China. I do not know if you like the precedent Of course, there are always Palau and Micronesia who could be given the task...

[ag]

So what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean to you?

Conventionally, it is the applicability of law. A diplomat is not subject to the law of the receiving country: s/he cannot be tried in its courts, etc. In the Ottoman Empire many foreign nationals were not subject to local jurisdiction without being diplomats. What that meant was that they could not be prosecuted by Ottoman authorities or tried in Ottoman courts. Instead, foreign courts were established in Ottoman territory, and only these courts - subject to their own, but not to Ottoman, governments - were allowed to try such people. Similar arrangements were later common in China.

One way of eliminating the "birthright citizenship" from children of illegal immigrants without a constitutional change would seem to be by actually removing US jurisdiction through a grant of exterritoriality. This would imply that illegal immigrants would not be prosecutable by US for the offenses they commit in the US. Perhaps, US would allow Mexico (and others) to create courts in US territory (if Ottoman example is the guide, these could be run from Mexican consulates), with Mexican prosecutors applying Mexican law. Alternatively, the accused could be simply deported to Mexico (or wherever), in which case it would be left up to Mexico to do anything - or do nothing.

One could think of inviting some other nation - I have suggested Palau or Micronesia - to take up jurisdiction. I am not clear to which extent this would be legal under international law - Palau has little claim to jurisdiction in cases which involve neither crimes committed in Palau, nor crimes by Palauan citizens, nor crimes against Palauan citizens - but, perhaps, this could be done somehow.

Finally, I guess, one could deem illegal migrants to be subject to their own Native American nation of "Illoguez", the courts of which would do the judging. Perhaps, the US would cede some territory for this purpose - say, in Guantanamo. This last idea can be easily recognized to have a solid precedent in recent South African history.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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".

[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?