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

[Mehmentum]

Walker, supposed establishment friendly candidate, bragging about how similar his immigration plan is to Trump's.  Oh, how far this field has fallen.

[Mehmentum]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

[Mehmentum]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

Well, you've demonstrated that its certainly alright to deport a fetus along with pregnant woman.  At least if you hold a pro-choice position on abortion, a fetus is considered 'part of' the mother, and therefore your logic applies.  Of course, if you're pro-life and consider a fetus to be it's own person, you might have some difficulty even getting that far, but that's not really the point.

However, once the baby is born, it is no longer a content of it's mother's uterus but its own person, with its own rights.

[Mehmentum]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

Well, you've demonstrated that its certainly alright to deport a fetus along with pregnant woman.  At least if you hold a pro-choice position on abortion, a fetus is considered 'part of' the mother, and therefore your logic applies.  Of course, if you're pro-life and consider a fetus to be it's own person, you might have some difficulty even getting that far, but that's not really the point.

However, once the baby is born, it is no longer a content of it's mother's uterus but its own person, with its own rights.

I am pro-choice, but that is irrelevant to this issue.

The implication here is that merely by being born, someone gains the privileges of citizenship of the United States, regardless of how they came to be in the United States, which is a preposterous proposition.

Its really not.

Merely by being born?  Being born is the beginning of a person's life, that's a momentous point in every person's life.  It makes perfect sense that people gain citizenship to the country that they were born into.

What doesn't make sense is judging children based on their parent's actions.  You insist that because a child's parents aren't citizens, that the child can not be.  But why must this be the case?  You don't really offer up reason why.

The parents are illegal immigrants here because they immigrated illegally.  The child isn't an illegal immigrant.  It didn't immigrate here, it was born here.  Is that preposterous?  (that's a hypothetical question, it isn't.)

Side note: you made the pro-life/pro-choice distinction important by bringing up 'the contents of her uterus'.  (Which I then rebutted with the fact that once born, a child isn't a part of her uterus).  To spell it out very clearly, pro-choice people consider the contents of a woman's uterus as a part of the woman, pro-life people tend to consider the contents of a woman's uterus as it's own person.  But like I said, that's not really the point.

[Mehmentum]

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"?

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.