Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Oi My Brain

  1. #1

    Default Oi My Brain

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donal...077752761.html

    "Donald Trump is defending his controversial immigration plan, telling Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly that the 14th Amendment — which guarantees citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” including children whose parents came to the country illegally — is unconstitutional."

    Unlike the Supreme Court inventing brand news rights... this amendment is absolutely legal. This is how you change the constitution - through the amendment process not backdooring bull shit through the courts. Trump once again proves what a moron he is.

    But... let's just pretend some nightmare scenario where he wins. And then packs the bench. I wonder if Littlefuzzy and his ilk will still be saying arguing that 'interpretation' of the constitution is well and good when 10 justices vote that the 14th amendment isn't constitutional because well... reasons.

  2. #2
    Some of the people who created that amendment said that it wasn't meant to apply to foreigners or aliens.

    "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."

    That claim is harder to make today, because resident aliens are subject to pretty much all American laws.

    P.S. A) There are only 9 SC justices. B) He'd need to get them approved by the Senate.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    I move that these posts be moved to the appropriate thread. TRUMP 2016. I mean, how many trump threads do you want? I'll start a new one with each article I find if you like.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    I move that these posts be moved to the appropriate thread. TRUMP 2016. I mean, how many trump threads do you want? I'll start a new one with each article I find if you like.
    Tell me what point you thought I was trying to make with this thread.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Tell me what point you thought I was trying to make with this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    But... let's just pretend some nightmare scenario where he wins. And then packs the bench.
    You kinda made your point. Put it where people will read it.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    A constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional pretty much by definition, right?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #7
    Loki makes an interesting point, there are words in the amendments that tend to get ignored. Re-reading Loki's quote it looks like being "born or naturalised in the US" is a necessary but insufficient criteria to apply. Subject to the jurisidiction thereof is a second criteria but I'm not sure how or where elsewhere who is subject to the jurisdiction is defined. I'd imagine that all residents are subject to the jurisdiction in which case that second criteria is redundant, but if they're not then that becomes relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    I move that these posts be moved to the appropriate thread. TRUMP 2016. I mean, how many trump threads do you want? I'll start a new one with each article I find if you like.
    No need for a megathread IMHO, this is about a specific issue (this constitutional amendment) and not just about Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    Given the brevity of the Constitution and the way it was created, all words are there for a reason. For instance, this amendment was never meant to apply to the children of foreign diplomats, who, according to international law, are not fully subject to US jurisdiction.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    The children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity from US jurisdiction, seems like a clear example of what the phrase means. I imagine then that the children of diplomats aren't automatically granted US citizenship today?

    However illegal migrants are subject to the US jurisdiction. Trump could propose I suppose some form of immunity for illegal migrants from US laws and so if an illegal immigrant murdered a US citizen they'd be deported but otherwise unpunished ... in which case the caveat would apply. However I doubt either he or his voters would consider that remotely acceptable.

    The "ow my brain" moment in the article also is the insane proposal that Mexico would pay for a wall to be built. Um why should they? If you want a wall you pay for it you have no right to vote that your neighbour pays for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #10
    Unless you live in Greece. (Sorry, I had to)
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  11. #11
    LOL yes I was thinking of Greece when I wrote that too!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #12
    There's a history behind the 14th Amendment that most politicians don't want to discuss, because it relates to children borne into slavery or servitude, who had no control of their destiny. The US "welcomed" all refugees, in previous eras, and gave preference to certain people (like Cubans, Russians, or Asians).

    The "New World" continues to be re-defined.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity from US jurisdiction, seems like a clear example of what the phrase means. I imagine then that the children of diplomats aren't automatically granted US citizenship today?

    However illegal migrants are subject to the US jurisdiction. Trump could propose I suppose some form of immunity for illegal migrants from US laws and so if an illegal immigrant murdered a US citizen they'd be deported but otherwise unpunished ... in which case the caveat would apply. However I doubt either he or his voters would consider that remotely acceptable.

    The "ow my brain" moment in the article also is the insane proposal that Mexico would pay for a wall to be built. Um why should they? If you want a wall you pay for it you have no right to vote that your neighbour pays for it.
    But if diplomat's children are born in a US hospital (IE off embassy grounds), presumably their children are US citizens...right?

  14. #14
    I don't think you lose your diplomat status when you leave the embassy.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But if diplomat's children are born in a US hospital (IE off embassy grounds), presumably their children are US citizens...right?
    Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with embassy grounds so no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I don't know if foreign royals count as diplomats but you'd think so, and this happened during the second world war:

    The Princess was born in Ottawa Civic Hospital,[2] Ottawa, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany. The maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[3][4] Making the maternity ward outside of the Canadian domain caused it to be unaffiliated with any jurisdiction and technically international territory. This was done to ensure that the newborn would derive her citizenship from her mother only, thus making her solely Dutch.

    It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. Since Dutch nationality law is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis it was not necessary to make the ward Dutch territory for the Princess to become a Dutch citizen. Since Canada followed the rule of jus soli, it was necessary for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily so that the Princess would not, by virtue of birth on Canadian soil, become a Canadian citizen.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prin...he_Netherlands


    Btw doesn't the law mean if you are born on US soil you can claim US nationality, not that you are one automatically? I know my sister could claim Zambian nationality due to being born there, but didn't, and does not have dual citizenship.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •