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

[hopper]

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.

Walker is turning into the "Upper Midwest Version" of Mitt Romney.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Walker is turning into the "Upper Midwest Version" of Mitt Romney.

Except that Walker never tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy.

[hopper]

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

Well were at least one of Rubio and Jindal's parents here legally when they were born?

[hopper]

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.

Walker is turning into the "Upper Midwest Version" of Mitt Romney.

Except that Walker never tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy.

True Walker was always a "Reform Conservative" mostly but in the last 6-9 months he is catering to the fringe of the party on some issues like flip flopping on immigration and his position on abortion rights is extreme. I am pro-life but with exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

[hopper]

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.

I don't believe American Policy I being dictated by Telemundo. Latino's just watch Telemundo just to keep up with their culture because they have connections to their country of origin.

[BM]

It's time for Walker to drop out. He can't get away with idiotic comments like this when he lacks the charisma, luxuriousness, and glamour of Trump. His lack of education is really showing as much as his bald spot.

[jimrtex]

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.

"subject to its jurisdiction" is not defined.

It is up to Congress to define it, just as they decided that Indian's were not subject to its jurisdiction.

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed 2 months before the 14th Amendment.  It says:

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; ..."

Persons born to foreign citizens are themselves foreign citizens, and therefore subject to the foreign power.  In writing the 14th Amendment should we assume a deliberate change in language, or that "subject to the jurisdiction" means the same as "not subject to any foreign power".

[jimrtex]

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.

[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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed 2 months before the 14th Amendment.  It says:

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; ..."

Persons born to foreign citizens are themselves foreign citizens, and therefore subject to the foreign power.  In writing the 14th Amendment should we assume a deliberate change in language, or that "subject to the jurisdiction" means the same as "not subject to any foreign power".

Yes, that would appear to be a deliberate change in language. Constitutional provisions are generally going to be written in broader terms than statutes. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 goes on to use quite different language than the rest of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark actually addressed the change in language from the Civil Rights Act to the amendment and concluded that the provisions probably intended the same thing, but not in the way that supports your argument:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark already addressed basically all of the arguments that you're raising. I recommend that you and everyone else actually go read that opinion before returning to this  thread. There the court held that a child born on U.S. soil to two Chinese citizen parents legally domiciled in the U.S. acquired citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment. Now, many of the posters here as well as the rightwing blogs have been saying that this case doesn't quite reach the question of children born to illegal immigrants, but that misses the point. If the 14th amendment meant what you say it means, then it wouldn't matter whether Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal or illegal immigrants because they would still be subjects of China either way.

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.

"subject to its jurisdiction" is not defined.

It is up to Congress to define it, just as they decided that Indian's were not subject to its jurisdiction.

No, it is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and it has. Congress didn't "decide" later after the passage of the 14th Amendment that children of members of Indian tribes were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. There is a whole section in Wong Kim Ark where the court discusses the reasons why Indian tribes are treated differently than other foreign nations for these purposes. The ultimately recognized Indian tribes as the third and final exception to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

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.

They would be a footnote like Jennifer Granholm or Arnold Schwarzenegger then.

[DonaldTrumpForLife]

Scott Walker is a LOSER. A LOSER. His state is a joke. Their spending to much. All they do is fight. Education, Healthcare, Spending, ALL OF IT is just CONSTANT FIGHTING. He's a loser and is trying to steal Trumps thunder by calling out Illegals (Criminals) but we all know that Walker is as soft on Immigration as Jeb/Hillary. He changes his opinions everyday.

Believe me, Scott Walker couldint get a job at McDonalds. Thats how much of a failure he is. He's a LOSER.

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You perhaps did not actually read the entire decision, or you would have quoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal aliens are not resident aliens, since they have absolutely no right to residency within the United States, unless you are going to take the extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that once they have a foot in the United States they have a right to establish domicile just like any other person.

They are equivalent to those born on a foreign ship, they may be within the territorial limits of the United States, but they are not domiciled here. An illegal alien has no allegiance to the United States.

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.

"subject to its jurisdiction" is not defined.

It is up to Congress to define it, just as they decided that Indian's were not subject to its jurisdiction.

No, it is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and it has.

Congress has authority under Section 5 to enforce the 14th Amendment.  Enforcement of citizenship for those entitled to it may require explicit recognition of those who are not entitled to it.

The Supreme Court may review the laws passed by Congress.

[SteveRogers]

You perhaps did not actually read the entire decision, or you would have quoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal aliens are not resident aliens, since they have absolutely no right to residency within the United States, unless you are going to take the extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that once they have a foot in the United States they have a right to establish domicile just like any other person.

They are equivalent to those born on a foreign ship, they may be within the territorial limits of the United States, but they are not domiciled here. An illegal alien has no allegiance to the United States.

I agree that illegal aliens are not resident aliens and have no right to residency. That doesn't change the fact that they do in fact reside in the United States and are thus domicled here. When federal, state, and local laws are applied to illegal immigrants for purposes such as taxation or civil suits, their residence here in the U.S. will be considered their domicile, not their home back in Mexico. The law doesn't pretend that they don't live within the United States. And you're not using the term "allegiance" as it is meant in the context of Common Law relating to citizenship. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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...

[jimrtex]

You perhaps did not actually read the entire decision, or you would have quoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal aliens are not resident aliens, since they have absolutely no right to residency within the United States, unless you are going to take the extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that once they have a foot in the United States they have a right to establish domicile just like any other person.

They are equivalent to those born on a foreign ship, they may be within the territorial limits of the United States, but they are not domiciled here. An illegal alien has no allegiance to the United States.

I agree that illegal aliens are not resident aliens and have no right to residency. That doesn't change the fact that they do in fact reside in the United States and are thus domicled here. When federal, state, and local laws are applied to illegal immigrants for purposes such as taxation or civil suits, their residence here in the U.S. will be considered their domicile, not their home back in Mexico. The law doesn't pretend that they don't live within the United States. And you're not using the term "allegiance" as it is meant in the context of Common Law relating to citizenship. 

You are confusing the words residence and domicile. A person may have multiple residences, but only one domicile, the place they intend to permanently reside.

Consider an alien who is in the country on a temporary visa, whether as a tourist, a short-term work permit, or as a student. None of these persons can claim a location within the United States as their domicile, as their place of permanent abode.

The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark made a particular emphasis of the facts in that case, that his parents had been legally domiciled in this country and conducted business for decades, and that Wong Kim Ark himself had lived in the United States all his life. It can not be an accident that in their conclusion that they emphasized domicile.

A permanent resident alien can establish domicile in the United States, because we have given him legal permission to do so.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

"subject to the jurisdiction" means that they owe allegiance, at least temporarily, and are under the protection of the United States.

In Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS applied the 14th Amendment to a person whose parents had been legally domiciled in the United States for decades, engaging in business. Their son had lived in the United States for decades, but left for a short period, and then was barred re-entry.

The SCOTUS emphasized these facts. There is no evidence that they meant them to apply to someone who flew in from elsewhere and gave birth in a US hospital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone who is temporarily here lawfully, such as on a tourist visa, work permit, or student visa, can not be domiciled in the United States, because they do not have our permission to have a permanent residence. They are simply passing through. Similarly, someone who is unlawfully present, whether sneaking across the border, or overstaying a visa, does not have the right to residence or domicile.

[SteveRogers]

You perhaps did not actually read the entire decision, or you would have quoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal aliens are not resident aliens, since they have absolutely no right to residency within the United States, unless you are going to take the extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that once they have a foot in the United States they have a right to establish domicile just like any other person.

They are equivalent to those born on a foreign ship, they may be within the territorial limits of the United States, but they are not domiciled here. An illegal alien has no allegiance to the United States.

I agree that illegal aliens are not resident aliens and have no right to residency. That doesn't change the fact that they do in fact reside in the United States and are thus domicled here. When federal, state, and local laws are applied to illegal immigrants for purposes such as taxation or civil suits, their residence here in the U.S. will be considered their domicile, not their home back in Mexico. The law doesn't pretend that they don't live within the United States. And you're not using the term "allegiance" as it is meant in the context of Common Law relating to citizenship. 

You are confusing the words residence and domicile. A person may have multiple residences, but only one domicile, the place they intend to permanently reside.

Consider an alien who is in the country on a temporary visa, whether as a tourist, a short-term work permit, or as a student. None of these persons can claim a location within the United States as their domicile, as their place of permanent abode.

The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark made a particular emphasis of the facts in that case, that his parents had been legally domiciled in this country and conducted business for decades, and that Wong Kim Ark himself had lived in the United States all his life. It can not be an accident that in their conclusion that they emphasized domicile.

A permanent resident alien can establish domicile in the United States, because we have given him legal permission to do so.

I know the difference between residence and domicile, and I'll even concede that an illegal immigrant may not be be considered domiciled in the United States for certain legal purposes. Even so, I don't think that changes the result here. Yes, the facts of the case in Wong Kim Ark were that the parents were legal residents domiciled in the United States. But the court clearly articulates a much broader rule than you are giving them credit for, and domicile is not a requirement in that rule. The court very clearly delineates three exceptions to the rule of birthright citizenship. You want to argue that the Supreme Court should carve out a fourth exception for illegal immigrants, which is fine, but you need to make that argument. It does not flow from the rule the court articulated in Wong Kim Ark.

"subject to the jurisdiction" means that they owe allegiance, at least temporarily, and are under the protection of the United States.

Can you explain what you think "allegiance" means? You seem to be trying to equate it with "permission to be here," which isn't how the Supreme Court or British Common Law used the term.

[jimrtex]

You are confusing the words residence and domicile. A person may have multiple residences, but only one domicile, the place they intend to permanently reside.

Consider an alien who is in the country on a temporary visa, whether as a tourist, a short-term work permit, or as a student. None of these persons can claim a location within the United States as their domicile, as their place of permanent abode.

The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark made a particular emphasis of the facts in that case, that his parents had been legally domiciled in this country and conducted business for decades, and that Wong Kim Ark himself had lived in the United States all his life. It can not be an accident that in their conclusion that they emphasized domicile.

A permanent resident alien can establish domicile in the United States, because we have given him legal permission to do so.

I know the difference between residence and domicile, and I'll even concede that an illegal immigrant may not be be considered domiciled in the United States for certain legal purposes. Even so, I don't think that changes the result here. Yes, the facts of the case in Wong Kim Ark were that the parents were legal residents domiciled in the United States. But the court clearly articulates a much broader rule than you are giving them credit for, and domicile is not a requirement in that rule. The court very clearly delineates three exceptions to the rule of birthright citizenship. You want to argue that the Supreme Court should carve out a fourth exception for illegal immigrants, which is fine, but you need to make that argument. It does not flow from the rule the court articulated in Wong Kim Ark.

There is huge gap between the facts of Wong Kim Ark and the exceptions articulated by the SCOTUS.

You are assuming that the exceptions define where the boundary is.  You are assuming that the SCOTUS specifically used the word domicile as mere wordplay and not of significance.

An ambassador is not expected to permanently reside in the United States, but rather at some point return to the country he represents. Someone on a ship isn't expected to stay in territorial waters forever. A member of an Indian tribe was expected to have allegiance to his tribe, and not the United States.

If someone who said they wanted to visit the Grand Canyon, and the USA, said fine, be sure to leave within six months, but then stayed on and never left, and then argued that they had intended all along to be domiciled in the USA, would not be covered by Wong Kim Ark.

"subject to the jurisdiction" means that they owe allegiance, at least temporarily, and are under the protection of the United States.

Can you explain what you think "allegiance" means? You seem to be trying to equate it with "permission to be here," which isn't how the Supreme Court or British Common Law used the term.

Allegiance is loyalty to the sovereign - in the case of United States to the Republic itself.

"I pledge allegiance ... to the Republic ..."

in return it provides,

"one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[SteveRogers]

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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Is it possible to get pointed to the legal precedent that establishes the distinction with which US law treats a domicile and a residence?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

You perhaps did not actually read the entire decision, or you would have quoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Illegal aliens are not resident aliens, since they have absolutely no right to residency within the United States, unless you are going to take the extreme interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that once they have a foot in the United States they have a right to establish domicile just like any other person.

They are equivalent to those born on a foreign ship, they may be within the territorial limits of the United States, but they are not domiciled here. An illegal alien has no allegiance to the United States.

I agree that illegal aliens are not resident aliens and have no right to residency. That doesn't change the fact that they do in fact reside in the United States and are thus domicled here. When federal, state, and local laws are applied to illegal immigrants for purposes such as taxation or civil suits, their residence here in the U.S. will be considered their domicile, not their home back in Mexico. The law doesn't pretend that they don't live within the United States. And you're not using the term "allegiance" as it is meant in the context of Common Law relating to citizenship. 

I wonder if we could all agree on the principle, Constitutional or not, that the practice of persons crashing our border illegally for the purpose of giving birth to a child in America in order that their child attain birthright citizenship is simply wrong. 

I don't like being manipulated to serve wrongful ends.  This practice is manipulation of America on a huge scale; there is nothing honest and straightforward about it, and the practice is not in the best interest of America or Americans.  Whether it's good enough for the individual illegal aliens in question or not is beside the point.