Trump signs executive order overturning the 14th Amendment.

[Winehole23]

Eisenhower's Bracero program petered out because business owners continued to solicit so-called illegals for employment at the border, and also because it swept up no small number of US citizens.

Even in normal times, ICE deports real US citizens from time to time.

[Winehole23]

Judge Coughenour won't be the last judge to call bull

[Winehole23]

Why birthright citizenship?

To keep authorities from deporting former slaves, in part.

Mass deportation of nonwhites was still very much on the table after the Civil War. A week after surrendering to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 14, 1865, Robert E. Lee (who was to become the most visible symbol of Southern resistance) sat down with a reporter from the New York Herald:

The best men of the South have long been anxious to do away with this ins ution, and [are] quite willing to-day to see it abolished. They consider slavery forever dead. But with them, in relation to this subject, the question has ever been, ‘What will you do with the freed people?’ That is the serious question to-day, and one that cannot be winked at. It must be met practically and treated intelligently. The negroes must be disposed of.

Almost a year later, on February 17, 1866, Lee once again expressed his support for the deportation of blacks. During congressional hearings on Reconstruction, Rep. Henry Taylor Blow (R-Mo.) asked Lee: “Do you not think that Virginia would be better off if the colored population were to go to Alabama, Louisiana, and the other southern States?” Lee responded: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them. That is no new opinion with me. I have always thought so, and have always been in favor of emancipation—gradual emancipation.”

Emancipation plus deportation. This was the preferred Southern plan. And had been from the very beginning.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/claremo...p-john-eastman

[Winehole23]

Trump preparing to denaturalize Native Americans?

Looney Tunes

The Justice Department attorneys return to the topic of whether or not Native Americans should be en led to birthright citizenship later in their arguments, citing a Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not cons utionally en led to Citizenship.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...rt/ar-AA1xJKcs

[Winehole23]

I guess if they can use that gloss of the 14A here, then they can turn around and say children born to foreign parents in the US "owe allegiance" to their parents' place of birth, and therefore are not eligible for birthright citizenship.

I guess for some, nuking the US citizenship of Native Americans is small price to pay for undoing 160 years of jus soli in order to round up brown children born in the US to deport them.

[Winehole23]

just amazing getting thrown on the wall here

[Yonivore]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On!

Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

...

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”

[Winehole23]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On!

anyone residing in the US is subject to US law

this is stupid and ignores the original intent, which was jus soli for everyone except Native Americans

[Winehole23]

"changing the cons ution with the changing times" is back, so long as Republicans are doing it

[ChumpDumper]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On!

Jhn Eastman

[Winehole23]

(I guess I'm still on Yonivore's list for pantsing him on the reg 10-15 years ago)

[ducks]

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said Friday that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

To put the figure into context, the group says those figures are greater than the total number of births in all but two states taken individually.

Furthermore, it appears that more children were born to illegal immigrant parents than to legal noncitizens.

[Winehole23]

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said Friday that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

To put the figure into context, the group says those figures are greater than the total number of births in all but two states taken individually.
Furthermore, it appears that more children were born to illegal immigrant parents than to legal noncitizens.

this is an argument for more immigration, tbh

[ducks]

Get vetted have enough $$$ for 6 months then come in legally

[ElNono]

He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.

Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.

60/40 we'll lose, but it's the best that he could do. And he did it>>>immediately.

And I'd proudly endorse a Pelican Brief of every last "justice" who votes in favor of the birthright citizenship regardless of who appointed the "justice". Replace them all with hardliners like Alito and Thomas who will surely vote in favor of repealing birthright citizenship.

Good to see you all acknowledge it's pure pandering and largely a waste of time, tbh, I agree. The only strategic thing that makes sense is that he's prepared to fail at this to build political momentum for sending to States' legislatures a cons utional amendment to revoke/modify that section of the 14th amendment, which is really how you go about these things.

And "this will land at the Supreme Court" is pure copium, IMO. We all know it will. The SCOTUS just really isn't (at least yet) as corrupt as he is (see: him being a felon). It'll only be 60/40 because, as Andy said, you have Uncle Thomas and Alito, which are the rotten part of the court.

Ultimately things like this are just a distraction, which he'll need plenty of if his first term is any indicator.

[Winehole23]

free countries don't have forcible migrations

[Winehole23]

y'all's dip tery and goonery will not pass unnoticed

[ElNono]

free countries don't have forcible migrations

y'all's dip tery and goonery will not pass unnoticed

I think you're missing the forest from the trees, tbh. There's one clear end goal here, which is why this was hurried up, and has nothing to do with immigration: Is the SCOTUS stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and allow altering the Cons ution by executive dictum?

I'm of the belief the SCOTUS isn't that stupid, especially since Roberts and co knows what would follow with this administration.

[Winehole23]

I think you're missing the forest from the trees, tbh. There's one clear end goal here, which is why this was hurried up, and has nothing to do with immigration: Is the SCOTUS stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and allow altering the Cons ution by executive dictum?

I'm of the belief the SCOTUS isn't that stupid, especially since Roberts and co knows what would follow with this administration.

You were a voice of caution wrt SCOTUS for Dobbs and we all see how that turned out -- women's rights taken away.

Not saying you're wrong, El Nono, SCOTUS might do as you say in this case and bow up to DJT, but it's not very hard to see them joining the dip tery either.

[Tyronn Lue]

if his agencies ignore court orders, who will stop them?

If the branches of the government are all corrupt, no one stops them.

[Winehole23]

If the branches of the government are all corrupt, no one stops them.

this is the point of loyalty vetting

[Tyronn Lue]

this is the point of loyalty vetting

And can be thwarted by actually going to the polls to vote, unless we are saying all politicians are corrupt.

[ducks]

Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings

[ElNono]

Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings

False. Like which one?

[Winehole23]

And can be thwarted by actually going to the polls to vote, unless we are saying all politicians are corrupt.

I'm saying US government hasn't had partisan and personal loyalty oaths for government workers and agency heads since the 19th century. Trump has a Jacksonian approach to government staffing -- proven buddies and loyalists only need apply.