The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong. It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies.
This entire myth of the "bad ones who just come here to steal our benefits/way of life/live off of our backs, etc." is pure bullshit contrived for political reasons. Even if there are "bad ones" or immigrants just here to reap state benefits, of which there are no doubt a few, their kids are nevertheless a major resource, that with the right education will generate far more in wealth for the nation than any cost involved to look after their parents.
Dunno what it is like in the States but here in Germany, the ones most vocal about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are the ones at the losing end who just want someone else lower in the pecking order that they can stamp on so as not to feel like the losers they are or the ones with the least contact with immigrants who buy into political scaremongering because they are afraid of change or the future or whatever and are happy to hitch their irrational fears on something more tangible, yet totally unwarranted.
BTW.. California, that cesspool of immigration, recently overtook Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world.
And then there is the Sanctuary City. The concept flies directly in the face of US law. No different than how the Confederate States of America acted against the Union.
You cannot support Sanctuary Cities and States and also be for due process and the rule of law at the same time.
Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.
The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ
in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .
I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.
How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?
No, they don't have to be here legally. That's kind of the point. You are subject to our laws, including birthright citizenship, even if you are here 'illegally'. Illegally here, really only applies to the civil 'crime' of not having the correct paperwork. Many of the people you want to screw over are in the process of doing that paperwork (which you have joyfully made onerous and complicated).
You almost have a point with 'domiciled'. But even that falls short for many who are fleeing violence or oppression (side note: How bad must it be in their homeland, when your racist oppression and violence looks like a great option for them). Even for those who have just entered illegally for work or other opportunities, they are looking to domicile here even if they haven't yet. There are some, I'm sure who intend to domicile back in their home country, but if you would support a sane/rational/non-bigoted immigration policy that had work visas for these people, this problem would go away too.
No one is 'in favor' of illegal immigration. Most of us realize that if we simply had a proper policy the problem would go away. But if the problem goes away, what will your media mind use to whip you into a fervor over? And if you are all about law and order and due process, you would have a fucking cow over the treatment of these people. Because they ARE entitled to due process, and are subject to ALL of our laws. But since they are mostly brown, you toss your simplified values out the window in favor of cruelty, harshness and inhumanity.
Edit to add: you are using as your starting point, the loosing side of an argument that was settled 127 years ago and has been consistently accepted ever since.
Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones. As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with. You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.
You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.
We now have a very secure border without any new laws. Something you believed impossible without new ones.
And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, The part that you deliberately did not highlight, is where the rubber meets the road. While that has been interpreted regarding those here legally seeking citizenship it has not been decided on regarding those here illegally. In the past I have brought up this issue only to be summarily rejected as it being irrelevant, to be kind describing the reactions. Here is were the matter was settled for those whose parents were here legally. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
No, it settles the issue for all persons, just like it says in the 14th amendment. Did you even read the opinion you cited?
The legal status of the parents has nothing to do with it.
Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.
The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .
I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.
How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?
No, it settles the issue for all persons, just like it says in the 14th amendment. Did you even read the opinion you cited? The legal status of the parents has nothing to do with it.
Yes, these are opinions...from quora. Where you can find people with no qualifications but the ability to type spouting opinions as ignorant as yours. The issue was debated during the drafting of the 14th amendment and the intent of its authors is clear. You (and every other nativist) are intentionally obfuscating the law to try and fabricate a justification for a bigoted agenda.
Bigoted, or simply asshole. Those really are the only options left.
No, it settles the issue for all persons, just like it says in the 14th amendment. Did you even read the opinion you cited? The legal status of the parents has nothing to do with it.
Here are opinions regarding the arguments about those here illegally.
Yes, these are opinions...from quora. Where you can find people with no qualifications but the ability to type spouting opinions as ignorant as yours. The issue was debated during the drafting of the 14th amendment and the intent of its authors is clear. You (and every other nativist) are intentionally obfuscating the law to try and fabricate a justification for a bigoted agenda.
Look, spud ... You talk about law and order and due process yet you openly support illegal entry into this country being the Big Blue Dot guy you say you are. Tell me how that works and how they do not conflict.
And again, you fail to address the subject of the post. Whataboutism and deflection.... you really are a broken record.
I did address the issue. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but I did answer it.
It is your turn to answer a fair and real question.
This is one that presents you an actual challenge to answer which I doubt that you can or will do, hence your deflection.
Granted, these are opinions but makes clear that this is a not a resolved issue. One of the goals of the Trump agenda is to get this issue decided once and for all. Until now, there has not been a proper case to get it in front of SCOTUS. Trump's executive order on the subject has finally provided for this to happen. It needs to be decided so we can all move forward knowing clearly what the 14th Amendment is about as it applies to those here illegally.
In 1898... the SCOTUS said unless you were born to A) Native American, B) a foreign diplomat, or C) parents of an invading army, you're a citizen.
The 3 children in question are therefore citizens.
In US case law, the issue is resolved. They have a right to due process and can not be deported. The mother of the children deported on Saturday asked to leave her citizen children behind, and was (wrongly) told that was not allowed.
The idea that this needs to be settled "for once and for all" is like me saying "we need to determine if the second amendment term militia is valid". I think it's misinterpreted...but nobody gives a shit because it's settled law. If I want to bring it to the SCOTUS...I can try, but it doesn't mean you can't buy a gun because I want the court to see it my way.
You are a human pretzel that will do anything to support your leader, even when you like like a flaming idiot or asshole (or both). The laws of the US are settled on this issue, and until they are changed, all citizens should be treated the same... even if you don't like how they got standing or who their parents are.
A 4 year-old US CITIZEN with cancer has been deported by the Trump administration. kurtster supports the Trump administration. kurtster supports the Trump administration.
Look, spud ...
You talk about law and order and due process yet you openly support illegal entry into this country being the Big Blue Dot guy you say you are.
Tell me how that works and how they do not conflict.
saying 'I want my two-year-old to go with me,'" Homan said. "That's a parent's decision, it's not a government decision."
The two-year-old is among three children who are American citizens who were deported Friday with their mothers from the U.S. to Honduras, according to court documents reviewed by CBS News. Homan disputed the characterization, saying, "we don't deport U.S. citizens" and added that in these cases, "the mother chose to take the children with her."
"This is parenting 101," Homan said. "You can decide to take that child with you, or you can decide to leave a child here with a relative or another spouse."
A 4 year-old US CITIZEN with cancer has been deported by the Trump administration. kurtster supports the Trump administration. kurtster supports the Trump administration.
Well... since you've known about it so long... I mean, sure... I guess it makes sense we should ignore the rule that's been around 182 years longer than your concerns.
. “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."
. So you fall back on "Headed to the SCOTUS?" How exactly do you think they are going to read that?
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, The part that you deliberately did not highlight, is where the rubber meets the road.
While that has been interpreted regarding those here legally seeking citizenship it has not been decided on regarding those here illegally.
In the past I have brought up this issue only to be summarily rejected as it being irrelevant, to be kind describing the reactions.
Here is were the matter was settled for those whose parents were here legally.
The only case to go to court dealt with aliens legally in the country with permission for indefinite residency at the time the child was born. Illegal aliens have not been tried.
the spirit of Amendment XIV, “subject to the jurisdiction of” essentially means “a subject of” - as in, not a citizen of another country and/or legally present in the United States, with a demonstrated intention to permanent residency or naturalization (as explained by the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.)
Yes, if you’re here, you’re subject to our laws, our fines, and our penal system. However, that’s not the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of” in this context.
Granted, these are opinions but makes clear that this is a not a resolved issue. One of the goals of the Trump agenda is to get this issue decided once and for all. Until now, there has not been a proper case to get it in front of SCOTUS. Trump's executive order on the subject has finally provided for this to happen. It needs to be decided so we can all move forward knowing clearly what the 14th Amendment is about as it applies to those here illegally.
Perhaps since steeler has already put his 2 cents worth in he might wish to comment.
Trumpâs approval ratings on economic issues have dropped notably since early March as the rollout of his tariff plan led to volatility in the stock market and worries about rising prices. On inflation, approval is down 9 points to 35%, and on tariffs themselves, itâs down 4 points to 35%. His marks for handling the economy are down 5 points to a career low of 39%; he hit his previous low once in his first term and again this March). Only about half (52%) express confidence in his ability to deal with the economy, down 13 points compared with a December CNN poll.
Or does the law not apply anymore? - asking for a friend who would love to steal a few things since no one would suspect him, and maybe do a more than that if itâs really OK.
You know, somewhere in my desk I still have my âwhite male privilege get out of jail freeâ card. Are we cool to be doing that sort of all-crimes-all-the-time-if-youâre-white thing?
Because I heard that it was going to the SCOTUS.
Magats only want laws that apply to people who aren't magats. Laws are impingements on their freedumb, dontchaknow?
Or does the law not apply anymore? - asking for a friend who would love to steal a few things since no one would suspect him, and maybe do a more than that if itâs really OK.
You know, somewhere in my desk I still have my âwhite male privilege get out of jail freeâ card. Are we cool to be doing that sort of all-crimes-all-the-time-if-youâre-white thing?
Because I heard that it was going to the SCOTUS.
Due process is the bedrock of our system of justice. It is impossible to understand those who express indifference about it or, worse, essentially minimize its importance.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Apr 27, 2025 - 3:49pm
Due process is the bedrock of our system of justice. It is impossible to understand those who express indifference about it or, worse, essentially minimize its importance.
