The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed. Appealing it isn't the answer. Amending it would be. Change Section 1 from this,

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

to this,

All persons born to legal residents or citizens of the United States, 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

**Frazzled**

No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.

Won't that set off alarms in the museum?

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.

Won't that set off alarms in the museum?

Nah, its wrapped in a towel next to a shoebox full of .380s.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

What ought to be discussed are "Anchor Baby" policies.

The term "anchor baby" is rather misleading, as no US citizen can petition for a change in the status of its non-citizen parents until the age of 21. The whole "issue" is little more than a fabrication designed to generate outrage.

**CptJake**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

What ought to be discussed are "Anchor Baby" policies.

The term "anchor baby" is rather misleading, as no US citizen can petition for a change in the status of its non-citizen parents until the age of 21. The whole "issue" is little more than a fabrication designed to generate outrage.

That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.

However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.

Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.

However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.

Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.

Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.

However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.

Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.

Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. My dad is a recently retired fed immigration judge, and a US citizen dependent/anchor baby meant you never got to a deportation hearing. INS/ICE just didn't go that route. I'm sure someone can find a few cases where maybe it did happen, but those are going to be rare exceptions.

A US citizen social security number gets the family more/easier access to programs as well.

EDIT: Most of the cases where you see a parent deported is when the spouse IS a US citizen and the kids stay with the spouse. And that really isn't the 'anchor baby' we are talking about.

**BrotherGecko**

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. Appealing it isn't the answer. Amending it would be. Change Section 1 from this,

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

to this,

All persons born to legal residents or citizens of the United States, 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That doesn't fix anything. That still would mean any person that is the decendant of a slave/indentured servant would be subject to deportation. Anyone who had a great great grandpapi/mami that came here undocumented would be subject to deportation. On top of creating a system where you could allege that somebody is of illegal decent to get them deported.

That would still amount to ethnic cleansing by deportation being legal in the United States. Which would start the civil war that racists so desperately dream for.

Frazzled wrote:No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.

Agreed, I won't peacefully react to treason against my fellow citizens. Some who have served in the military along side me and have done far more for this country than most "Americans".

**d-usa**

BrotherGecko wrote:
snip

We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.

**CptJake**

Especially generations retroactively.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
snip

We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.

The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.

**BrotherGecko**

Exactly you would be changing what qualifies as citizen in the foundation of what informs law.

Furthmore it would just take a few successful cases to create a precedent of it retroactively applying and now it is part of law. The flood gates are open and we have an era that makes McCathy's look preschool.

**whembly**

CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.

However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.

Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.

Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. My dad is a recently retired fed immigration judge, and a US citizen dependent/anchor baby meant you never got to a deportation hearing. INS/ICE just didn't go that route. I'm sure someone can find a few cases where maybe it did happen, but those are going to be rare exceptions.

A US citizen social security number gets the family more/easier access to programs as well.

EDIT: Most of the cases where you see a parent deported is when the spouse IS a US citizen and the kids stay with the spouse. And that really isn't the 'anchor baby' we are talking about.

Indeed.

I have no problem with the law granting citizenship to those born on US soil. But, that shouldn't allows Mommy and Daddy (non-citizens) to stay in the states. it shouldn't be an issue to deport the entire family. Then, when the child is of age, can come back to the states.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
snip

We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.

The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.

When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.

When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.

When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.

When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.

Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.

There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.

Finding useful statistics regarding DAPA would be pretty difficult even if the program wasn't being blocked by legal action, so that particular EO doesn't really matter. Indeed, it could be argued that its existence is evidence to support my statement regarding US policy towards the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens and the "anchor baby" phenomenon.

As to stats that are avilable: In 2012 23% of deportations involved the parents of US citizen children. This number fell in 2013, to ~16%, as only ~72,000 parents of US citizens were deported (down from ~100,000) despite the total number of deportations rising to ~438,000. This can be attributed to a number of factors ranging from greater care being taken by the parents of US citizens to a fear of being separated from one's children, but the most likely cause is DACA disproportionately affecting parents of US citizens.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
snip

We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.

The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.

When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.

When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.

When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.

When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.

Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.

There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.

Again, precedent is irrelevant. If the 14th is repealed, it never existed. Thats war boyo. Quit arguing legalities related to mere laws.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.

Finding useful statistics regarding DAPA would be pretty difficult even if the program wasn't being blocked by legal action, so that particular EO doesn't really matter. Indeed, it could be argued that its existence is evidence to support my statement regarding US policy towards the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens and the "anchor baby" phenomenon.

As to stats that are avilable: In 2012 23% of deportations involved the parents of US citizen children. This number fell in 2013, to ~16%, as only ~72,000 parents of US citizens were deported (down from ~100,000) despite the total number of deportations rising to ~438,000. This can be attributed to a number of factors ranging from greater care being taken by the parents of US citizens to a fear of being separated from one's children, but the most likely cause is DACA disproportionately affecting parents of US citizens.

So your argument is as weak as a baby's walking ability. Got it.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:

Again, precedent is irrelevant. If the 14th is repealed, it never existed. Thats war boyo. Quit arguing legalities related to mere laws.

Honest question then, because I really don't know:

When the 18th was repealed, was anyone that was charged or convicted for the manufacturing or possession of alcohol released from prison, had their records wiped clean, and any fines repaid to them?

**Frazzled**

I don't know either big D. I know Capone wasn't released from tax evasion related to it, but thats all.

**whembly**

Oh...

OH!

Not Hard to Read 14th Amendment As Not Requiring Birthright Citizenship — and Nothing Odd About Supporting Such a Reading

1. It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations, are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.)

Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require?

2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders.

I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.) There are many people who believe in robust legal immigration and are open to the notion of some qualified amnesty for some categories of illegal aliens but who nevertheless think it is a terrible idea to grant citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens – a policy that can only encourage more illegal immigration. I am not a fan of “comprehensive immigration reform”; but if reform is to be comprehensive, and we are trying to discourage illegal immigration, why would we not address every policy that incentivizes illegal immigration?

If denying birthright citizenship seems like an offensive proposition to some, it can only be because we’ve lost our sense of what citizenship should be – the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. If a couple who are nationals of Egypt enter our country and have a baby while they are here, why is it sensible to presume that child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than Egypt? If the baby of an American couple happened to be born while they were touring Egypt, would we not presume that the child’s allegiance was to the United States?

**Frazzled**

I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.

Well... when it hits the SCOTUS... "plain language" may mean jack gak.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.

Well... when it hits the SCOTUS... "plain language" may mean jack gak.

The 14th Amendment has been adjudicated for 150 years. Its settled. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to quit chewing on the mushrooms they found in their back yard and take off the aluminum hat.

**LordofHats**

The US Constitution specifically forbids Ex Post Facto laws. The Constitution is law (the highest law of the land, come on people it is literally called that).

Any repeal of the 14th Amendment (which won't be happening anytime soon) can't effect anyone who benefited from it while it was the law of the land. It would be unconstitutional to retroactively remove citizenship so that wouldn't really be an issue when relooking at how citizenship is conferred.

As to the 'anchor baby' debate, it is a trumped up pile of nonsense. Regardless of how many get deported, Few government bodies (very few) restrict access to benefits and services based on immigration status. Even if they did, you then run into the problem that many illegals are paying the taxes that pay for these services anyway. The later bit is really all that matters imo. If someone is paying into the system, they have a legal right to services regardless of whether they are legal.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.

Well... when it hits the SCOTUS... "plain language" may mean jack gak.

Well, good thing that we have the records of the actual conversations that happened in congress when the law was created. So we have plain text as well as indent:

Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”
Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2891. During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens."

**whembly**

D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.

I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.

For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.

I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.

For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...

"Don't worry guys, nothing will stick to Hillary, she's Teflon" - whembly, as he throws more and more dirt on her.
"I don't know why this is gaining so much attention now" - whembly, as he keeps on posting arguments against birthright citizenship

Notice a pattern there?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.

I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.

For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...

"Don't worry guys, nothing will stick to Hillary, she's Teflon" - whembly, as he throws more and more dirt on her.

Admittedly... it's a game for me... 'specially that disaster of a press release yesterday.

"I don't know why this is gaining so much attention now" - whembly, as he keeps on posting arguments against birthright citizenship.

Notice a pattern there?

And?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.

I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.

For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...

"Don't worry guys, nothing will stick to Hillary, she's Teflon" - whembly, as he throws more and more dirt on her.
"I don't know why this is gaining so much attention now" - whembly, as he keeps on posting arguments against birthright citizenship

Notice a pattern there?

Whembly already stated he was pro-14th so I figured he was just making a Devil's Advocate argument.

Repeal the 14th is one of those "dog whistles" everyone complains about, this time to the more rabid nativist elements of the US.
I am sure the surviving Comanches are all for it. "Out of my country white eyes!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another issue.. Repeal the 14th and how much easier is it to strip citizenship from people (a real question on my part). I'd be leery that in a future time, undesirables of the moment could be kicked out.