2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

 

Isn't the "bat cave" basically Robin?

14 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

Isn't the "bat cave" basically Robin?

Only in your dreams

5 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

Mexico is going to aid migrants in US to get legal aid if targeted for deportation.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mexico-launching-app-migrants-us-vows-defend-citizens-facing-deportation

It's a crash-able system.

 

ICE shuts down programs offering services to illegal immigrants, citing ‘immense’ costs

Non-detained docket has exploded in recent years to more than 7.6 million people

 

culo

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming !

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/russian-mercenary-border-drone/

STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: FISCAL YEAR 2024 ENDS WITH NEARLY 3 MILLION INADMISSIBLE ENCOUNTERS, 10.8 MILLION TOTAL ENCOUNTERS SINCE FY2021

 

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/10/24/startling-stats-factsheet-fiscal-year-2024-ends-with-nearly-3-million-inadmissible-encounters-10-8-million-total-encounters-since-fy2021/

que?

This is going to set up a monumental SCOTUS decision. GOP has the court, so the extent of originalist interpretation is going to be interesting. Clearly the 14th amendment was created to protect newly freed slaves, however the text as written makes no mention of this, unlike, say, the second amendment specifically referring to "the right of the people.”

I can see the SCOTUS allowing this. The left is freaking out about it. For all the nonsense Trump pulls, this is pretty low on my list. I don't really have a problem with it. 

12 minutes ago, TEW said:

This is going to set up a monumental SCOTUS decision. GOP has the court, so the extent of originalist interpretation is going to be interesting. Clearly the 14th amendment was created to protect newly freed slaves, however the text as written makes no mention of this, unlike, say, the second amendment specifically referring to "the right of the people.”

They're coming for you @vikas83!

12 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I can see the SCOTUS allowing this. The left is freaking out about it. For all the nonsense Trump pulls, this is pretty low on my list. I don't really have a problem with it. 

It’s going to be a really interesting decision not just because of the clear change in interpretation, but because I don’t see how there could be a middle ground. If you’re using an originalist interpretation to say the amendment was intended to protect freed slaves, then it really wouldn’t apply to the children of legal residents. That in turn would throw a lot of children and presumably even adults into limbo.

Any kind of carveout actually would be legislating from the bench.

I suppose it would force congress to pass some kind of immigration bill, but it would certainly put all of the leverage in the GOP’s favor.

16 minutes ago, TEW said:

This is going to set up a monumental SCOTUS decision. GOP has the court, so the extent of originalist interpretation is going to be interesting. Clearly the 14th amendment was created to protect newly freed slaves, however the text as written makes no mention of this, unlike, say, the second amendment specifically referring to "the right of the people.”

I agree that the intent was for freed slaves, but there really isn't any ambiguity in the drafting of the text. I'm not sure how you read this any other way -- "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." I mean, if you want to try and say an illegal immigrant isn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that would also mean you can't arrest them for breaking any laws. 

Plus, the court already weighed in on this in the decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 

Quote

 

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. . . . But the opening words, "All persons born,” are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race . . . .

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States” by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. . . .

 

I think Trump would have been better served to limit the EO to simply the children of illegal immigrants and given the court an off-ramp. Applying this to people on lawful visas will give the court heartburn, IMO.

11 minutes ago, rambo said:

They're coming for you @vikas83!

Both parents were green card holders when I was born and are now citizens. I'm good.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

It’s going to be a really interesting decision not just because of the clear change in interpretation, but because I don’t see how there could be a middle ground. If you’re using an originalist interpretation to say the amendment was intended to protect freed slaves, then it really wouldn’t apply to the children of legal residents. That in turn would throw a lot of children and presumably even adults into limbo.

Any kind of carveout actually would be legislating from the bench.

I suppose it would force congress to pass some kind of immigration bill, but it would certainly put all of the leverage in the GOP’s favor.

I think there's about zero chance SCOTUS rules that children of green card holders aren't citizens. And even less chance they apply this retroactively. But this is why Trump should have limited to people here unlawfully -- try and say someone who is illegal is not subject to our jurisdiction. Clearly people on a visa, or a green card holder, are subject to our jurisdiction. 

I can't imagine any of this applies retroactively. You'd have a bunch of kids that aren't a citizen of any nation.

Honestly, if Trump got behind an amendment clarifying that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens, it might have a chance. That's a hell of a hill to die on for Democrats. 

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I agree that the intent was for freed slaves, but there really isn't any ambiguity in the drafting of the text. I'm not sure how you read this any other way -- "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." I mean, if you want to try and say an illegal immigrant isn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that would also mean you can't arrest them for breaking any laws. 

Plus, the court already weighed in on this in the decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 

I think Trump would have been better served to limit the EO to simply the children of illegal immigrants and given the court an off-ramp. Applying this to people on lawful visas will give the court heartburn, IMO.

But originalism isn’t textualism. Like you, I’d rather favor a textual interpretation with some weight to intent, but that’s not the conservative doctrine. They’re as focused on intent as they are on text.

As for the Ark case, the scope of it was just racial, wasn’t it? I’m actually not familiar with it, so I just read a summary.

And yeah, politically and just practically speaking it would make way more sense to limit it to illegals.

But I suppose from the perspective of a strict anti-immigration advocate, you’re probably not going to get this chance again with a president to fight this battle and a court that might rule in your favor, so pick the fight now and see if you can win an upset? 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Honestly, if Trump got behind an amendment clarifying that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens, it might have a chance. That's a hell of a hill to die on for Democrats. 

Set it up for 2028…

Jus soli was the de facto system since the beginning up until the 14th amendment (you know, if you were white), so it’s not like the amendment radically changed what was going on before. It pretty much just extended it across the board. They were worried that down the road some other Congress might have repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had the same language.  Subject to a foreign power means diplomat, as the authors said as such when they wrote the thing. So you can’t really use immigration status on that one.

The problem with drilling down to the intent behind the laws is that you negate the author’s thought of "hey, while we’re at it…”.  It’s like looking at a car and saying "they intended to build a bicycle”. They may have, but they still built the car anyway.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

But originalism isn’t textualism. Like you, I’d rather favor a textual interpretation with some weight to intent, but that’s not the conservative doctrine. They’re as focused on intent as they are on text.

As for the Ark case, the scope of it was just racial, wasn’t it? I’m actually not familiar with it, so I just read a summary.

And yeah, politically and just practically speaking it would make way more sense to limit it to illegals.

But I suppose from the perspective of a strict anti-immigration advocate, you’re probably not going to get this chance again with a president to fight this battle and a court that might rule in your favor, so pick the fight now and see if you can win an upset? 

In the Ark case, he was born here, his parents never became citizens, he left the country and was denied entry on return as he wasn’t a US Citizen and at the time we were limiting the amount of Chinese people we let in, so they said he couldn’t. 
 

SCOTUS said "born here, born a citizen”. It’s pretty cut and dry, and I don’t even know why the F it’s even an argument, tbh. It’s been settled for going on 150 years. 

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

But originalism isn’t textualism. Like you, I’d rather favor a textual interpretation with some weight to intent, but that’s not the conservative doctrine. They’re as focused on intent as they are on text.

As for the Ark case, the scope of it was just racial, wasn’t it? I’m actually not familiar with it, so I just read a summary.

And yeah, politically and just practically speaking it would make way more sense to limit it to illegals.

But I suppose from the perspective of a strict anti-immigration advocate, you’re probably not going to get this chance again with a president to fight this battle and a court that might rule in your favor, so pick the fight now and see if you can win an upset? 

Here's the decision -- https://perma.cc/C5PG-SQSP

Basically, it was a kid born in the US to parents who were "subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business...." So, a kid of basically legal residents before such terms existed. 

There’s going to be things in any law book one isn’t going to like. 
 

One can’t be pissed about the left blatantly misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, and then oneself blatantly misinterpret the 14th. 
 

The law is the law. 

18 minutes ago, Bill said:

It’s pretty cut and dry, and I don’t even know why the F it’s even an argument, tbh.

I have a theory...