ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

I got a simple question for the liberals. If the massive immigration situation that happened in Europe and the occident in general over the past few years brought no problems and was all an happy time of goods exchanges and the caravan from the south mean no dangers, why does all liberals governements are getting kicked out one by one, why the brexit passed, why Trump got elected? And on each of these voting elections, immigration was a main topic.

"

diablofdb wrote:

I got a simple question for the liberals. If the massive immigration situation that happened in Europe and the occident in general over the past few years brought no problems and was all an happy time of goods exchanges and the caravan from the south mean no dangers, why does all liberals governements are getting kicked out one by one, why the brexit passed, why Trump got elected? And on each of these voting elections, immigration was a main topic.

[Removed by Support]

This little gem goes back to before Trump was even the nominee:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/

"Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Here is the familiar language: '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.' Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant 'not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.'

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but 'persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.'* Thus, 'subject to the jurisdiction' does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S."

=^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

["]Thus, 'subject to the jurisdiction' does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S."

The only thing preventing that first sentence from being 100% pure bullshit is the word "simply," and the only thing preventing the second sentence from such a fate is a generous interpretation of "means" that includes not just contemporary definitions but also arguments — arguments that whoever you're quoting is too intellectually dishonest to cite properly, arguments that have since lost their popularity and power.

American political consensus during reconstruction was that due process was a right of citizens, and NOT a right of noncitizen residents; therefore, jurisdiction was as irrelevant in cases of unauthorized residents as it is in cases of open warfare. Indeed, just as international treaties, rather than federal legislation, were the guiding principles in when and how it's okay to shoot an enemy soldier, the US at the time viewed the treatment of foreigners who broke US law as an international problem deserving a bilateral solution. If a Native American at that time was captured and accused of a crime, he had no rights save those granted by treaty, and assuming that hanging would not violate that treaty, no protection from the gallows except for the risk of angering his tribe.

So since US jurisdiction was a moot point in such cases, it naturally occurred to the American mind at the time that a foreign citizen without allegiance to the United States, not being a participant in the social contract that binds US citizens, would not fall under the US legal system — and thus, not subject to its jurisdiction. This is because, according to classical liberalism, this allegiance was necessary for the social contract to be applicable to US citizens themselves.

So jurisdiction didn't literally mean allegiance to them, it was just a type of understanding. For instance, according to the "no taxation without representation" principle, being taxed should mean having a representative in Congress, but this doesn't change the meaning of the word "taxation" to mean "taking money from a people in exchange for providing them representation in government;" nor does it redefine "representation" as requiring payments. We still thoroughly understand that we can tax and not give you shit, although if we believe that principle we simultaneously understand that such behavior would make us tyrants. In the same way these Reconstructionists would understand that you could place a foreign citizen without allegiance to the US under its jurisdiction, but would be befuddled as to why you'd want to do such a stupid and/or evil thing.

In the 150 years since America has collectively shit all over these ideas (show me the Representative of the District of Columbia voting). So unless we expect SCOTUS to reverse its previous claim that literally everyone on US soil has a right to due process, then expect them to argue jurisdiction from that.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

This little gem goes back to before Trump was even the nominee:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/
=^[.]^=

Economy of language in the US Constitution isn't an accident. It is a direct consequence of a deliberative body stating only what they have settled on. It avoids the ambiguity superfluous phrasings lend themselves to.

When GGG states a gem does "increasing" damage, we know how that is different from when GGG states a gem does "more" damage.

The writers of our Constitution and the amendments consciously chose their words, and on this particular amendment we have the record of the debates around it. That debate strongly supports that the intent of the 14th was not to grant the automatic citizenship for all that SCOTUS later ruled it did.

I think there is a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse themselves on this if a law is passed and the case comes before them.

There are plenty of people who think they understand the Constitution because it has primarily been interpreted a certain way the whole time they have been alive. If one looks at how much the interpretation has changed over a long period of time, it is clear that what one generation understands to be true, does not always hold to be so according to SCOTUS.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

This little gem goes back to before Trump was even the nominee:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/
=^[.]^=

Economy of language in the US Constitution isn't an accident. It is a direct consequence of a deliberative body stating only what they have settled on. It avoids the ambiguity superfluous phrasings lend themselves to.

When GGG states a gem does "increasing" damage, we know how that is different from when GGG states a gem does "more" damage.

The writers of our Constitution and the amendments consciously chose their words, and on this particular amendment we have the record of the debates around it. That debate strongly supports that the intent of the 14th was not to grant the automatic citizenship for all that SCOTUS later ruled it did.

I think there is a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse themselves on this if a law is passed and the case comes before them.

There are plenty of people who think they understand the Constitution because it has primarily been interpreted a certain way the whole time they have been alive. If one looks at how much the interpretation has changed over a long period of time, it is clear that what one generation understands to be true, does not always hold to be so according to SCOTUS.

The simple litmus test regarding the intent of the 14th is this: If it was intended to be anything other than a means to guarantee citizenship for the children of slaves, why is it that the "new" interpretation granting birthright citizenship wasn't discussed, used, or debated until almost a hundred years after it was ratified? Just more "living document" malarkey. =9[.]9=

Just a reminder that Halloween is over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqj1C9G3GBw

(Trevor Noah)

As an American I would be much more worried about my health insurance than about this expensive ( $ 100.000.000 or more ) last minute bluff.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Just a reminder that Halloween is over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqj1C9G3GBw

(Trevor Noah)

As an American I would be much more worried about my health insurance than about this expensive ( $ 100.000.000 or more ) last minute bluff.

Who will win the Midterm elections in the USA next week? This should be what you should be worried about. People who win get to decide things.

"

deathflower wrote:

Who will win the Midterm elections in the USA next week? This should be what you should be worried about. People who win get to decide things.

It is unlikely the republicans will continue to hold all 3 branches of power. It is quite uncommon for one party to hold all the power for long.

We will probably go back to the gridlock in the federal gov't we are used to.

I am just hoping the Republicans hold 50+ in the senate, so if another supreme court judge knocks off, we will get yet another conservative judge from Trump.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Just a reminder that Halloween is over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqj1C9G3GBw

(Trevor Noah)

Trevor: "people walking to the United States"

Walking: