Trump EO's

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Because Native Americans were always treated as "other" whose only path to citizenship was naturalization. They were one of one. All part of the troubled history with Native Americans.

But the law was not  needed according to what you are saying.   So why was it needed?  Seems like a quirk in history. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

What i keep looking at is the way it is laid out as a two part qualification.  Born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof.  This dispels @Wrestleknownothing’s stance that everyone in the United States is under the jurisdiction thereof.  If everyone here is under the jurisdiction thereof, then it’s redundant and unnecessary to say it.  It must have further meaning, which hasn’t heretofore been explained.  For some reason, there are people who think they wanted a pathway for those anchor babies.  I don’t. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

45 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

What i keep looking at is the way it is laid out as a two part qualification.  Born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof.  This dispels @Wrestleknownothing’s stance that everyone in the United States is under the jurisdiction thereof.  If everyone here is under the jurisdiction thereof, then it’s redundant and unnecessary to say it.  It must have further meaning, which hasn’t heretofore been explained.  For some reason, there are people who think they wanted a pathway for those anchor babies.  I don’t. 

It was covered in the first quote. You are just choosing to ignore it.

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

There is a federal judge who agrees with me.

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," Coughenour said of Trump's policy.

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

 

Edited Friday at 05:13 AM by Wrestleknownothing

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There is a federal judge who agrees with me.

But there's a two term President that doesn't. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, ionel said:

But there's a two term President that doesn't. 

And right now he is losing that argument worse than offthemat

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And right now he is losing that argument worse than offthemat

Well I think we can all agree he ain't the sharpist knife in the drawer.  

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

19 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It’s hillarious that you pretend to have knowledge of most gun owners 

He makes up a lot of stuff.  " I know this guy who..."; "I was at this political demonstration when..."; "My daddy has been retained by this criminal illegal..."

[mspart]

I heard this on the radio and looked it up and found original thoughts of the framers of the 14th amendment:

https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/the-citizenship-clause-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-the-congressional-debate/

Howard’s remarks introducing the new language in the Senate have attracted much attention—and much controversy. “I do not propose to say anything on that subject,” Howard said,

“except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”[3]

This linked article discusses the original thoughts regarding the citizenship section of amendment 14 and it is interesting to read.   Now, it appears SCOTUS said something different in their case per the citation that WKN has provided.   

So there appears to be an originalist argument that runs counter to the SCOTUS decision.  Like I said, the linked article is interesting. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

I heard this on the radio and looked it up and found original thoughts of the framers of the 14th amendment:

https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/the-citizenship-clause-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-the-congressional-debate/

Howard’s remarks introducing the new language in the Senate have attracted much attention—and much controversy. “I do not propose to say anything on that subject,” Howard said,

“except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”[3]

This linked article discusses the original thoughts regarding the citizenship section of amendment 14 and it is interesting to read.   Now, it appears SCOTUS said something different in their case per the citation that WKN has provided.   

So there appears to be an originalist argument that runs counter to the SCOTUS decision.  Like I said, the linked article is interesting. 

mspart

Yep, that’s one of Eastman’s references.  The Wong Kim Ark case that Eastman predicts that dimocrats will rely on, is about a son, Wong Kim, who was born in the U.S. to legal resident parents, not illegal. 

[Le duke]

Meanwhile, the administration just submitted arguments in federal court, questioning the citizenship of…Native Americans.

Brilliant!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Meanwhile, the administration just submitted arguments in federal court, questioning the citizenship of…Native Americans.

Brilliant!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All, or just the reservation breed?

[Tripnsweep]

7 hours ago, Offthemat said:

All, or just the reservation breed?

Are there others who European immigrants didn't subjugate and try to commit genocide against?

[Lipdrag]

On 1/22/2025 at 1:53 PM, Bigbrog said:

All my chromosomes are the best, there's never been any better, perfect chromosomes in every way, just the best.

And they are really yuge chromosomes.

[Tripnsweep]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2025/01/24/navajo-nation-leaders-address-reports-of-ice-detaining-tribal-citizens/77911978007/

And now this is going on. Since I wasn't born in this country, I should probably start carrying my passport or something with me so this doesn't happen. 

[mspart]

On 1/25/2025 at 2:45 AM, Tripnsweep said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2025/01/24/navajo-nation-leaders-address-reports-of-ice-detaining-tribal-citizens/77911978007/

And now this is going on. Since I wasn't born in this country, I should probably start carrying my passport or something with me so this doesn't happen. 

That's if you trust they won't remove the passport and destroy it and all records for it and ship you out anyway.   That seems to be where you are coming down on this. 

If they are detaining navajos, that is wrong.  

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

50 minutes ago, mspart said:

That's if you trust they won't remove the passport and destroy it and all records for it and ship you out anyway.   That seems to be where you are coming down on this. 

If they are detaining navajos, that is wrong.  

mspart

I am a little concerned because even though I am a citizen since birth, I wasn't born here, so it could be made an issue if I got scrutinized. It hasn't been a problem coming back and forth across the border, but now I don't know. My wife has a green card and is going to apply for citizenship in the near future. But both of us are just on the right shade of skin tones so it's not obvious right away. 

I do remember that during a protest at the Capitol a few years ago, a bunch of white nativists were yelling at the natives protesting telling them to go back to where they came from. Because brown people are all the same. Apparently to Trump that's the same case if they're trying to take citizenship from native Americans. 

[mspart]

Reservations don't have to abide by state law I think.   But do they have to abide by federal law?   If so, then they are within the jurisdiction and 14th amendment would apply.  I would think. 

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

Reservations don't have to abide by state law I think.   But do they have to abide by federal law?   If so, then they are within the jurisdiction and 14th amendment would apply.  I would think. 

mspart

The 14th amendment precedes most reservations. But Natives weren't granted citizenship until the 1920's or 30's. There is an interesting patchwork of laws with reservations. 

For one example here, tribal members who live in the reservation are almost immune from civil lawsuits. I had to learn this when I was doing court enforcement. Essentially if a tribal member needs to be served, we couldn't go out there and do it. So we would have to take it to the tribal authorities who would decide whether they wanted to proceed or not. Most of the time it would be indefinitely be "looked into" and considered a lost cause. 

Now they could be legally served off the reservation, but unless you knew their schedule or surveilled them, you wouldn't be able to. And it would be a huge waste of time. 

Criminal things fall under federal jurisdiction. A tribal cop got murdered at a gas station a few years ago and the US Marshal and FBI got involved since it happened on the reservation. 

But the local tribal cops play by their own set of rules. 

[666]

On 1/25/2025 at 3:29 AM, Tripnsweep said:

Are there others who European immigrants didn't subjugate and try to commit genocide against?

The Mongols! 

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

The 14th amendment precedes most reservations. But Natives weren't granted citizenship until the 1920's or 30's. There is an interesting patchwork of laws with reservations. 

For one example here, tribal members who live in the reservation are almost immune from civil lawsuits. I had to learn this when I was doing court enforcement. Essentially if a tribal member needs to be served, we couldn't go out there and do it. So we would have to take it to the tribal authorities who would decide whether they wanted to proceed or not. Most of the time it would be indefinitely be "looked into" and considered a lost cause. 

Now they could be legally served off the reservation, but unless you knew their schedule or surveilled them, you wouldn't be able to. And it would be a huge waste of time. 

Criminal things fall under federal jurisdiction. A tribal cop got murdered at a gas station a few years ago and the US Marshal and FBI got involved since it happened on the reservation. 

But the local tribal cops play by their own set of rules. 

Right, so they are under federal law and the law grants them citizenship.   I don't see how they go after Navajos.

Have any Navajos or other Indians been deported or kept in jail?  I just read a CNN report where they have apprehended but have not held Indian peoples. 

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Right, so they are under federal law and the law grants them citizenship.   I don't see how they go after Navajos.

Have any Navajos or other Indians been deported or kept in jail?  I just read a CNN report where they have apprehended but have not held Indian peoples. 

mspart

Because they look like they might be Mexican. Anyone who's spent time around natives can usually tell. 

[PortaJohn]

4 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

I do remember that during a protest at the Capitol a few years ago, a bunch of white nativists were yelling at the natives protesting telling them to go back to where they came from. Because brown people are all the same. Apparently to Trump that's the same case if they're trying to take citizenship from native Americans. 

Are you talking about the 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation?  You need to get your facts straight

1) "According to witnesses and video subsequently appearing on social media, the Black Hebrew Israelite men shouted racist slurs at the high school students as well as Native Americans.^[10][24][32] They called the students "a bunch of incest babies", future "school shooters", and "dirty ass little crackers", and said "you give faggots rights".^{[24][37][38][39]} Many students reacted by saying things such as "whoa" and "easy".^[39] The Hebrew Israelites also called a passing black man who tried to disagree with them a "coon", told indigenous activists that the word Indian means "savage", and said to a woman who had stopped to argue with them: "Where's your husband? Bring your husband. Let me speak to him."

2) The first social media video clips were short and focused on this moment, leading to initial harsh criticism of the high school students, who some described as mocking and harassing the elder. Some people affiliated with the March described the boys as appearing threatening due to their numbers, actions, and the "Make America Great Again" caps and clothing that some wore.^[10] By January 20, longer videos had been uploaded. Phillips clarified that it was he who had approached the crowd of students, in what he said was an attempt to defuse what Phillips perceived to be a brewing conflict between the students and a third group of five men who were identified as Black Hebrew Israelites who had been taunting the white students with homophobic slurs.

[PortaJohn]

And @Tripnsweep with the....

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

Because they look like they might be Mexican. 

What does that even mean?

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, ionel said:

What does that even mean?

Feels like radical left knee jerk reaction to deporting illegals….. he’s presuming ice is running around just detaining brown people at will.       They’re like a South Park episode sometimes.  

Edited Tuesday at 03:26 AM by Caveira