Inside The Plot To Write Birthright Citizenship Out Of The Constitution

[system1]

Originally published at: Inside The Plot To Write Birthright Citizenship Out Of The Constitution - TPM – Talking Points Memo

At the RNC in July, JD Vance had a message: America is not “an idea,” he said in his speech introducing himself as Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick. Rather, Vance argued that the country is a “people with a common history.” His vision of American citizenship immediately stood out as at odds with what’s made…

[benthere]

As far as I am concerned, they can all climb a cactus.

[isthisrob]

One thing is for sure: this is going to be one of many Trump shitshows.

[davidn]

@system1

“We’re a nation of settlers more than immigrants, although we’ve certainly admitted many, many, many tens of millions of immigrants over the years,” he said.

Shorter version, “gobbledygook to hide my crazy”

[rmwarnick]

JFK literally wrote a book in 1958 titled, “A Nation of Immigrants.” When the right rejects multiculturalism it’s un-American.

[leftcoastindie]

I’m surprised common law has not come into the conversation. I’m not a lawyer so I may be out of my bailiwick but back in the early 1800’s (around 1811 I think and prior to the adoption of the 14th amendmert) there was a case that involved a question about citizenship status for a person who was born in the U.S. but lived in Ireland. What happened was a couple came to the U.S. to visit the mans brother who was a citizen. While here they had a baby girl and eventually went back to Ireland.The American brother died a number of years later and in his will he named his Irish brothers daughter as a beneficiary. Other beneficiaries sued because inheritances could only be awarded to citizens. The judge invoked a common law referred to as the Kings Privilege - if you are born in the kings realm you are his subject - and ruled in favor of the woman in Ireland because she was born here.
So even if you were to get around the 14th amendment somehow you would still have to deal with common law I would think.

[noonm]

@leftcoastindie

So even if you were to get around the 14th amendment somehow you would still have to deal with common law I would think.

I’d don’t get the impression that they are going to do this legally and constitutionally, like is assumed here. Instead, they will simply deny legal citizens necessary documentation (like social security numbers, passports, etc) and then treat them “illegals” in the deportation process. All signs point to Trump II planning to deport American citizens in their round ups.

[libthinker]

“We’re a nation of settlers more than immigrants, although we’ve certainly admitted many, many, many tens of millions of immigrants over the years,” he said.

If this is what passes for logic at Claremont these days, it doesn’t say much about the quality of their faculty.

[noonm]

@libthinker

If this is what passes for logic at Claremont these days, it doesn’t say much about the quality of their faculty.

They start with the answer they want, then work backward on the logic and evidence.

[lastroth]

@isthisrob

One thing is for sure: this is going to be one of many Trump shitshows.

Everything with Trump is a shitshow. Do we have enough forests to make all the TP we’ll need to clean his mess up?

[john_adams]

a “paranoid conspiracy-theory narrative” that regards birthright citizenship as a “decades-long insurrection” to “displace a heritage of white voters with immigrants.”

It is always and forever about race. Honest to fucking Christ, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Are they damaged? Evil? Ignorant? I’m going with all of the above.

[lastroth]

So that means that anyone who came here not in group, is not a settler but an immigrant. So to accurately define a group of settlers would that mean that the group of people had to know each other back in their home country before getting on a ship to come to America?

And I guess this gets banned:

Far
We’ve been traveling far
Without a home
But not without a star

Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream
On the boats and on the planes
They’re coming to America
Never looking back again
They’re coming to America

Home
Don’t it seem so far away
Oh, we’re traveling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm

Home
To a new and a shiny place
Make our bed and we’ll say our grace
Freedom’s light burning warm
Freedom’s light burning warm
Everywhere around the world

They’re coming to America
Every time that flag’s unfurled
They’re coming to America
Got a dream to take them there
They’re coming to America
Got a dream they’ve come to share
They’re coming to America

They’re coming to America
They’re coming to America
They’re coming to America
They’re coming to America
Today, today
Today, today, today

My country 'tis of thee (today)
Sweet land of liberty (today)
Of thee I sing (today)
Of thee I sing

Today, today, today
Today, today, (today, today)

[noonm]

@lastroth

So that means that anyone who came here not in group, is not a settler but an immigrant. So to accurately define a group of settlers would that mean that the group of people had to know each other back in their home country before getting on a ship to come to America?

“Settler” is their euphemism for Conqueror. They view their legitimacy as coming from the Divine Right of Conquest of the Americas.

However, directly citing 16th century concepts of conquering ‘infidels’ to bring them into Christendom might not be looked as so fondly by 21st century Americans, so they cover it up with euphemisms like ‘settler’.

[ladyfair]

I had made a statement to hubby about Melania’s son who was born here before she was a citizen. Hubby stated that he was a citizen because his father is a citizen.
Calling for the lawyers out there: Is that such a thing?

[generalsternwood]

We’re a nation of settlers more than immigrants, although we’ve certainly admitted many, many, many tens of millions of immigrants over the years

Settlers vs. Immigrants? Are “settlers” people who own more than 40 acres? This distinction is anti- Constitutional.

Williams’ response is as incoherent as any of the racist legal distinctions the Claremont folks are trotting out.

[chjim]

Yep. Papal Bull issued by Pope Nicholas V in 1452 was foundational to colonization, enslavement, eradication of indigenous peoples in lands to be discovered, dare I say “invaded” by dare I say caucasian “aliens” from Europe. “Settlers” arrived in the process. Mrs and I are among the post settler settlers.

[noonm]

@ladyfair

I had made a statement to hubby about Melania’s son who was born here before she was a citizen. Hubby stated that he was a citizen because his father is a citizen.
Calling for the lawyers out there: Is that such a thing?

Not a lawyer, but the answer is yes - children of a US citizen are citizens, regardless of where they are born (provided the citizen parent meets a few requirements). This came up regarding McCain in 2008, since he was technically born in Panama:

But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:

Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

The additional requirements are:

Children Born to One U.S. Citizen Parent and One Alien Parent

Under INA Section 301(g), a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires citizenship automatically at birth if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a total of five years prior to the child’s birth, including at least two years of physical presence after the parent’s 14th birthday (the five years are not required to be continuous).

Time spent abroad during periods of honorable service with the Armed Forces and employment with the U.S. government or an international organization 17 may count toward the physical presence requirement. 18 The INA makes certain distinctions for children born out-of-wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent. Per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 19 a child is born in wedlock “when the child’s legal parents are married to one another at the time of the child’s birth and at least one of the legal parents has a genetic or gestational relationship to the child.” 20 Otherwise, the child is considered to be born out-of-wedlock.

In the case of children born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother, 21 INA Section 301(g) provisions apply. 22 Children born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire citizenship under INA Section 301(g), but the following additional requirements apply, as specified at INA Section 309:

• “clear and convincing evidence” of a blood relationship between the child and father;
• a written agreement by the father (unless deceased) to provide financial support for the child until the child is 18; and
• before the child turns 18, paternity is acknowledged in writing under oath or established in court, or the child is legitimated under the law of his or her
  residence or domicile.

[eldonlazar]

“The prospect of potential terrorists coming across our border and giving birth to children once they’re here in order to specifically open up a Fifth Column on our shores is a very real possibility,”

Just throw out some specious hypotheticals and use it to overturn a century of settled law.

If Eastman hadn’t been disbarred for his J6 BS, his blatant incompetence as a lawyer should have done it.

[txlawyer]

Children of parents who may or may not have committed a civil offense or misdemeanor may never be recognized as citizens of the United States.

That’s the rule.

[sparrowhawk]

@noonm

@leftcoastindie

So even if you were to get around the 14th amendment somehow you would still have to deal with common law I would think.

I’d don’t get the impression that they are going to do this legally and constitutionally, like is assumed here. Instead, they will simply deny legal citizens necessary documentation (like social security numbers, passports, etc) and then treat them “illegals” in the deportation process. All signs point to Trump II planning to deport American citizens in their round ups.

Yes, he clearly learned from the first go round that the Bureaucracy and its red tape is an obstacle to his worst inclinations. He’s going to try to fill the government with sycophants who will let him railroad the rule of law, damn the torpedoes.

@eldonlazar

“The prospect of potential terrorists coming across our border and giving birth to children once they’re here in order to specifically open up a Fifth Column on our shores is a very real possibility,”

Just throw out some specious hypotheticals and use it to overturn a century of settled law.

If Eastman hadn’t been disbarred for his J6 BS, his blatant incompetence as a lawyer should have done it.

The hypothetical is absurd on its face considering that would require them to sit around on their hands for 30 odd years, waiting for this “fifth column” to mature and then turn on the only country they’ve ever called home (and likely the only country that would claim them). The argument makes no sense if you even consider it for a second.