OlDawg

He’d walk the other direction. Teasips…

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children. Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.” In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States. American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are. Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen. Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today. The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents. It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country. Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution. We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice. [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

No. Frederick Trump was born in New York City in 1905 to Trump’s grandfather who was recognized as a U.S. citizen around 1892.

I’m here all weekend. 😁

Easy distinction. Socialism is when a very few rich people who aren’t in the ruling party still have a nickel. Everyone else has less. Communism is when you look up at the people with less in envy.

Not sure why they keep saying ‘Socialist.’ His ideas are straight up Communism.

I'll never complain about a little bird poop again. Maybe work another bus route…

No explanation required.

A clear picture of the fiscal cost of immigrants is particularly important, given the ongoing border crisis. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the border surge will number 8.7 million unlawful immigrants between 2021 and 2026. The original analysis in this report finds that the border crisis will cost an estimated $1.15 trillion over the lifetime of the new unlawful immigrants—a cost larger than the entire U.S. defense budget and almost equal to the cost of Social Security in 2023. This report quantifies the fiscal impact of common immigration reform proposals: Mass deportations would significantly reduce the national debt over the long run, but a policy of selective legalization, coupled with mass deportations, would be even more fiscally beneficial, reducing the debt by about $1.9 trillion. Given the education, age, and earnings of H-1B visa recipients, doubling the number of H-1B visas for just one year would reduce the budget deficit by $70 billion over the long run—and by another $70 billion each year thereafter. The most beneficial immigration policy change would be to exempt STEM graduate degree holders from green-card caps, increasing immigration by some 15,000 people per year and reducing the visa backlog; this would reduce the deficit by $150 billion in the first year and $25 billion each year thereafter. Eliminating refugee resettlement and permanent immigration by parents of U.S. citizens would reduce the debt by a combined $40 billion in net present value every year. Congress could upskill the existing immigration flow by eliminating the diversity visa category and increasing the visas available to the top employment-based categories, and requiring immigrants to have earned a high school diploma to be eligible for a family visa, reducing the national debt by over $60 billion per year. By enacting a selectionist immigration policy—which requires securing the border from unlawful immigration, reducing low-skilled immigration, and expanding high-skilled immigration—the U.S. could reduce future federal debt by trillions of dollars over the long run. This report proposes a legislative package that provides over $2 trillion in net present value during the first year and over $200 billion each subsequent year, without accounting for the additional productivity growth resulting from high-skilled immigration. Furthermore, under these reforms, the annual number of immigrants who are new permanent residents decreases by about 15% after a temporary legalization program and a partial clearing of the employment-based visa backlog. Over the long term, annual legal immigration decreases under this plan from approximately 1 million in FY 2019 to approximately 860,000. [Hidden Content]

50’ pleasure craft named ‘Offshore Lifestyle’. According to other sources, $100,000.00 damage to a friggin’ docked aircraft carrier. Charged with BWI and hit & run after a slow pursuit. How many beers do you have to have had to be that drunk before 11:45 a.m.? lol

Hulkamania is getting a higher audience. He and Andre can have a rematch. 71 years young.

Gone at 84. Made me love jazz.

Sam was very ill and it looked like the end might be approaching so he calls his wife Becky near. Sam says to her, "Becky, I was wondering - have you ever cheated on me?" Becky replies, "Oh Sam, why would you ask such a question now? You don't want to ask that question..." "Yes, Becky, I really want to know. Please..." "Well, all right. Yes, 3 times..." "Three? Well, when were they?" he asked. "Well, Sam, remember when you were 35 years old and you really wanted to start a business on your own and no bank would give you a loan? Remember, then one day the bank president himself came over the house and signed the loan papers, no questions asked?" "Oh, Becky, you did that for me! I respect you even more than ever, to do such a thing for me. So, when was number 2?" "Well, Sam, remember when you had that last heart attack and you were needing that very tricky operation, and no surgeon would touch you? Then remember how Dr. Smith came all the way up here, to do the surgery himself, and then you were in good shape again?" "I can't believe it! Becky, you should do such a thing for me, to save my life. I couldn't have a more wonderful wife. To do such a thing, you must really love me darling. I couldn't be more moved. So, all right then, when was number 3?" "Well, Sam, remember a few years ago, when you really wanted to be president of the golf club and you were 26 votes short..?"

I went to a new family doctor today. The waiting room was spacious, new renovation, nice and beautiful nurses. It had a sign posted: "We respect our patients' privacy, we will not call you by name". Quite good eh, I thought. I completed the registration, sat down in the waiting area, and started reading the latest car magazine. A moment later, the nurse spoke into the mic: "Would the man age 32, with hemorrhoids, please proceed to examination room number 3".

Trump was a registered Democrat from 2001-2009.

I haven’t seen anyone say it’s okay to sleep with kids. I know I haven’t said anything of the sort. But, this committee isn’t going to release everything either. It’s a private review. As I said, I’m sure there will be selective leaks from ‘anon’ sources to benefit one side or the other. This is a political game to them. Sorry to be that way. But, that’s what we’ve devolved into.

Baron’s father is already a natural citizen. So, he wouldn’t be an anchor baby. An anchor baby is when neither parent is American. As far as citizenship by marriage, I think it’s okay. Many servicemen/women marry while on duty away. Since they’re not natural born, they can’t ever be POTUS. Also, depending on their spouses rate, they’ve gone through a security clearance. More security checks than Swalwell & his Chinese lady friends, and he’s on the House Intelligence panel and gets access to all kinds of stuff. Fang was a friggin’ Chinese spy for goodness sake. To answer about the total amount of citizenships granted via marriage, I know the number is very low comparatively. I don’t know the exact numbers. But, nothing like the anchor baby situation with two illegal parents. Also, in that case, at least one parent would presumably be paying into the system. Honest question: Didn’t y’all go over this stuff in Government in high school? I know we did back in the ‘70’s.

I haven’t looked. But, Melania is married to a U.S. citizen. Baron was born in the territories of the U.S. to an American father. I’ve never looked to see if Melania has dual citizenship or not. The EO only applied to those who were born after the date I listed (2/19/2025) to those in the U.S. temporarily, illegally, and/or without a parent being a U.S. citizen. It was an attempt to discourage/stop ‘anchor babies’ and birth tourism that people use to get the generous U.S. benefits. This EO had nothing to do with deportations. But, if upheld, it could really help our illegal immigration problem for the long term because it would stop a major draw. Then, legal migration could be more manageable as the system wouldn’t be as overwhelmed. Also—right now—someone could theoretically be a member of the CCCP, us not know, fly into the U.S. for a 3 week vacation, have a baby while here, that baby be a U.S. citizen, fly back & live their life in China until they’re 30, come back and run for POTUS. You’d have 14 years to decide if they were still ingratiated to the Chinese Communist Party even though that’s the system they were raised in. That’s how silly the current interpretation is… Real life Manchurian Candidate.

Would make me feel bad. If I had any feelings.

I think Putin’s laughing his arse off at all of this stuff.

Again, not sure what will come of this to help that issue. Even the article you posted said it would be reviewed internally—not released to the public. Even though Lee said the people deserve ‘transparency..’ Apparently, what we’ll get is strategic political leaks which won’t help anyone. This is a game to them.

Infantile question deserves an infantile meme.

I assume enough will be enough in 2028, unless you can impeach or otherwise remove sooner. This has nothing to do with pedophilia for you.