The Caravan

[Alfalfa]

Who's arguing that?

Nationalism has a much more specific meaning than patriotism. According to the dictionary AND the way humans use it, right now.

What kind of game are you trying to play here?

The specific meaning is self-serving. Nationalists who are uncomfortable with the word 'nationalist' claim they're simply patriotic. There is no real difference aside from your disapproval of how others express their nationalism/patriotism. I haven't seen any explanation of why patriotic sentiment is a positive value to someone who disapproves of nationalism. If you identify with a nation, and pride yourself in what you consider your nation's value, then you're a nationalist. Even if you don't agree with what other nationalists feel are their nation's values.

 

[One Brow]

Trump claims he wants to end citizenship by birth. That’s part of the constitution and he wants to end it by executive order.

The clause was limited to prevent, for example, the children of diplomats from receiving automatic citizenship. In fact, the 14th Amendment was determined to not apply to members of Native American tribes in Elk vs. Wilkins, because their primary allegiance was to their indigenous nation. They were later granted birthright citizenship by The Indian Citizenship Act.

The actual text: 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.

If Trump's Administration challenges birthright citizenship, it will be based on the claim that the children of illegal immigrants owe their primary allegiance to their parents country of birth, not the US, so they do not fill the intention of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This may have other consequences if they win on this basis, though. Can we jail people we are saying are not subject to our jurisdiction? IANAL.

But it will be interesting to see how many Rs support this despite the horribly dangerous premise it sets.

Indeed.

 

[One Brow]

The specific meaning is self-serving. Nationalists who are uncomfortable with the word 'nationalist' claim they're simply patriotic. There is no real difference aside from your disapproval of how others express their nationalism/patriotism. I haven't seen any explanation of why patriotic sentiment is a positive value to someone who disapproves of nationalism. If you identify with a nation, and pride yourself in what you consider your nation's value, then you're a nationalist. Even if you don't agree with what other nationalists feel are their nation's values.

You can be a patriot and acknowledge that French/Chinese/Russian/Indian/Indonesian/etc. patriots are just as correct in their patriotism as you are in yours; it's true not all patriots acknowledge this, but it is possible. As a nationalist, you are saying that the French/Chinese/Russian/Indian/Indonesian/etc. patriots are less correct, because the US is better. I'm a patriot, not a nationalist.

 

[JAZZGASM]

The clause was limited to prevent, for example, the children of diplomats from receiving automatic citizenship. In fact, the 14th Amendment was determined to not apply to members of Native American tribes in Elk vs. Wilkins, because their primary allegiance was to their indigenous nation. They were later granted birthright citizenship by The Indian Citizenship Act.

The actual text: 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.

If Trump's Administration challenges birthright citizenship, it will be based on the claim that the children of illegal immigrants owe their primary allegiance to their parents country of birth, not the US, so they do not fill the intention of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This may have other consequences if they win on this basis, though. Can we jail people we are saying are not subject to our jurisdiction? IANAL.



Indeed.

Exactly. The fact is, the Constitution is open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the 14th Amendment applies to children of illegals. The most persuasive case I am aware of is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. with Chinese parents was a citizen. But both parents had a permanent domicile and were in the country legally. You also have to keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was passed with the intent to ensure that those that descended from slaves could be citizens (and effectively nullified the Dred Scott case). As absurd as it sounds, Trump may actually be able to do it. There will likely be injunctions, and it would go do the Supreme Court. The outcome may be surprising.

 

[Stoked]

Exactly. The fact is, the Constitution is open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the 14th Amendment applies to children of illegals. The most persuasive case I am aware of is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. with Chinese parents was a citizen. But both parents had a permanent domicile and were in the country legally. You also have to keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was passed with the intent to ensure that those that descended from slaves could be citizens (and effectively nullified the Dred Scott case). As absurd as it sounds, Trump may actually be able to do it. There will likely be injunctions, and it would go do the Supreme Court. The outcome may be surprising.

And this is by far easier for me to accept. I was reading about him wanting to do it via executive order. He can’t but even the attempt is ugly and subversive.

 

[JazzGal]

At this point, I think Trump has figured out that he can say anything he wants and he doesn't have to follow up with anything. If the ludicrous stuff he is saying lately appeals to people and gets them out to vote in the way he wants, then he doesn't actually have to even attempt to do any of it. At least I'm hopeful he realizes he can't really do this, even if many other people won't know that. I wonder what else he will say in the coming week? I can't wait until Nov 7.

 

[One Brow]

Exactly. The fact is, the Constitution is open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the 14th Amendment applies to children of illegals. The most persuasive case I am aware of is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. with Chinese parents was a citizen. But both parents had a permanent domicile and were in the country legally. You also have to keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was passed with the intent to ensure that those that descended from slaves could be citizens (and effectively nullified the Dred Scott case). As absurd as it sounds, Trump may actually be able to do it. There will likely be injunctions, and it would go do the Supreme Court. The outcome may be surprising.

This may be outside your area of expertise, but if the Trump administration succeeds in arguing that all illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, would that limit their ability to prosecute the few illegal immigrant criminals we do get?

 

[JAZZGASM]

This may be outside your area of expertise, but if the Trump administration succeeds in arguing that all illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, would that limit their ability to prosecute the few illegal immigrant criminals we do get?

Definitely not my area of expertise, but if you are in the country illegally, you can always be prosecuted based on current law. Based on the Wong Kim Ark case, from what I understand, the Court decided to grant him citizenship based upon "jus soli" (essentially the idea that if you are born here, you are a citizen). The dissent argued that the 14th amendment didn't apply, because Ark and his parents were subject to a foreign power. Ultimately, that case determined that his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., as they were legally domiciled here.

I think the central question we are dealing with is if a child, born to undocumented parents, is subject to a foreign power (country of origin) or to the USA, and whether or not their parents status will affect the child's. If the child born in the U.S. is subject to a foreign power, the 14th amendment likely would not apply to them. Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally domiciled, so it is possible for the current Court to make a distinction from the Ark case. This would be the only way that Trump could "win" on this issue. Based on my reading of the Wong Kim Ark case, I doubt that will happen as I think it is a stretch, but it is a grey area that has not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court to date.

I also think based on the the authority given to the President by the Senate, that Trump probably has authority to issue an executive order regarding this matter (as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution, which is the entire discussion). Obama made similar orders not to enforce immigration laws. The Senate can always take this power back.

 

[One Brow]

I think the central question we are dealing with is if a child, born to undocumented parents, is subject to a foreign power (country of origin) or to the USA, and whether or not their parents status will affect the child's. If the child born in the U.S. is subject to a foreign power, the 14th amendment likely would not apply to them.

More generally, what other laws and principles would apply to them? If they are not subject to a US jurisdiction, could we enforce traffic violations, for example? I'm worried about the unintended backfire of putting illegal immigrants in a pseudo-diplomat class, or even those of a foreign army (which would give them something like POW status).

 

[babe]

You have the inclusion backwards. Nationalism is a subset of patriotism, which includes the elevation of your country above others. You can be patriotic without downplaying/dismissing other countries.

Still arbitrary babbling here, bro. The words themselves have no objective material existence with any kind of nuance or distinction beyond whatever usage people make of them, or whatever they think they mean.

Daniel Webster used to roam the woods with a notebook and just write down words he found people using, spellings they gave to them, and whatever meanings they attached.

Today, Merriam-Webster is a freak of John Dewey educational philosophy, a sort of authoritanian manager of public discourse.

In this little debate, some folks are trying to smear Donald J. Trump for using a word, somehow, out of context with the dictionary, as a lot of people understand it and use. It is a dishonest intellectual exercise to force DJT into the Hitler box, and in fact a shamefully dishonorable exercise.

Donald J. Trump likes big buildings that pay good rents, and good-looking women. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know the man.

I know some of his staff and cabinet folks tried to explain globalism or the New World Order to him, and he just said he didn't like it. He didn't fire them.

I believe he noticed how a lot of our politicians are not doing good business, and I think he figured it was hurting people here in the country that elected him President. I think he noticed how crowds respond to different things. I think he tries to find more stuff like that.

But I don't think he ever cared about "socialism", "nationalism", or any political isms you have ever heard about. I think he likes to do good business. I think he owns big buildings in other countries too. If he were President of the World, he would be trying to do stuff that makes practical good business.

But I really think he doesn't really care that much about being President. My wife fell in love with him many years ago when she saw a story about how he went with his wife to Target to get Christmas presents for his kids. Some folks thought it was unclassy for someone that rich to go shopping at Target. My wife said he was awesome because he really didn't care what anyone thought, and he was willing to shop the bargains and stay on budget/.

When Trump is no longer President, there will be no Fourth Reich left doing skyscraper drape Trump images calling him the Hero of the People or the Great Teacher or Great Leader. There will be no death camps where anyone was tortured and re-educated to conform to the Grand State.

Trump will be going back to Target looking for good deals for Christmas./

All that other stuff is what it would have been if we had elected Hillary.

 

[JAZZGASM]

More generally, what other laws and principles would apply to them? If they are not subject to a US jurisdiction, could we enforce traffic violations, for example? I'm worried about the unintended backfire of putting illegal immigrants in a pseudo-diplomat class, or even those of a foreign army (which would give them something like POW status).

No, this wouldn't create any time of immunity. The premise is that because someone is subject to a foreign power (their country of origin) the 14th Amendment, as drafted, would not apply to them. Nothing prevents other laws from not applying to these people who are in our country as well. But if they have a foreign power they are subject to, they may not automatically become citizens, at least that is the premise.

 

[One Brow]

Still arbitrary babbling here, bro. The words themselves have no objective material existence with any kind of nuance or distinction beyond whatever usage people make of them, or whatever they think they mean.

Of course. I was explaining the usage people make of these words.

All that other stuff is what it would have been if we had elected Hillary.

People said that for eight years while Obama was being elected or was President. Never happened. Wouldn't have happened with Hillary, either.

 

[One Brow]

No, this wouldn't create any time of immunity. The premise is that because someone is subject to a foreign power (their country of origin) the 14th Amendment, as drafted, would not apply to them. Nothing prevents other laws from not applying to these people who are in our country as well. But if they have a foreign power they are subject to, they may not automatically become citizens, at least that is the premise.

I suppose my confusion is that, if they are not subject to our jurisdiction, how can we say they have to obey our laws? Is "subject to a jurisdiction" a special term of art that only means "has loyalty to"?

 

[babe]

More generally, what other laws and principles would apply to them? If they are not subject to a US jurisdiction, could we enforce traffic violations, for example? I'm worried about the unintended backfire of putting illegal immigrants in a pseudo-diplomat class, or even those of a foreign army (which would give them something like POW status).

Seeing what he done, so far.... I'm not very worried. He cleaned up those cages Obama built and is working towards some efficient and humane way to deal with the issue. Obama didn't care, really. One good thing about a bad press is it does provoke management to do better sometimes...…

Trump will address the problem at a high level by proposing/offering cooperative measures with Mexico and the Central American governments. Maybe open up and staff better facilities for processing wannabe immigrants closer to home. I think he will try to change our laws to encourage legal applicants and discourage illegal migration. He will try to end the birthright/anchor baby loophole. Do you know how much business is being run flying women into this country from China and Russia so their babes will be US citizens? I think there will be more E-verify attention, more effort to end the Mexican drug and human trafficking cartel business.

I suppose you don't care that Obama and Holder did a huge gun running gambit to supply those gangs, and in fact created some new ones with their generous distribution of taxpayer funded guns to those crime syndicates. There was some stuff in the news, not much, about it. Sure..... sure.... tell me they were trying to locate and end the gun runners...…. then tell me why they did nothing to follow up with that plan. Anyone who doesn't recognize a scam like that right off just doesn't wanna admit the obvious. you know. other folks blinded by sheer fantasies of great political agendas.

I would say it was likely a deliberate strategy aimed at financially enabling lawlessness. Obama would do something like that because he is a sincere believer in Marxism/modern Statism, and a community organizer dedicated to getting the right kind of people to the voting booths. People regardless of "nationality" and having no freakin' idea what "patriotism" is, who can be persuaded to do as told for oh say fifty bucks US/.

any other explanation would be some kind of assertion that Obama is just plain stupid, and I wouldn't believe it for a minute.

 

[babe]

Of course. I was explaining the usage people make of these words.



People said that for eight years while Obama was being elected or was President. Never happened. Wouldn't have happened with Hillary, either.

maybe because people were watching out for it...…..

 

[JazzGal]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...0-troops-to-border/ar-BBPbvgc?ocid=spartanntp

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the United States could send as many as 15,000 military troops to the border with Mexico, as he hardens his stance against a caravan of migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America.

The Pentagon has said it has identified about 7,000 active-duty troops, including about 2,000 on standby, that could be deployed to the southern border.

I still hope Trump is lying about all of this and just wants to stir up racism and fear ahead of the election. But I'm not exactly thrilled with the country we are becoming.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I suppose my confusion is that, if they are not subject to our jurisdiction, how can we say they have to obey our laws? Is "subject to a jurisdiction" a special term of art that only means "has loyalty to"?

For purposes of the 14th amendment, the "subject to a jurisdiction" is a term of art. It has been argued that the phrase "subject to a jurisdiction" should not include people that are citizens of another nation. It does not mean that a non-citizen here illegally cannot be punished for breaking the law here. These is limited case law on this issue AFAIK, so it isn't a black and white thing. I'd recommend reading the ARK case and dissent.

 

[One Brow]

For purposes of the 14th amendment, the "subject to a jurisdiction" is a term of art. It has been argued that the phrase "subject to a jurisdiction" should not include people that are citizens of another nation. It does not mean that a non-citizen here illegally cannot be punished for breaking the law here. These is limited case law on this issue AFAIK, so it isn't a black and white thing. I'd recommend reading the ARK case and dissent.

Thank you.

 

[Harambe]

Seeing what he done, so far.... I'm not very worried. He cleaned up those cages Obama built and is working towards some efficient and humane way to deal with the issue.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You must mean utilize cages previous administration's built, most of which under Gdub's authority, and built more.

Two billion worth of extra cages and cost of detainment. $750 a day per child store from their parents.12,800 children still in lock up as of September.

But since you're obsessed with Obama the average length of stay under his watch was 22 days. 34 under donnie. Before Obama took over, 363 centers were in use. By the end of 2016, just over 200.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_detention_sites_in_the_United_States

https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/detention-statistics/

You've always been off your rocker. But FFS, I think you've fallen through a hole in the space time continuum this time.

"he's cleaning up Obamas mess" Is Bigger lie than "he personally made peace with North Korea"

 

[Zombie]

Holy **** these people look incredibly dangerous. Thank god for Donald Trump sending thousands of troops to protect us from this threat.