SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide

JSRG said:

The 14th Amendment gives no definition of citizenship. Perhaps you mean it's the only place that mentions people gaining citizenship, but that is not quite true either; Article I gives congress power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (that is, of gaining citizenship after birth). Obviously, one can gain citizenship via naturalization independent of the 14th Amendment. The only thing the 14th Amendment does in regards to a naturalized citizen is that it makes them an automatic citizen of the state they live in as well. There was previously more of a distinction between being a state citizen and being a United States citizen prior, which the 14th Amendment largely removed.

Click to expand...

The concept of citizenship of the United States was rather murky prior to the 14th Amendment. Prior to the amendment, a citizen of the United States was a person who was a citizen of a state of the United States. But not all states considered freedmen their citizens.

RDKirk said:

The US has never permitted the exercise of foreign jurisdiction upon foreign nationals within the US except for diplomats. That being the case, the exclusivity of US jurisdiction upon people within its borders, legally or not, has long been a matter of law.

Click to expand...

So, basically my point. Other countries don't have jurisdiction over people while they're in the US, aside from diplomats of course. Thus the whole claim that other countries somehow have jurisdiction over someone born in the US is shown to be false. But even if they did, it wouldn't mean the US doesn't have jurisdiction, which it does.

RDKirk said:

I don't think we can say they were necessarily "going for more than that" because they didn't say more than that. Given the historical context, they may well have not seen a need to be explicit about exclusivity: "What else would we be talking about in this time and this place?"

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. The phrasing very clearly goes well beyond the slaves, as shown by the fact that, again, there's nothing about slavery mentioned, even obliquely. Far more people than just slaves are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

But, even if we set aside the text and talk just about motivations, we can very clearly see they had more than just slaves on their mind. In the discussions of it in the Senate, it is made very clear that it applies to a whole lot more people than slaves, as shown especially by the argument between the Senators Cowan and Conness, because Cowan was fretting about it being a bad idea to extend citizenship to children of immigrants. No one said Cowan was misunderstanding it, and the response to him by Conness was merely that Cowan was overstating the dangers.

So let's take a look at some statements by Cowan. After going on a rant about Gypsies, he then complains:

These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous.

This isn't in reference to slaves. Then after also fretting about Mongolians, he concludes with:

Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.

So it is fairly obvious that, yes, we are seeing far more people than just slaves being covered by it, which is exactly why Senator Cowan opposed it.

Lest anyone claim that he was wrong in his interpretation, we may note that no one objected to his interpretation of what the Citizenship Clause did. The point raised against him was not that he was wrong about children of Gypsies and Chinese being citizens, but that there wasn't any reason to worry about the effects he described of granting them citizenship. Senator Conness (the "honorable friend from California" he refers to) defends the idea of granting them citizenship, saying it's not something to worry about, focusing particularly on the Chinese. Here's a particularly relevant excerpt:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

Why all this discussion about Gypsies and Chinese and others if it was just about the slaves? The answer is easy: It wasn't just about the slaves. It was never just about the slaves. The Citizenship Clause was meant to be applied far more broadly than that. Again, we know that because that's literally what they said.

A New Dawn said:

Actually, Biden’s administration was instructed to go ahead with reinstating it while the case progressed, and refused to. It wasn’t till a year later that it was finally terminated.

Click to expand...

The court ruled that they had the authority to end it, and they did. Not sure I can figure out how this constitutes violating any Supreme Court ruling.

A New Dawn said:

Supreme Court leaves Biden’s new student loan repayment plan blocked | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to lift a sweeping block on President Joe Biden’s student loan repayment plan that aims to slash monthly payments and quicken the path to loan forgiveness.

amp.cnn.com

ETA: I cannot figure out how to add quotes with this stupid phone.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the second plan wasn't ruled unconstitutional, only that the SCOTUS didn't remove the block. So borrowers were given forbearance until the legal issues were resolved. Far as I can find out, there was no ruling, SCOTUS or a lower court, that the plan was unconstitutional.

So, still not the same thing.

But, I gotta say, it's an interesting comparison of the two administrations. Trump wanted to ship accused persons to prisons in different countries, denying them due process, while President Biden wanted to relieve college graduates of onerous debt. So, even if we call President Biden's attempts an executive branch overreach, as executive branch overreaches go, I have to say, I don't see much danger to democracy in it. Denying due process, on the other hand....

-- A2SG, but that's purely my opinion, ya unnerstand....

A2SG said:

The court ruled that they had the authority to end it, and they did. Not sure I can figure out how this constitutes violating any Supreme Court.

-- A2SG, but that's purely my opinion, ya unnerstand....

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court ruled that they had to reinstate the Trump era border policies while the suit progressed through the system. Biden refused to. THAT is how it is constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court. Biden stood in front of the news cameras and stated right out that he was not going to put Trump’s policies back in place.

It was not for another year that they finally ruled the program could be terminated. That year, alone could have stopped 3-4 million people from crossing the border.

A New Dawn said:

The Supreme Court ruled that they had to reinstate the Trump era border policies while the suit progressed through the system. Biden refused to. THAT is how it is constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court. Biden stood in front of the news cameras and stated right out that he was not going to put Trump’s policies back in place.

Click to expand...

I believe that was a lower court ruling, not the Supreme Court, but your point is taken.

Still, even if we consider that to be overreach, it's still not on a par with denying due process, so there's that.

A New Dawn said:

It was not for another year that they finally ruled the program could be terminated. That year, alone could have stopped 3-4 million people from crossing the border.

Click to expand...

Are those actual figures, or a guess? Do you have a source for your information?

Cuz if it's based on something Trump said, let's just say he's not a credible source.

-- A2SG, those who repeatedly commit fraud tend not to be....

A2SG said:

I believe that was a lower court ruling, not the Supreme Court, but your point is taken.

Still, even if we consider that to be overreach, it's still not on a par with denying due process, so there's that.


Are those actual figures, or a guess? Do you have a source for your information?

Cuz if it's based on something Trump said, let's just say he's not a credible source.

-- A2SG, those who repeatedly commit fraud tend not to be....

Click to expand...

The official number for the 4 years is 12M. Many officials from the various customs and immigration services put it at twice that. But using the official number, 12 million divided by 4 years comes out to 3 million a year.

And who, besides Abrego Garcia, was “denied due process”? Abrego Garcia was found to be guilty in two courts 4 years ago of being a gang member who was guilty of human trafficking, among other things and was ordered to be deported. That deportation was put on hold because he claimed he was in danger from a competing gang, but that gang is no longer in power, so the reasoning for keeping him here was null and void. So, in actuality, he had due process years ago. The first issue I have is why was this guy not in prison here until it was determined safe for him to be deported, and the second question I have is why do leftists WANT violent gang and cartel members walking our streets?

At least now he’s had due process AGAIN, and is on his merry way back home.

A New Dawn said:

The official number for the 4 years is 12M. Many officials from the various customs and immigration services put it at twice that. But using the official number, 12 million divided by 4 years comes out to 3 million a year.

Click to expand...

What's your source for these figures?

-- A2SG, or must I simply take your word for it?

Haven’t you watched the news for the last several years? And I’m not talking about FOX. It’s everywhere on all the news shows as well as all the pressers, but you are free to google it.

Pommer said:

Given that slaves weren’t “imported” since 1808, “home” was always the USA/CSA/USA.


I thought we were talking about children born while their parents were here, voluntarily.

Click to expand...

My response was to a specific post.

A New Dawn said:

Haven’t you watched the news for the last several years? And I’m not talking about FOX. It’s everywhere on all the news shows as well as all the pressers, but you are free to google it.

Click to expand...

But I asked you where you got your numbers from. If you can't, or won't, say, then how can I know they are legitimate? For all I know, they're made up.

-- A2SG, if you want your claims to be believed, you have to be able to back them up....

rjs330 said:

My response was to a specific post.

Click to expand...

Okie doke, then, have a great 4th.

I got them from all the news programs I watch and googled it and got the answer again from googles AI generated response. But, again, that number only includes the people who come in through the gates. There are millions more who cross with human traffickers and gang members, etc., who are paid to get you across the border.

A2SG said:

But I asked you where you got your numbers from. If you can't, or won't, say, then how can I know they are legitimate? For all I know, they're made up.

-- A2SG, if you want your claims to be believed, you have to be able to back them up....

Click to expand...

A New Dawn said:

I got them from all the news programs I watch and googled it and got the answer again from googles AI generated response. But, again, that number only includes the people who come in through the gates. There are millions more who cross with human traffickers and gang members, etc., who are paid to get you across the border.

Click to expand...

So you remembered something from some news program somewhere, then checked with Google's AI.

Gee, how could I possibly doubt those credentials.

-- A2SG, Woodward and Bernstein would be proud....

Pommer said:

Okie doke, then, have a great 4th.

Click to expand...

You too!

A2SG said:

So you remembered something from some news program somewhere, then checked with Google's AI.

Gee, how could I possibly doubt those credentials.

-- A2SG, Woodward and Bernstein would be proud....

Click to expand...

Why should I take the time to remember something and post it here when you have no intention of looking at it, anyway? It’s not like CNN or MSNBC or even google leans conservative for you to be so distrustful of, but so be it. I’m not going to do work you can so very easily replicate with a 20!second google search and learn something for yourself.

A New Dawn said:

Why should I take the time to remember something and post it here when you have no intention of looking at it, anyway?

Click to expand...

What did I say to give you that idea? I asked for it, of course I'll look at it and consider it. Can't guarantee it'll be convincing, but that's really up to you.

A New Dawn said:

It’s not like CNN or MSNBC or even google leans conservative for you to be so distrustful of, but so be it. I’m not going to do work you can so very easily replicate with a 20!second google search and learn something for yourself.

Click to expand...

You made the claim, not me. I assume you got your information from somewhere, didn't you? I'm simply asking to know what you know, from the source you got it from so I can evaluate it myself.

-- A2SG, surely that's not too much to ask....

A2SG said:

What did I say to give you that idea? I asked for it, of course I'll look at it and consider it. Can't guarantee it'll be convincing, but that's really up to you.


You made the claim, not me. I assume you got your information from somewhere, didn't you? I'm simply asking to know what you know, from the source you got it from so I can evaluate it myself.

-- A2SG, surely that's not too much to ask....

Click to expand...

And I told you exactly where I heard it. On news programs that I didn’t choose to record or make note of. For that reason, I consulted google and google’s AI took all the information from their favorite algorithms and made a nice summation of it. I believe the number is much higher because they only count the people who go through the gates, but I still went with their information. Do what you will with it.

Or here’s a thought, search for yourself to try to prove me wrong if you are so sure I made it all up.

A New Dawn said:

Why should I take the time to remember something and post it here when you have no intention of looking at it, anyway? It’s not like CNN or MSNBC or even google leans conservative for you to be so distrustful of, but so be it. I’m not going to do work you can so very easily replicate with a 20!second google search and learn something for yourself.

Click to expand...

Why do you think your opponent in an argument should be the one to try to support what you are arguing?

And if it is so easy to do so, why do you not just do it yourself and offer the sources? A "20 second google search" on your part presumably would have taken less time than the multiple posts you've offered refusing to offer sources.

JSRG said:

Why do you think your opponent in an argument should be the one to try to support what you are arguing?

And if it is so easy to do so, why do you not just do it yourself and offer the sources? A "20 second google search" on your part presumably would have taken less time than the multiple posts you've offered refusing to offer sources.

Click to expand...

He doesn’t have to support my argument, but if he believes I am wrong, he needs to prove that, himself. I already did the work to know that I am right, why should I try to prove myself wrong?

A New Dawn said:

And I told you exactly where I heard it. On news programs that I didn’t choose to record or make note of.

Click to expand...

Which I can't confirm or investigate myself.

A New Dawn said:

For that reason, I consulted google and google’s AI took all the information from their favorite algorithms and made a nice summation of it.

Click to expand...

AI is notoriously unreliable. I prefer original sources, and you should too.

A New Dawn said:

I believe the number is much higher because they only count the people who go through the gates, but I still went with their information. Do what you will with it.

Click to expand...

Not much I can do, given what little you've given me. For all I know, the number is made up, or inflated for partisan purposes.

How can I know if you won't tell me?

A New Dawn said:

Or here’s a thought, search for yourself to try to prove me wrong if you are so sure I made it all up.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you did make it up, only that I can't know one way or the other.

What if I did investigate it myself, and were unable to confirm your figures? Would that convince you you're wrong?

-- A2SG, maybe I did, and am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt....