Sure. We could call it "Victory over the Constitution" Day.
Trump's Policies Part 4
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
Not sure this merits a separate thread, but since it is a Trump policy, we can discuss this here.
An Amicus Curiae brief on the history of birthright citizenship. It turns out a woman positioning her birth canal over US territory when she drops the kid might not confer US citizenship on the baby.
The British doctrine before the Revolution was birthright citizenship. The subject of the Crown cannot swear off that allegiance (the bief called this "the feudal doctrine of perpetual subjectship imposed by location of birth."). The American Republic was founded on the opposite principle: "mutual consent and allegiance."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (designed to guarantee citizenship to freedmen) opened with this phrase: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (THere was a lot of discussion of the status of Indians, since they had allegiance to their tribe, with whom the US had treaties. Indians received a blanket US citizenship in 1924.
The XIV Amendment was intended to "constitutionalize" the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (to remove any constitutional objections and veto).
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, the Act’s sponsor, explained that the clause referred to those who owed allegiance solely to the United States. Sen. John Bingham (drafter of the XIV Amendment) said, “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is ... a natural-born citizen.” Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1291.
An illegal alien, who still owes allegiance to a foreign power, cannot confer US citizenship on his/her progeny merely by "accident of birth."
Interesting discussion.
Since the Constitution means whatever a federal judge says it does regardless of what the text actually says, I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule in this issue.
An Amicus Curiae brief on the history of birthright citizenship. It turns out a woman positioning her birth canal over US territory when she drops the kid might not confer US citizenship on the baby.
The British doctrine before the Revolution was birthright citizenship. The subject of the Crown cannot swear off that allegiance (the bief called this "the feudal doctrine of perpetual subjectship imposed by location of birth."). The American Republic was founded on the opposite principle: "mutual consent and allegiance."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (designed to guarantee citizenship to freedmen) opened with this phrase: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (THere was a lot of discussion of the status of Indians, since they had allegiance to their tribe, with whom the US had treaties. Indians received a blanket US citizenship in 1924.
The XIV Amendment was intended to "constitutionalize" the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (to remove any constitutional objections and veto).
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, the Act’s sponsor, explained that the clause referred to those who owed allegiance solely to the United States. Sen. John Bingham (drafter of the XIV Amendment) said, “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is ... a natural-born citizen.” Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1291.
An illegal alien, who still owes allegiance to a foreign power, cannot confer US citizenship on his/her progeny merely by "accident of birth."
Interesting discussion.
Since the Constitution means whatever a federal judge says it does regardless of what the text actually says, I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule in this issue.
Yes, it's really his post (reposted by the official White House account).
I'm so happy that all of our issues have been fixed so Trump can focus on posting about holidays and silly Ai images.
Welker: Is it ok in the short term to have a recession?
Trump: Yeah. Everything is ok.
I've heard that described as his "Let them eat cake" moment. When and if the economy takes a dump between now and November 2026, this snippet will feature prominently in Democratic ads, as it should.
Last edited:
I would suggest Thomas and Alito have brought some of that on themselves.OK, now they're looking to grant control of the judiciary's administrative functions to the President.
Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White House Control Of Court System
Close allies of President Trump are asking a judge to give the...talkingpointsmemo.com
Here's the actual complaint:
It's worth reading, if for no other reason, because the justification claimed for this action is the baseless persecution of Alito and Thomas.
I'm not sure, but I think you have to be Catholic to hold the office of Pontifex Maximus.
(history nerd point: The office of Pontifex Maximus is 2,500 years old, as in 500 years older than Christ)
I found this interesting.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia did have due process.
First, he did not appear for his initial hearing in 2013. (He infiltrated the US in 2011) When an illegal is apprehended at the border, they are given a court date, but there are so many illegals, the case log is backed up for years)
He did have a hearing on Oct 10, 2019, (Case No. 25-1345), at which time the Immigration judge ruled:
"The Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred without exception." (He no-showed at his initial hearing to actually claim asylum and by 2019, it was too late to claim asylum. It's hard to say you were denied due process if you do not show up for your court date.)
The judge further ruled: "However he has established past persecution based on a protected ground, and the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution." The Barrio 18 gang had threatened his mother's pupuseria business in Guatemala.
"DHS has not shown there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the Respondent's life not being threatened, or that internal relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances." (Again, not a lawyer, but it appears when an illegal facing deportation says he will face persecution if deported, the burden is now on the US government to show deportation will be safe for the deportee. The US government did not demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the court)
"Therefore, the Respondent's application for withholding under the Act is granted."
The immigration judge ordered, "Do not remove this guy to Guatemala." I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read this is, "Asylum request denied so the illegal alien has to go, but, because he says he faces "persecution" in Guatemala, you can deport him, just not to Guatemala."
To which the Trump administration said, "Okay. Not to Guatemala."
Kilmar Abrego Garcia did have due process.
First, he did not appear for his initial hearing in 2013. (He infiltrated the US in 2011) When an illegal is apprehended at the border, they are given a court date, but there are so many illegals, the case log is backed up for years)
He did have a hearing on Oct 10, 2019, (Case No. 25-1345), at which time the Immigration judge ruled:
"The Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred without exception." (He no-showed at his initial hearing to actually claim asylum and by 2019, it was too late to claim asylum. It's hard to say you were denied due process if you do not show up for your court date.)
The judge further ruled: "However he has established past persecution based on a protected ground, and the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution." The Barrio 18 gang had threatened his mother's pupuseria business in Guatemala.
"DHS has not shown there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the Respondent's life not being threatened, or that internal relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances." (Again, not a lawyer, but it appears when an illegal facing deportation says he will face persecution if deported, the burden is now on the US government to show deportation will be safe for the deportee. The US government did not demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the court)
"Therefore, the Respondent's application for withholding under the Act is granted."
The immigration judge ordered, "Do not remove this guy to Guatemala." I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read this is, "Asylum request denied so the illegal alien has to go, but, because he says he faces "persecution" in Guatemala, you can deport him, just not to Guatemala."
To which the Trump administration said, "Okay. Not to Guatemala."
Here is some more info on asylum requests.
“Asylum”, a form of humanitarian protection provided for in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ... can be granted to certain aliens present in the United States regardless of their immigration status.
"Less well-known is a separate humanitarian protection, set forth in section 241(b)(3) of the INA and technically titled “Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened”, but more commonly known as 'statutory withholding of removal.'”
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was denied asylum (because he did not request asylum in time)
"An asylum grant places an alien on track to apply for a green card, and ultimately to apply for U.S. citizenship. ...
An alien can only be granted statutory withholding after an immigration judge has ordered the alien removed, and the statutory withholding grant only bars the alien’s removal to a specific country or countries. If a different country will take an alien who was granted statutory withholding, DHS can send the alien there."
Garcia told the immigration judge he would face persecution in Guatemala (where he had immigrated from) not El Salvador (where he was born). So the judge said, "Asylum denied, but statutory withholding granted. Don't deport this guy to Guatemala."
So the Trump Administration said, "Got it. Don't deport Garcia to Guatemala."
“Asylum”, a form of humanitarian protection provided for in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ... can be granted to certain aliens present in the United States regardless of their immigration status.
"Less well-known is a separate humanitarian protection, set forth in section 241(b)(3) of the INA and technically titled “Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened”, but more commonly known as 'statutory withholding of removal.'”
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was denied asylum (because he did not request asylum in time)
"An asylum grant places an alien on track to apply for a green card, and ultimately to apply for U.S. citizenship. ...
An alien can only be granted statutory withholding after an immigration judge has ordered the alien removed, and the statutory withholding grant only bars the alien’s removal to a specific country or countries. If a different country will take an alien who was granted statutory withholding, DHS can send the alien there."
Garcia told the immigration judge he would face persecution in Guatemala (where he had immigrated from) not El Salvador (where he was born). So the judge said, "Asylum denied, but statutory withholding granted. Don't deport this guy to Guatemala."
So the Trump Administration said, "Got it. Don't deport Garcia to Guatemala."
Are you sure about "don't report to Guatemala" part, because all news articles I have seen have this quote:
" An immigration judge barred Abrego Garcia from being sent to El Salvador, saying he proved he had a “well-founded fear of future persecution” from local gangs."
Edit: Supreme Court case clearly states that judge in 2019 specified that government is not allowed to send him to El Salvador.
Link : https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
Last edited:
I think that confusion is the central point of the controversy.
Garcia was from El Salvador.
Gang threats caused his family to move to Guatemala.
He moved to the US from Guatemala, .
The immigration judge's order, dated Oct. 10, 2019, said (Page SA13):
"The Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred without exception. However' he has established past persecution based on a protected ground, and the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. DHS has not shown there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the Respondent's life not being threatened, or that internal relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Respondent's application for withholding under the Act is granted. Finally, his CAT [Convention Against Torture] claim fails because he has not shown that he would suffer torture."
The Withholding Order is country-specific. He was denied asylum. He admitted he was removable. He requested a withholding, which was granted. That withholding order said, "Don't remove this guy to Guatemala."
On pages SA24 and SA25, the "PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" says "On October 10, 2019, at the conclusion of hotly contested removal proceedings before an IJ in Baltimore, Mr. Abrego Garcia won an order granting him withholding of removal, pursuant to Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), as to El Salvador."
But the IJ's order (Page SA13) clearly says Guatemala.
I wonder if the IJ or Garcia's attorneys at some point and looked back at the October 2019 order and said, "Oh crap, the withholding order says Guatemala.” Maybe that the "administrative error" everyone is talking about, not that Garcia was deported, but that the IJ's order said, "Don't deport to Guatemala."
If the Withhlding Order had sai "Don;t deport to El Salvador" and the US had deported him to Guatemala, the Guatemalans would oprobably have said, "Wait a minute. This guy isn't Guatemalan. You can't deport him here. We're not taking him."
Latest threads
-
-
-
Pitching Powers No. 18 Alabama to 5-2 Win over No. 15 Vanderbilt on Saturday- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
No. 18 Alabama Drops Series Opener at No. 15 Vanderbilt on Friday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Coach Saban influencing Executive action on NIL limitations.- Started by dWarriors88
- Replies: 14
-
No. 18 Alabama’s Matchup with No. 15 Vanderbilt Moved to 7:30 p.m. CT First Pitch
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0