The Professor makes the admission: "I am not an 'originalist'.." but for the purpose of this article will "accept those terms" (whatever that means).
I think that means he really wants you to BELIEVE he's going to be on the "up and up" with you as if he * were * an originalist.
By now most readers have heard that the argument - for including or excluding the children of undocumented migrants (in terms of Birthright Citizenship) - turns on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Ignoring his slanted introduction and adverse characterizations: please note that the EO has not yet been written and published at this time.
The Professor (author) pulls "legal arguments" from two opinion-articles featuring a former Deputy National Security Adviser's arguments.
The Professor claims the other side posits:
1. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" - "Reaches only those children 'not subject to a foreign power'.
The Professor considers this a weak argument because it ass-u-mes that children of undocumented migrants have some inherent..
.. allegiance to a foreign power WHILE children of documented migrants not yet naturalized are, according to the Professor, NOT afforded the same assumption.
IMO, my counter to that argument is twofold:
a) Foreign parent and their children, if any, are ALL recognized as..
.. having foreign allegiances (or none at all) UNTIL they are naturalized.
b) "Jurisdiction" requires documentation prior to naturalization; documentation is to include a form of current authorization as a precursor to the DULY AUTHORIZED OATH of naturalization.
The Professor rebuts the President by talking to the points made by the President's "former Deputy National Security Adviser" in some previously published articles.
Normally the proponent of one side would NOT be the one to posit the position of the other side just to rebut it.
2. The Professor takes a sidebar related to his assumption that children of lawful migrants are treated different than those of unlawful migrants. While I proposed above that they are not treated any different in terms of their allegiances; the Professor ass-u-mes they are and..
(II) Currently authorized documented non-Americans citizens not eligible for naturalization whose status remains approved until it expires. (III) Unauthorized non-Americans of all ages subject to deportation whether they have some form of documentation or not.
The 14th Amendment is about "Citizenship": you are a citizen as defined by the 14th Amendment and applicable laws.. unless you are not.. in which case: get authorized & documented.
Being in the US, your age, going to school, work, paying taxes; none of that makes you a Citizen.
"Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" reaches -
And INCLUDES: (I) American Citizens of all ages (per the last Immigration and Nationality Act & 8 U.S. Code § 1401).
And EXCLUDES: (I) Currently authorized documented non-American citizens of all ages eligible for naturalization.
raises his four objections (a-d):
a) The history of Birthright Citizenship must be considered. - Kids may not have the same citizenship as their parents; IMO irrelevant. b) The Birthright Citizenship clause applied to free Blacks and not illegal immigrants (migrants).
the illegal status of those Slaves did NOT EXCLUDE THEM.. so why should it EXCLUDE illegals today? - Hmmm that is an interesting argument; my take is ANY CHILD & even ADULT TRAFFICKED as a labor-slave or sex-slave & who is subsequently freed from such a state as confirmed by..
- OK, I read that as: the clause solved the problem we intended to solve. And, we had no intention of granting citizenship to any illegal migrant. It is as if the Professor is acknowledging that the 14th Amendment and this clause does indeed EXCLUDE citizenship to Illegals.
- The Professor introduces "vagaries of statelessness and racist caprice." by suggesting: "excluding 'the children of illegal immigrants' would not have 'settle[d]' the status of freed slaves" because after slavery was outlawed, slaves were brought in illegally. And..
.. Law Enforcement and who is seeking to remain in the US, should find an Immigration Attorney to seek an existing process. c) The Professor poses: the exclusion of Birthright Citizenship for non-Americans is contrary to the Constitutions original intent and the purpose of the..
14th Amendment. The original intent allowed "a subordinate and inferior class of beings" and the 14th Amendment fixed that. The Professor is suggesting that @POTUS' EO would re-establish a subordinate and inferior class of beings. - No, the 14th Amendment, correctly..
d) Lastly the Professor poses: "deprivation of birthright citizenship as a consequence of one’s parents’ origins" or "based on the alleged crimes of a parent" - is objectionable. He cites the "Muslim" ban & totally ignores that the ban (which he acknowledges..
interpreted, EXCLUDES non-Americans from being Americans; it does NOT make that class of beings "subordinate and inferior". Would the Professor call all non-Americans subordinate and inferior?
.. passed the Supreme Court muster) was not banning "Muslims" but people from selected countries where proper government was lacking for the purpose of providing proper documentation and associated data.. etc. etc.. - IMO the Professor digresses; but I see no solid argument here.
.. years to be naturalized (and my family waited with me.. and my girlfriend, now my wife was there). NEVER in all the waiting did we ever consider any OBJECTIONS; we were blessed that my parents followed the law and we never - ever - had any intention of breaking it.
- IF the Professor is saying that Americans can be happy with our laws AND non-Americans excluded from being an American will OBJECT; well, OK. One can counter by saying non-Americans willing to follow our laws may find a way to naturalization; but, most Americans will OBJECT to
non-Americans breaking our laws. - When my parents, siblings and I escaped Communism, the quotas for America were full. We had to divert to Europe and WAIT about six years before entering the US. Due to age restrictions (I was the only one affected), I had to wait eight more..
There are multiple ways to embed @Hauwertsr's unrolled
1. Direct link
2. Use iframe
Sharing is caring 😍
Like this thread of @Hauwertsr?
it with your friends & followers.
Love Thread Readers? Upgrade to premium to unlock all features
A whole new way to explore your interests. Convert your Thread to PDF,
save and print. Subscribe to interesting authors and be notified when new unroll is
available. Auto publish your threads on Medium and WordPress websites.