Mass Deportation - Planning underway— Tom Homan to be “Border Czar”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 372
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
And the team plans to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
This is core MAGA. The cruelty is the point. These are men who are literally taking out their anger on babies. The economic anxiety is just so much to overcome.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Isn't this also unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Says who? There are only nine justices whose opinions matter, and those justices loathe the 14th Amendment, except when they use it to strike down diversity initiatives. If they want to end birthright citizenship, the fact that the text and original intent of the 14th clearly establish it will not matter to them at all.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Isn't this also unconstitutional? 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...
To add to what super said, I believe their argument revolves around the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. That phrase is why children born in the US of diplomats aren't granted citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same if a foreign army invaded the US and some soldiers had children while here. Since they are foreign invaders they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Conservatives are trying to make the argument that an undocumented immigrant - via their status - and children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most people think it's a weak argument but it doesn't matter what most people think.
 
CFordUNC said:
The entire prison population in the United States is currently around 1.2 million people. Fascinating that the Trumpers believe that they'll be able to somehow arrest, detain, and hold 10-15 million undocumented immigrants.
Click to expand...
If it gets done, it will resemble Nazi concentration camps (the ones that were not considered death camps but plenty of people still died of disease and starvation) far more than US prisons. There isn't going to be anything humane about it. Even if their intent is to do it humanely, that will get lost in the process.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
If it gets done, it will resemble Nazi non-death concentration camps far more than US prisons. There isn't going to be anything humane about it. Even if their intent is to do it humanely, that will get lost in the process.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I agree, the inhumanity of such a scenario would be the worst aspect, and of course there would be dire economic ramifications felt by all of us, as well.

I tend to think that this whole "we're going to deport illegal immigrants" thing will look very similarly to the "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" bullshit from the first term. There will be widely-publicized raids and round-ups of people who are *already* incarcerated or in the crosshairs of the legal system. There will be an enormous Trumpian show and performative theater, as there always is, and there will be all sorts of outright lying and fudging and obfuscation of statistics and data that will make it seem like the five-figure number of illegal immigrants "deported" actually numbers in the millions. But short of creating a concentration camp-style system of incarceration, it's hard to even understand logistically how Trumpers expect it to work.
 
superrific said:
Says who? There are only nine justices whose opinions matter, and those justices loathe the 14th Amendment, except when they use it to strike down diversity initiatives. If they want to end birthright citizenship, the fact that the text and original intent of the 14th clearly establish it will not matter to them at all.
Click to expand...
Would it be retroactive? Could every citizen who is the child of an immigrant have their citizenship revoked? I mean we are all ultimately children of immigrants (except NA), but I'm wondering if this policy would be going forward only or would existing birthright citizens of immigrant parents be at risk as well?
 
CFordUNC said:
Yeah. I agree, the inhumanity of such a scenario would be the worst aspect, and of course there would be dire economic ramifications felt by all of us, as well.

I tend to think that this whole "we're going to deport illegal immigrants" thing will look very similarly to the "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" bullshit from the first term. There will be widely-publicized raids and round-ups of people who are *already* incarcerated or in the crosshairs of the legal system. There will be an enormous Trumpian show and performative theater, as there always is, and there will be all sorts of outright lying and fudging and obfuscation of statistics and data that will make it seem like the five-figure number of illegal immigrants "deported" actually numbers in the millions. But short of creating a concentration camp-style system of incarceration, it's hard to even understand logistically how Trumpers expect it to work.
Click to expand...
Hope you're right; I think you're wrong. Cruelty is a feature, not a bug of the gqp. In fact, cruelty is often the only point.
 
mpaer said:
I wonder how many Biological Males that transitioned played HS Womens sports?? The number
And how many of them were built like Lawrence Taylor
Click to expand...
The numbers are very low. I believe I read that the state of NC had 15 trans women athletes.

But thats not really the point. The right wants to use this to turn people against all trans people even those who couldn't care less about playing sports.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
To add to what super said, I believe their argument revolves around the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. That phrase is why children born in the US of diplomats aren't granted citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same if a foreign army invaded the US and some soldiers had children while here. Since they are foreign invaders they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Conservatives are trying to make the argument that an undocumented immigrant - via their status - and children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most people think it's a weak argument but it doesn't matter what most people think.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I personally think that it is worse than a "weak argument," it is completely laughable. There is no real argument that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction - otherwise we couldn't prosecute them for crimes! I've read the legal theories as to why "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implicitly requires that the US government have consented to someone's presence here and I'm not convinced. It also would be a practical nightmare to administer and would result in a constant flood of legal proceedings about citizenship.

Of course, none of this means the current activist court won't adopt this insane argument. The hope is that Roberts and ACB, at least, aren't willing to go that far.
 
rodoheel said:
Just to be clear, I personally think that it is worse than a "weak argument," it is completely laughable. There is no real argument that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction - otherwise we couldn't prosecute them for crimes! I've read the legal theories as to why "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implicitly requires that the US government have consented to someone's presence here and I'm not convinced. It also would be a practical nightmare to administer and would result in a constant flood of legal proceedings about citizenship.

Of course, none of this means the current activist court won't adopt this insane argument. The hope is that Roberts and ACB, at least, aren't willing to go that far.
Click to expand...
At this point, I'd put more hope in Kav on this issue than Roberts.

The entire point of the 14th Am was to grant citizenship to people whose presence was not consented -- e.g. slaves. So you're right. It's not a serious legal theory. But the court embraced all sorts of non-serious theories last term, including of course the immunity one.
 
Enigma94 said:
Would it be retroactive? Could every citizen who is the child of an immigrant have their citizenship revoked? I mean we are all ultimately children of immigrants (except NA), but I'm wondering if this policy would be going forward only or would existing birthright citizens of immigrant parents be at risk as well?
Click to expand...
Well, that's the big question. It's not knowable. I can't answer this question in terms of law, because the premise (i.e. that birthright citizenship is not granted by the 14th) assumes that we've departed from law. One would hope that even if the Court were to adopt this crackpot theory, the reactionaries would appreciate how wrong it would be to apply that principle retroactively. They might be able to find some sort of weird hook on which to base the citizenship ruling, but applying it retroactively challenges fundamental tenets of the rule of law, which they might or might not care about.

It should be said that Supreme Court precedent has said that citizenship-stripping is an unconstitutional form of punishment, because it is fundamentally untenable and wrong to render someone without a country, without a home. That's an old precedent, and it hasn't been tested recently.

This would be different: it wouldn't be citizenship-stripping so much as a declaration that the citizenship was never valid. Still, a person born in the U.S. to immigrant parents who became naturalized US citizens would not necessarily be a citizen of the "home country" and if denied citizenship in the US, the person would not have any citizenship at all.
 
superrific said:
Says who? There are only nine justices whose opinions matter, and those justices loathe the 14th Amendment, except when they use it to strike down diversity initiatives. If they want to end birthright citizenship, the fact that the text and original intent of the 14th clearly establish it will not matter to them at all.
Click to expand...

ChapelHillSooner said:
To add to what super said, I believe their argument revolves around the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. That phrase is why children born in the US of diplomats aren't granted citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same if a foreign army invaded the US and some soldiers had children while here. Since they are foreign invaders they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Conservatives are trying to make the argument that an undocumented immigrant - via their status - and children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most people think it's a weak argument but it doesn't matter what most people think.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I realize that SCOTUS is going to do whatever it wants irrespective of constitutionality and legal precedent. That became abundantly clear with the Presidential immunity ruling. I was posing the question to verify that the Trump admin had no valid legal argument and instead would again be relying on the conservative hyperpartisans on SCOTUS to do their bidding.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
I think this is identical to what I wrote above. You've reproduced the arithmetic argument precisely, and the fallacy can be named "but for" or "excess causation."

Legal theory addresses these problems because they come up in court. There's a famous case where an ambulance was driving an injured person to the hospital when it was hit by another vehicle and rendered undriveable. It wasn't like a hit-and-run or a reckless driving or anything like that -- it was just an ordinary accident. But the patient died because they didn't get to the hospital in time, and the patient's family then sued the driver for wrongful death. If the driver hadn't hit the ambulance, the patient would have survived. And the court said (and this is either a view of all states or a large majority of them) that the accident was not the cause of the patient's death. It was a "but for" cause, but not the "proximate cause" (which was whatever caused the injury in the first place).

There was also a subplot in the third season (I think, maybe second season) of The Good Place that indirectly addressed the issue. It was the discovery that nobody had been able to get into the Good Place for centuries because so many of our actions cause harm that we can't see, and thus we aren't "good." Like if you eat chocolate, you are subsidizing slave labor in Africa so you're bad.
Click to expand...
Gazelles in a pack understand it. More gazelles = less likely to be eaten by the lion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top