Re: CBS' "Elsbeth" Star Wendell Pierce: "Mass Deportation of Illegal Immigrants a Racist Purge"

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jan 31, 2025 at 1:05:58 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jan 27, 2025 at 6:05:00 PM PST, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Ubi the shithead did not write this article. He plagarized it from this
Web page

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2025/01/27/cbs-elsbeth-star-wendell-pierce-mass-deportation-of-illegal-immigrants-a-racist-purge/

. . .

Pierce continued into a longer spittle-specked rage and accused Trump of
trying to eliminate "racial equality" and to cancel the 1965 Voting Rights
bill, among other wild-eyed accusations.

:     The birthright citizenship in the
:     14th amendment ensured newly freed slaves their rights as citizens in
:     1865. Now Trump wants to eliminate that.

Correct. It was designed to protect the freed slaves. It was never the
drafter's intent to give citizenship to anyone who managed to illegally
crawl across the border and drop a baby on the other side. Which is why
it should be eliminated, or at least clarified by the Supreme Court that
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal aliens.

The exceptions are as old as the rule itself. Excerpt from the decision:

[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental
rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the
allegiance and under the protection of the country, including
all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions
or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of
foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public
ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of
part of our territory, and with the single additional exception
of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct
allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear
words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within
the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of
whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

. . .

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United
States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to
deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch,
Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been
considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

[Note how liberal the decision is as it mentions the Irish
specifically!]

The article's interpretation:

In short the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
excludes three and only three groups of people:

Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic
business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;

Children of members of an invading army that has
occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born
on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to
US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although
Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and
small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and

Members of Native American tribes, subject to the
jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not
pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment
was passed, but it no longer is. See section below
on the act that changed it in 1924.)

Even if one believes that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898) was rightly decided, thereby creating a definitive floor for
citizenship within the Constitution, outside Congress' regulatory power,
for kids born to all immigrants, there is no way that can apply to people
who come here without the legal consent of the nation.

It's absurd to assert that people who are not legally allowed to be on our
soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of
citizenship for their kids.

The decision was written during the era in which specific undesireables
-- the Chinese -- were being excluded in law. That's exactly what the
Supreme Court said.

Regardless of any illegal act of the mother's to enter the country, the
newborn didn't enter illegally.

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court ruled, "For over a half century this Court has
held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his
admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is
physically within the United States." [Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185
(1958)]

I am aware that "entry", in immigration law, has a specific definition.
However, the newborn, in being born on American soil, did not violate
immigration law.

The ultimate prize of citizenship only applies if you come here with
consent.

Citizenship based on country of birth isn't a prize! It's luck!

I could have just as easily have been born in some African shithole in a
region led by a bloodthirsty rebel, impressed into an army of boys at
age 8, made to carry a rifle and commit attrocities.

Being tied to the soil of birth goes back forever in human history.

That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the Court
said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), "a person who
comes to the country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the
limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its
boundaries".

Ok. You're making me look up more cases. This one is, in part, no right
of judicial review if immigration authorities properly find the person
of Chinese decent is inadmissible, without abuse of discretion.

The district court, in the petition for habeas corpus, found that Ju Toy
was indeed a citizen, but the Supreme Court upheld the administration.

Even if Congress didn't put immigration law under an Article III court,
how the hell is refusal to consider his citizenship claim at entry not
an abuse of discretion?

This is one horrid ruling.

This is why the Court ruled in Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)
that an inadmissible alien does not have 1st Amendment rights because
"[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured
by our Constitution due to his attempt to enter in a manner forbidden
by law."

This case I've heard of. The speech in question took place in Great
Britain in which he was in favor of violent overthrow of government. He
was ostensively in the United States to organize labor but I guess they
feared he came to radicalize Americans.

I've never formed a good opinion about the facts of the case. Had he
actually committed bad acts in Britain or was it all talk?

And in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Court reiterated that any
alien "paroled into the United States pending admissibility" without having
"gained [a] legal foothold" has "not effected an entry".

Parole is temporary. I thought it was impermanent entry, not no entry. I
don't see how this one applies to being born on American soil.

The most important case that sheds light on this issue is Kaplan v. Tod, 267
U.S. 228 (1925), where the Court denied citizenship and relief from
deportation to the daughter of a naturalized citizen who emigrated  from
Russia.

I am familiar with this one. Regardless of the obvious anti-Semitism,
this is inapplicable as the daughter wasn't born on American soil.

       On July 20, 1914, the Kaplan family came to Ellis Island to
       reunite with the father of the family, who had been working
       in the country for a few years. The 13-year-old daughter was
       deemed inadmissible for being "feeble minded", but because
       of the outbreak of World War I, her deportation was delayed.
       She was handed over to the custody of the Hebrew Aid Society,
       which had her live together with her father until she was
       ordered deported nine years later in 1923.

       In the meantime, the father had become a citizen three years
       earlier, and asserted that because his daughter was under 21
       at the time of his naturalization and was living in the United
       States, she should be automatically granted citizenship
       alongside him, pursuant to long-standing law. But in a
       unanimous and terse decision, the Court swatted down the
       petition:

           "Naturalization of parents affects minor children only
           if dwelling in the United States. The appellant could
           not lawfully have landed in the United States in view
           of the express prohibition of the Act of 1910 just
           referred to, and until she legally landed 'could not
           have dwelt within the United States.'"

The Court backhandedly rejected the notion that she "dwelt within the United
States" even though she physically lived with her father for nine years on
American soil, partly with temporary permission from the government. That is
because "she was still in theory of law at the boundary line, and had gained
no legal foothold in the United States" and had never "been dwelling in the
United States within the meaning of the Act". Now stop for a moment and
compare the language of the naturalization statute for those immigrant
children seeking naturalization together with their parents to the wording of
the 14th Amendment governing those born here.

I'm not going to agree with you that we can somehow deny citizenship to
someone born on American soil on the basis of this case.

The 14th Amendment requires that the child be born here and "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof". It is indisputable that even according to those
opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial jurisdiction and not
political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the phrase superfluous), the
language of "subject to the jurisdiction" is certainly more restrictive than
the purely geographical and literal phrase "dwelling in the United States".

I agree with you here.

After all, everyone concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign
diplomats were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born
on our soil.

Not all Indians! Just Indians not taxed! They're all taxed now and all
citizens. Also, children born of enemy occupiers are not American
citizens if born on occupied American soil.

Yet, the Court ruled in 1925, based on uncontested precedent, that those
living here unlawfully don't even satisfy the meaning and intent of
"dwelling in the United States"-- even in a case where they were granted
temporary permission to live here on humanitarian grounds. It is therefore
simply preposterous to assert that those who willfully violate our laws
and sneak into the country without permission can secure jurisdiction
for their children against the consent of the nation. As the Left would
say, it's "settled law" that illegal immigrants are considered "at the
boundary line and have gained no legal foothold in the United States",
irrespective of where they reside now.

Can't you imagine unintended consequences? If one of my ancestors
entered illegally (or there's no paperwork proving a legal entry any
longer), you've just rescinded my American citizenship and I'm on my way
back to Russia or Poland, I'm not sure which.

Glad your ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Mine didn't.

The reality is that there was never a formal decision, much less a piece
of legislation or a court case, mandating automatic citizenship for people
who break into our country. Wong Kim Ark was about those invited in on
immigrant visas. Justice Horace Gray, the author of Wong, referred to
"domiciled" immigrants on twelve occasions in the case. Those promoting
citizenship for the children of illegals conveniently ignore his opinion
six years earlier in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651
(1892), which clearly held that an alien not legally domiciled in this
country is legally as if he is standing outside our soil as it relates
to even due process rights, much less the right to assert jurisdiction
on behalf of his child.

I'm missing something. A Japanese woman was denied entry for fear that
she would become a public charged. She claimed to have an American
husband whose address she didn't know but wasn't believed.

Bottom line, it would not be that radical of an interpretation for the
Court to rule that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause
does not apply to illegals. There seems to be substantial SCOTUS precedent
for that position

Wong would have to be overturned first. Trump can't repeal the
Fourteenth Amendment. Only the Supreme Court can do that.

I think it's a moral precedent.