I think the key element of The United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is this: "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business."
Illegal aliens *inherently* lack the ability to have a permanent residence in the U.S., since they are susceptible to deportation at any time. And an illegal alien who is living off government largesse can hardly be said to be "carrying on business."
As little as I dislike rewarding bad behavior, I would be willing to accept a path to permanent residence (not necessarily citizenship) for illegals under the following circumstances:
- been in the U.S. longer than ten years
- can speak English fluently enough to understand immigration court proceedings
- never convicted of crime, regardless of how minor
This essay raises all manner of questions and concerns. They need raising and answering.
First, the Presidential "swipe of a pen."
In this case, will President Trump argue that his authority for this EO comes from Article II's authority to manage federal operations? That he sees the influx of illegal aliens as falling under that authority since the U.S. has federal immigration laws? Apparently, he does. Apparently, he is taking the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" very literally.
Under the Articles, persons were citizens of their State since there was no national government. The Constitution and then the War of Northern Aggression cleared the path for a national government. The jurisdiction and authority of the national government then superseded that of the States. That's what Americans have lived with ever since.
As a property rights question, on what basis does anyone argue the lawfulness of forced payment and support for those "alien" to the country? For the "beautiful" people of Massachusetts who want these people cared for, they have every right in the world to do so in their own homes. That is, they have every right to be charitable.
Yet, their elected federal representatives and others from around the country have enacted federal legislation managing the influx of foreign nationals into the country. So if those beautiful people put their money where their mouths are, housing, feeding, educating, providing healthcare, etc., would violate federal law.
So, if we support the idea of being "subject to a national government's jurisdiction," (How many did for the first "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court decision?), how does a woman subject to another national government's jurisdiction (citizen status) pass on to her child the jurisdiction of a national government to which she is not subject? Simply because she "dropped" the baby on the soil of that national government?
I'm rambling...While I do not support Trump's "swipe of the pen" on this, it has raised very important questions that needed raising -- and answering.
The lawyers who write legislation, including the Constitution and its amendments, use the equivalent of newspeak to muddy the water for the sole purpose of getting the support and the votes for proposals that mean otherwise that they appear. They avoided using the more accurate "slaves" and "former slaves" and the completely accurate, "Africans imported for slavery" and instead wrote "three fifths of all other Persons" in Section II of the Constitution and "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" in the fourteenth amendment. Such mealy mouthed language no doubt fooled many people to approve the Constitution and ratified the fourteenth amendment. Subsequent rulings by other lawyers in judges' robes use similar tactics.
The straight up language should have been used in the Constitution, such as for determining the population by census, slaves will be counted as three-fifths of persons. And in the fourteenth amendment, all freed slaves are citizens of the United States and of the State of their domicile. The language they chose has had the unintended results as the perpetuation of slavery and the providing of welfare (and the right to vote) and automatic citizenship for the children born here for illegal immigrants.
I think the key element of The United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is this: "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business."
Illegal aliens *inherently* lack the ability to have a permanent residence in the U.S., since they are susceptible to deportation at any time. And an illegal alien who is living off government largesse can hardly be said to be "carrying on business."
As little as I dislike rewarding bad behavior, I would be willing to accept a path to permanent residence (not necessarily citizenship) for illegals under the following circumstances:
- been in the U.S. longer than ten years
- can speak English fluently enough to understand immigration court proceedings
- never convicted of crime, regardless of how minor
- never lived on government welfare
Good points and thanks for reading and your comments. We need solutions for what feels like an insurmountable problem!
This essay raises all manner of questions and concerns. They need raising and answering.
First, the Presidential "swipe of a pen."
In this case, will President Trump argue that his authority for this EO comes from Article II's authority to manage federal operations? That he sees the influx of illegal aliens as falling under that authority since the U.S. has federal immigration laws? Apparently, he does. Apparently, he is taking the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" very literally.
Under the Articles, persons were citizens of their State since there was no national government. The Constitution and then the War of Northern Aggression cleared the path for a national government. The jurisdiction and authority of the national government then superseded that of the States. That's what Americans have lived with ever since.
As a property rights question, on what basis does anyone argue the lawfulness of forced payment and support for those "alien" to the country? For the "beautiful" people of Massachusetts who want these people cared for, they have every right in the world to do so in their own homes. That is, they have every right to be charitable.
Yet, their elected federal representatives and others from around the country have enacted federal legislation managing the influx of foreign nationals into the country. So if those beautiful people put their money where their mouths are, housing, feeding, educating, providing healthcare, etc., would violate federal law.
So, if we support the idea of being "subject to a national government's jurisdiction," (How many did for the first "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court decision?), how does a woman subject to another national government's jurisdiction (citizen status) pass on to her child the jurisdiction of a national government to which she is not subject? Simply because she "dropped" the baby on the soil of that national government?
I'm rambling...While I do not support Trump's "swipe of the pen" on this, it has raised very important questions that needed raising -- and answering.
Ramble away!! You are so right - so many issues to ask and answer. Thanks for your insight! 🙏
:) Thank you, Liz.
Why don't they get rid of welfare all together except for those with disabilities
Agreed! Thanks for reading and the restack!
The lawyers who write legislation, including the Constitution and its amendments, use the equivalent of newspeak to muddy the water for the sole purpose of getting the support and the votes for proposals that mean otherwise that they appear. They avoided using the more accurate "slaves" and "former slaves" and the completely accurate, "Africans imported for slavery" and instead wrote "three fifths of all other Persons" in Section II of the Constitution and "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" in the fourteenth amendment. Such mealy mouthed language no doubt fooled many people to approve the Constitution and ratified the fourteenth amendment. Subsequent rulings by other lawyers in judges' robes use similar tactics.
The straight up language should have been used in the Constitution, such as for determining the population by census, slaves will be counted as three-fifths of persons. And in the fourteenth amendment, all freed slaves are citizens of the United States and of the State of their domicile. The language they chose has had the unintended results as the perpetuation of slavery and the providing of welfare (and the right to vote) and automatic citizenship for the children born here for illegal immigrants.
💯