Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

[Final-Fan]

coolbeans said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  The Gish Gallop accusation is inane at best.  I asked four total questions, which on even cursory examination are two pairs of questions (the pairs being related questions illustrating my thoughts on the same subject).  (One:  Similar to diplomats?  If so, how? ... Two:  illegals "subject..."?  If not, diplomatic immunity?)

2.  "This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons." (Sen. Jacob Howard)

I don't see your clear delineation of situation and standing as pertains to illegal immigrants.  "foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors etc." is, upon careful reading, clearly not a list of three things, but instead is revealed to be a single thing with what is called a parenthetical comma, as demostrated here, situated inside of it.  If it was a list, there would be an "and" somewhere, but there is no "and" in the entire Howard quote that you gave.  Additionally, "who belong to" would be a nonsensical fragment if it was a list, but it makes perfect sense when read as referring to "foreigners, [in other words] aliens, who belong to..."

So I read the Howard quote as saying, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners (aliens) who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons."  Please let me know if you disagree with the validity and substantial accuracy of this reading. 

Given that you accept the above interpretation, the question becomes, "Is there any sensible definition of "foreigners who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US" that would include illegal immigrants in general?"  I put it to you that there is not.  Do you say that there is?  If so, what is your argument? 

(The two immediately preceding questions are to be read as a single two-part question and do not constitute a Gish Gallop in any sensible definition of the term.  As for the one inside quotation marks, I am not asking you that question.  I am saying that it could be said that the discussion we are having can now be encapsulated in that question.  Let me know if you disagree with that assessment even after granting, for the sake of argument, the condition that you accept the aforementioned interpretation of the Howard quote.) 

3.  I don't see American Indians as being closely analogous enough to illegal immigrants to make your comparison valid.  I haven't done lots of research on the topic with this specific subject in mind but I have a fair amount of lay knowledge here and Indians have a long legal history of being held separate from the general population in a way that is simply not true of immigrants.  The reservation system may have been rife with abuses but the concept is still that of a people and land held apart from the regular United States.  For example, Wikipedia sez "Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. The U.S. federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments."  I think you'd agree that illegal immigrants have no legal authority to "govern themselves" and are not considered part of "domestic dependent nations". 

Again I disclaim professional expertise, but I would surmise that the situation with American Indians is similar to that of unincorporated territories of the United States, which I do not believe the 14th amendment applies to.  Puerto Rico is arguably still unincorporated, but Puerto Ricans were given citizenship by act of Congress (and presumably not the 14th amendment).  The bottom line is that the comparison is not close enough to say the same logic can be applied (that as citizenship was granted to one, it can be taken away from the other).  Illegal immigrants are, generally speaking, not giving birth in unincorporated territories. 

1.)  Important to note: "tantamount to..." And..eh...not really.  By that same token, upon cursory glance your series of questions are just sand-blasted on there in what strikes as a seeming disregard for their actual worth or strength, essentially wanting me to plug up 4 holes than engage thoughtfully on my previous response.  The "diplomatic immunity" 4th question is where it really teetered and impelled me to say that.  It's worth noting the full-bodied response you've made now--which I appreciate, but there's nothing presented in that counter which convinces me to redact my previous sentiments.

2.)  Well...this gets into that dicey realm of not only assessing 19th century English standards through a 21st century person's eye but also in respect to a transcription.  I disagree with the validity of said claim.  For starters, if the field is so narrow to only include children of foreign diplomats born on US soil, it seems preposterous for Howard to not specifically say so in that context.  Also, it harms the "but every other class of persons" portion as a result b/c it assumes Howard didn't consider the Native American population when making such an address.

(*Sigh* ... Look: if you have issues how I judged a response of yours, keep it more direct like in 1.  This indirect method reeks of patronizing bullshit, even if that wasn't your true intention.)

3.)  So there's some interesting nuances worth considering which I appreciate (and am too tired to research and give an objection/agreement).  But even with your statements considered, there's a simple breakdown in this:

-Children of Native Americans born on reservations or federal soil: Congress has passed laws acknowledging them as US citizens

-Children of Puerto Rico and Territories: Congress has passed laws acknowledging them as US citizens

-Children of Illegal Aliens: Congress HAS NOT addressed this in the same capacity; in fact, DACA was initially struck down by them and then Obama signed an EO regardless

Anyways...that's all I have for now.

1.  The "diplomatic immunity" question is pretty ridiculous, I agree, but that is intentionally so to highlight what I see as the ridiculous logical implication of not considering illegal immigrants to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  And whether my question is ridiculous or not actually has nothing to do with whether it's a Gish Gallop as I understand the term.  How do you define it?  Also, I firmly believed at the time that a reasonably careful reader could reasonably be expected to recognize that the four questions were actually two two-part questions, as I illustrated in my last post; but you seem to have dismissed this by saying I asked you to "plug up 4 holes" (not 2 holes as would be implied if you agreed with my reply) and yet you didn't tell me you thought my interpretation was asking too much of the reader or otherwise explain any objection to what I said.  Except, that is, to the claim that "upon cursory glance" I appeared to be shotgunning my questions.  To that I can only say that you should probably take a second look beyond cursory glances before accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty. 

Let me move my reply to your related comment from (2) up here.  Your accusation of Gish Galloping for asking you more than one question at a time was frankly bizarre to me and caught me completely off guard, so I was defensive when I noticed that I was asking you more than one question in that spot.  I saw it as nothing more than getting out in front of an objection that you had already made in what seemed to me to be similar circumstances (although clearly I'm missing something), and to the extent that it came off as patronizing I regret that it did so.  To the extent that it came across as aggressively slapping down an argument you could potentially have had no intention of even making ... under the circumstances (it had already happened before) I don't feel a particular need to apologize for that one. 

2.  I do not have professional expertise in 19th century English but I do have extensive familiarity with grammar, including antiquated grammar and specifically including the common usage of commas.  (Commas were much more liberally used in those days, I've noticed, compared to most contemporary writing.)  As far as I'm concerned, 19th century comma usage mostly follows the same rules as used today—two main differences being, first, that many commas are optional and they were far more commonly included; and, second, that "pause-for-breath" commas (with no other grammatical purpose) were considered correct where today I believe they are considered incorrect.  There are a few exceptions where commas were inserted back then in other places that I would consider it to be incorrect usage today, but I don't see the commas in Howard's quote to be consistent with those usages that I am familiar with.  Skipping to your "but what about the Indians" point, I think you're flat-out wrong there, since according to my argument in (3) they weren't considered to have been born in the US proper and therefore were excluded by his condition "born in the US". 

Backtracking to your other point, let me boil it down to this simple question:  if you reject my interpretation of his commas, do you have an alternative interpretation?  If so, what is it?  If not, then on what basis are you rejecting my interpretation? 

3.  I think you've completely missed my point.  The American Indians and Puerto Ricans granted citizenship by legislation were not on incorporated US territory.  That is why they were not already given citizenship by the 14th amendment.  Not all land controlled by the US is the same:  there are states, there are incorporated territories, there are unincorporated territories, and there are American Indian reservations.  The differences between these are not always trivial:  Wikipedia sez "Article III [of the Constitution] has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland".  Think about that:  Article III, the part that sets up the court system, doesn't apply to courts in unincorporated territories!  Surely this must convince you that it's at least plausible that there would also be differences in whether and how the amendments are applied to the same areas?  And, furthermore, wouldn't you agree that these differences in enforcement do not creep back to the states themselves?  [edit:  in other words, Article III not applying to unincorporated territories doesn't mean that the government can disregard Article III in the states.] 

If an illegal immigrant gives birth on land within an actual state of the US or in an incorporated territory, that child is certainly a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.  [edit:  If the same child was born on the incorporated territory of Palmyra Atoll, the same would be true.]  However, if the same child was born in the unincorporated territory of Jarvis Island, that child would not be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.  If the same child was born in the unincorporated territory of Puerto Rico, it would not be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but it would be (as far as I know) by virtue of legislation passed by Congress. 

Legislation is not necessary for anyone covered by the 14th amendment.  Puerto Ricans and American Indians were not covered by the 14th amendment.  Children who are born to any parents whatsoever on the soil of an actual state (and not an American Indian reservation) of the United States, or an incorporated territory [edit:  exclusively the Palmyra Atoll, AFAIK], are covered by the 14th amendment.  For anyone covered by the 14th amendment, legislation short of constitutional amendment is legally powerless to strip them of the citizenship granted by it, and the same goes for any executive action. 

However, Congress could pass a law that babies born to illegal immigrants in Puerto Rico or on American Indian reservations are not citizens.  And it might be possible for an executive order to have some effect there, though I doubt the executive branch can legally countermand the legislative branch's explicit will in this case. 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 11 November 2018