Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LoSboccacc]

Well I found a 2015 article where the Australian government is threatening to round up people who's parents were not born here.

So the "stateles people face arbitrary arrest at any time, since there's no Jus Soli" it's a real thing. Think about how that would feel, you were born in Australia but the government is threatening to round you up and put you in a detention camp for no specific reason. And yes, if two of these people breed, they breed a stateless baby who is also a non-person.

So, there's precedent for how the thing I'm warning about would play out. And I didn't know that until just now, I found out by googling it after explaining how it would appear to affect things.

here it works this way: in most countries you get the citizenship from the mother line. if you get born here, it's your mother job to get you recognized in her own country. If you lived here long enough, tho, you have a path to citizenship, iirc 8 years, but your home country laws on dual citizenship still applies, if any.

[wierd]

Arbitrary revocation of citizenship is the real deadly dose.  If that ever gets discussed, hell has officially, truly, come to breakfast.

[Reelya]

I'm reading up about statelessness now. UK got rid of Jus Soli decades ago, but by 2003 they had to pass a law giving huge numbers of stateless people full citizenship because it was becoming an issue. So it affected enough people for it to get an act of parliament to fix it. But they also needed to patch it up in 2013, because "limbo" people still exist:
http://www.unhcr.org/5163f0ba9.html

UK’s new determination procedure to end legal limbo for stateless

This is a summary of what was said by UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming – to whom quoted text may be attributed – at today's press briefing at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

9 April 2013

UNHCR welcomes the new stateless determination procedure that came in to effect in the United Kingdom this past weekend (06 April).

The procedure allows stateless people, currently living on the margins of society and in legal limbo, a route to be formally recognised as stateless persons and to legalize their presence in the UK. As such, it is a landmark step.

The new procedure is also a positive example to other countries that are parties to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons but which have not taken steps to implement the Convention by establishing a statelessness determination procedure and a protection status for stateless people.

You see, country's who don't have Jus Soli who didn't want stateless people have enough problems limiting this. Imagine if you got a malicious clique in power who wanted this to happen?

[wierd]

In other news, residents of the swamp notice strange gurgling sound...
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-01-29/trump-sets-tougher-restrictions-on-lobbying-by-officials

[Sergarr]

banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government

This sounds like it could have far-reaching consequences, depending on how you define "lobbying" and "on behalf of a foreign government".

He also gave Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president's top military advisers, 30 days to come up with a plan defeat the Islamic State group.

Uh, okay... from what I've heard, Mattis is a huge fan of "boots on the ground". This will probably be relevant in the future.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.

Ah, and here it is - the "weasel provision". Cool!

Also, no lifting sanctions? I am disappoint. As our puppet, he should've done so immediately after entering his term!

[misko27]

The last time truly large numbers of stateless people (in modern times, obviously there were no states as we understand them before, say, 1600s) existed was in the aftermath of the first world war, with countries collapsing left-and-right.

While I'm at it, I just noticed someone preaching order and reason, and trying to calmly explain to the destructive left, the values of working with Trump constructively. We are full circle insanity now.

I'm just beinning to get over my sickness of this, so I'll be more involved here from now. Took like, three months off of giving a shit. Plus if I don't start giving a shit, it'll just get in my stuff anyway because politics is everywhere now. I feel bad for my roommate who hates politics because it's so disagreeable. It's just in everything.

EDIT: smjjames you need to declare that you are temporarily but indefinitely taking over the duties of Ameripol until such time as order is restored.

[martinuzz]

In other news, residents of the swamp notice strange gurgling sound...
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-01-29/trump-sets-tougher-restrictions-on-lobbying-by-officials

Sounds like he's trying to copy Putin's Russia

[Sergarr]

!!!

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump signed a trio of executive measures on Saturday, including one that shuffles the members of the National Security Council to include his top adviser and strategist Steve Bannon while removing the Director of National Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[martinuzz]

Bannon in the Security Council? Holy shit, that's like putting Marc Dutroux in charge of Kindergarten

[Reelya]

I got an even bigger scare there, for a minute I thought you meant Trump had appointed Bannon to represent America in the UN Security Council, which would be scarier.

In other news, residents of the swamp notice strange gurgling sound...
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-01-29/trump-sets-tougher-restrictions-on-lobbying-by-officials

You know if each successive administration sets ever-increasing restrictions on lobbying then in about 40 years there will be restriction in which you can't run for office if there is an "L" in your name.

[Vilanat]

No it wont. if i was an american, i wouldn't care less who represents the US at the UNSC (the US ambassador to the UN, obviously) but i would definitely care who sits in the situation room and who has an active role in one of my country's most important forums.

[sluissa]

14th amendment. As well as legal precedent gives us that US citizenship can not be revoked or removed except voluntarily by the citizen.

... at least if you're a US born citizen. It's slightly less clear if you're naturalized. But legal precedent still suggests they would be protected as well. (Although there is a clause there that allows revocation by congress if citizenship was gained through fraud.)

Trump can't just start going and revoking citizenship all willy nilly.

[Reelya]

I was mentioning however there's the loophole in the 14th amendment meant for hostile foreigners.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Basically, the second clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is separate to the first clause "born or naturalized in the United States". You have to have both those things being true, because it's an "and" statement. It could be legitimately argued by a constitutional lawyer that illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the USA, for the sole reason that they are citizens of another nation, therefore they fall in a different jurisdiction. If you can get the Supreme Court to rule in favor of that, you can strike down birthright citizenship for children of those who are not citizens.

Anyway here's some relevant history. Basically the Supreme Court hasn't looked at this since 1898, and never in the context of illegal immigrants. Jus Soli was determined by the Supreme Court to apply in 1898 to the children of legal non-citizen residents, so whether illegals are covered hasn't ever been seriously debated by any court, they've just been covered in a de facto sense. So someone could in fact make a Supreme Court challenge to Jus Soli for illegals, and that's not covered by legal precedent because that exact matter's never come before the Court before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In 2010 and 2011, state legislators in Arizona introduced bills proposing to deny regular birth certificates to children born in Arizona whose parents cannot prove they are in the United States legally. Supporters of such legislation reportedly hope their efforts will cause the issue of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to reach the Supreme Court, possibly resulting in a new decision narrowing or overruling Wong Kim Ark.

Basically Trump can stack the SC in a year or two, and then they push this stage legislation, forcing an SC challenge, and the 1898 ruling gets dusted off and overturned. That's their game plan, pretty much.

[sluissa]

A number of court cases have come up, however:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas

Which basically set a pretty hard precedent to crack.

You can argue anything you want, but the moment the kid is born on US soil they're a citizen and thus subject to US jurisdiction.

Without a significant swing of the supreme court (which admittedly could happen, but has not yet.) or an amendment to the constitution. Citizenship is a pretty solid thing as long as you're born on US soil. A little less solid if you only have Citizen parents but born out of the country.

[Reelya]

Did you look at the second one:

However, the Court ruled that a person's intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence

Basically that says they can take your citizenship away if it's more likely than not that you don't really want to be American. And that totally overrides the 1967 precedent that says they can't take away your citizenship involuntarily. The 1980 one says they can basically guess at your un-American intent.

Also like I said the 1898 precedent has never actually tested the "illegal immigrant child" scenario. That could still be ruled on differently without challenging SC precedent, because there is no precedent.