The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2024 => Topic started by: Kamaji on May 30, 2023, 07:15:44 pm
-
Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens if president again
By Josh Christenson
May 30, 2023
Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to enact an executive order ending birthright citizenship guarantees for children of illegal aliens if he regains the White House in 2024, despite past constitutional objections and failures to follow through on the move.
Trump, 76, said the agenda for his second nonconsecutive term would end both birthright citizenship and so-called “birth tourism” in the US on his first day in office — a proposal he also floated before and during his first term in the Oval Office.
“My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming, and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go back to their home countries,” Trump said in an Agenda 47 announcement video, calling the policy a “willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”
* * *
Source: https://nypost.com/2023/05/30/trump-vows-to-end-birthright-citizenship-for-illegal-aliens/
-
:mauslaff:
Delusional twit. So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?
Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.
-
:mauslaff:
Delusional twit. So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?
Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.
What is he thinking??? He opens his mouth and inserts his foot and it's not the first time he's announced he's going to do something and because of a pesky document called the Constitution he can't.
-
:mauslaff:
Delusional twit. So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?
Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.
Is he going to single handedly do this before or after he ejects all the illegals from the United States. Trump makes ridiculous unkeepable promises and yet we are still told he's not a politician.
:pondering: Will he make it retroactive stripping citizenship from people like me who were born before their parents became citizens?
-
Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to enact an executive order ending birthright citizenship guarantees for children of illegal aliens if he regains the White House in 2024, despite past constitutional objections and failures to follow through on the move.
I have a better idea. Why not enforce the law instead. Prosecute people in this country illegally. Convict them. Sentence them. And when their sentences are complete, they get kicked the hell out. And if they want to leave their US citizen children behind, they have to forfeit any and all parental rights.
Of course we all remember where Trump was on this back in 2016. His great idea then was to deport all illegals, and then fast-track them right back into the country, making them 'legal'.
-
This has always been an issue I think needs to be addressed. Anchor babies and birth tourism are misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Would it be so that it could be banished by one person. But it can't be.
This is a worthy "promise" but I fear it ranks up there with Mexico paying for the wall.
-
This has always been an issue I think needs to be addressed. Anchor babies and birth tourism are misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Would it be so that it could be banished by one person. But it can't be.
This is a worthy "promise" but I fear it ranks up there with Mexico paying for the wall.
No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.
-
No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.
There have been numerous debates and constitutional scholars weighing in on the issue of anchor babies. Any pregnant Juanita can enter this country ILLEGALLY, deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen. I see it as wrong!! Any pregnant women who is also a terrorist can deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen -- wrong again.
PARENTS need to be citizens of the U.S. in order for their babies to be citizens period.
-
There have been numerous debates and constitutional scholars weighing in on the issue of anchor babies. Any pregnant Juanita can enter this country ILLEGALLY, deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen. I see it as wrong!! Any pregnant women who is also a terrorist can deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen -- wrong again.
PARENTS need to be citizens of the U.S. in order for their babies to be citizens period.
It may very well be wrong; it may be bad policy; but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the Constitution provides for. One solution is, as has been noted, to rigorously enforce immigration law - a policy I whole-heartedly accept; however, if one manages to get through - for example, by overstaying a visitor or student visa, and then gives birth, that child will still be a U.S. citizen.
Otherwise, it'll be necessary to amend the Constitution.
-
It may very well be wrong; it may be bad policy; but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the Constitution provides for. One solution is, as has been noted, to rigorously enforce immigration law - a policy I whole-heartedly accept; however, if one manages to get through - for example, by overstaying a visitor or student visa, and then gives birth, that child will still be a U.S. citizen.
Otherwise, it'll be necessary to amend the Constitution.
Yes, of course, that's the whole point -- there has been so much controversy on this issue that they need to amend the Constitution.
-
No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.
They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.
-
They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.
That is how I have always read the 14th as well @Bigun . Given the time period it was written that is all it could refer to.
Has it been misused? You betcha!
-
They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.
Absolute nonsense. They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors. The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure. Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.
-
Absolute nonsense. They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors. The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure. Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.
I disagree. If the 14th amendment was so clear, there wouldn't be so much controversy over its meaning.
-
Absolute nonsense. They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors. The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure. Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
-
I disagree. If the 14th amendment was so clear, there wouldn't be so much controversy over its meaning.
Hardly. There is controversy because so many people do not like the implications of the 14th Amendment, and would prefer to impose their own personal political beliefs on the Constitution. That is a vice that is not solely limited to liberals.
-
The issue of birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment will remain ambiguous until a definitive decision is rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Mr. Trump can force their hand -- one way or the other -- then more power to him.
-
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
Then I guess the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were fools, because that is precisely what they did.
-
The issue of birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment will remain ambiguous until a definitive decision is rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Mr. Trump can force their hand -- one way or the other -- then more power to him.
They have twice now weighed in on the matter @Fishrrman !
In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother.
Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
-
Then I guess the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were fools, because that is precisely what they did.
I'm quite sure that was drummed into your head at law school, but the fact is that it just isn't true!
-
Absolute nonsense. They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors. The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure. Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The legislative history is very revelant. This is one of the "slave amendments" is it not? It has nothing to do with anchor babies. That is a more recent bastardazation of the amendment. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue at the time.
-
I'm quite sure that was drummed into your head at law school, but the fact is that it just isn't true!
No lawschool required, just the text of the 14th Amendment itself.
-
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The legislative history is very revelant. This is one of the "slave amendments" is it not? It has nothing to do with anchor babies. That is a more recent bastardazation of the amendment. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue at the time.
Sorry, what matters - especially with the Constitution - is the words themselves as written, not the words that we wish had been written. The words of the 14th Amendment are pretty clear.
Sort of like the Second Amendment. But that doesn't stop controversy being generated by people who wish the Second Amendment said something other than what it actually says.
-
Ahh well. That's why we have the Supreme Court: to protect us, as much as possible, from people who wish to impose their personal desires on the the words of the Constitution itself, and thence to impose their personal predilections on the rest of us.
-
Sorry, what matters - especially with the Constitution - is the words themselves as written, not the words that we wish had been written. The words of the 14th Amendment are pretty clear.
Sort of like the Second Amendment. But that doesn't stop controversy being generated by people who wish the Second Amendment said something other than what it actually says.
So, what you are telling me, is that both the 2nd and the 14th are being interpreted by the supporters of specific causes for their own benefit? History is very revalent to both.
I will agree with the issue of controversy.
-
The bottom line is that TRUMP CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. He's just blowing hot air AGAIN!
-
So, what you are telling me, is that both the 2nd and the 14th are being interpreted by the supporters of specific causes for their own benefit? History is very revalent to both.
I will agree with the issue of controversy.
What I am saying is that a lot of supposed controversy over Constitutional provisions has to do with people who, for other reasons, dislike the clear import of a provision, and want to overcome that clear import by ginning up a controversy that doesn't exist. It took the brilliance of Justice Scalia to bring the rules of grammar to bear on the issue of the precatory clause of the Second Amendment. And even now, there is plenty of fake controversy over whether the Second Amendment's scope is limited to muskets, because those were the firearms in common employ when the Constitution was drafted.
Just so, there are plenty of people who, for a variety of reasons, some scurrilous, some not, wish that the Fourteenth Amendment did not say what it in fact says.
-
The bottom line is that TRUMP CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. He's just blowing hot air AGAIN!
Certainly not by means of an executive order.
-
Ahh well. That's why we have the Supreme Court: to protect us, as much as possible, from people who wish to impose their personal desires on the the words of the Constitution itself, and thence to impose their personal predilections on the rest of us.
Unfortunately the SCOTUS has on occasion re-written law rather than interpret it.
-
The 14th Amendment isn't so cut and dry. Ted Cruz who I think has one of the most brilliant minds that there is, weighs in on birthright citizenship and I tend to agree with the good Senator!
Ted Cruz: Birthright citizenship "doesn't make sense"
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz wants to put an end to birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, proposing an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.
"I think birthright citizenship as a policy matter doesn't make sense," Cruz said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We have right now upwards of 12 million people living here illegally. It doesn't make any sense that our law automatically grants citizenship to their children because what it does is it incentivizes additional illegal immigration."
The issue of nullifying birthright citizenship, while long in the sights of Republican legislators, recently took off in the 2016 policy debates when billionaire Donald Trump proposed to do away with it as part of his comprehensive immigration plan. Trump added last week that he didn't believe "anchor babies" were actually citizens -- and the crowded Republican field rushed to weigh in.
The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees those born on U.S. soil American citizenship. The Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Yet some constitutional scholars, according to Cruz, say that Congress could simply "pass a law defining what the words in the 14th Amendment 'subject to the jurisdiction' means." But in order to assure the repeal of birthright citizenship, the Texas senator also proposed wholly amending the Constitution, saying "we should change the law." ...........
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-birthright-citizenship-doesnt-make-sense/
-
:mauslaff:
Delusional twit. So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?
Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.
@Kamaji
So,you think the US Constitution protects illegal aliens?
-
There have been numerous debates and constitutional scholars weighing in on the issue of anchor babies. Any pregnant Juanita can enter this country ILLEGALLY, deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen. I see it as wrong!! Any pregnant women who is also a terrorist can deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen -- wrong again.
PARENTS need to be citizens of the U.S. in order for their babies to be citizens period.
@libertybele
Not only is that child an "instant citizen",but her mother automatically gets a US Visa to remain in the US to take care of the new citizen. She eventually becomes a US citizen herself.
And after the mother becomes a citizen,she can sponsor a new citizen.
"And the beat goes on,
and the beat goes on."
-
@libertybele
Not only is that child an "instant citizen",but her mother automatically gets a US Visa to remain in the US to take care of the new citizen. She eventually becomes a US citizen herself.
And after the mother becomes a citizen,she can sponsor a new citizen.
"And the beat goes on,
and the beat goes on."
Bottom line-- the law needs to be changed/amended It should have been long ago, but it takes quite some doing to accomplish that.
...and so, yes, the beat goes on ...
-
It may very well be wrong; it may be bad policy; but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the Constitution provides for. One solution is, as has been noted, to rigorously enforce immigration law - a policy I whole-heartedly accept; however, if one manages to get through - for example, by overstaying a visitor or student visa, and then gives birth, that child will still be a U.S. citizen.
Otherwise, it'll be necessary to amend the Constitution.
Agreed. One must consider how different this country was back in 1868. Granting citizenship would have been encouraged back then - 'manifest destinly', and all that - primarily because there was no cost associated with it. But unfortunately over the last century and a half, there has been such a massive giveaway to those professing to be citizens, that there is now a huge cost incurred by our nation to this same group.
Over the next 75 after Amendment XIV became law, the United States was known as the bastion of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. But something began to change. As the US slid into socialism, citizenship became an entitlement instead of an opportunity. The American Dream devolved from a belief that with hard work anyone could achieve success into one where anyone could share in the the benefits of everyone else's hard work by receiving free government benefits.
It is this part that needs to be changed - not the Fourteenth Amendment. Sure, anyone born here can enjoy the benefits of citizenship, i.e. the opportunity to create a new destiny. But the thing one born here should NEVER enjoy is the benefits of someone else's labor taken away by force.
If a foreign national comes here and gives birth to a new US citizen, that doesn't change their status. They can still be deported. And under no condition are they ever to be given free anything. So if they still want their citizen children to have that opportunity they were born into, they better work their asses off just like the rest of us, and cherish the freedom that allows them to do it.
-
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz wants to put an end to birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, proposing an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.
It will be necessary. In the mean time, can we please just cut off the free stuff?
-
In my neighborhood the Hispanics are going LOCO!! Music is insane.
And all the Blacks are running away...small victories
-
It will be necessary. In the mean time, can we please just cut off the free stuff?
@Hoodat
No.
Not unless you want to deal with news reports and other videos showing "chilruns stavin ta DEATH in da streets! STARVIN,AH TELLS YA,AND HIT ALL BEES DE FALTS OB DOSE EBIL REPUBLIKANS!
There is only one answer. Arrest them and deport them,including the children.
-
:mauslaff:
Delusional twit. So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?
Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.
He's been lying for years now, so what difference does yet another make? Plenty of ignorant yahoos will lap it up as proof that Trump is some kind of tough guy, even though he knows perfectly well that he can't deliver on this promise.
-
He's been lying for years now, so what difference does yet another make? Plenty of ignorant yahoos will lap it up as proof that Trump is some kind of tough guy, even though he knows perfectly well that he can't deliver on this promise.
@Maj. Bill Martin
WHY can't he do it?
They are here ILLEGALLY.
-
WHY can't he do it?
You mean, 'Why couldn't he do it?'
Past tense.
-
You mean, 'Why couldn't he do it?'
Past tense.
@Hoodat
Ok,so why DIDN'T he do it IF he said he was going to do that?
-
@Hoodat
Ok,so why DIDN'T he do it IF he said he was going to do that?
And now you know why so many of us here no longer support Trump.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
WHY can't he do it?
They are here ILLEGALLY.
According to the Constitution, a child born on U.S. soil is not here illegally. Their parents are, but the child isn't. And Donald Trump cannot change the Constitution by Executive Order.
As has been pointed out by others, if he truly has the power to do that, you should be furious that he didn't do it in his first term.
He's flat-out lying to you.
-
According to the Constitution, a child born on U.S. soil is not here illegally. Their parents are, but the child isn't.
The parents can also be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced to prison, and finally evicted, regardless of whether their child is a US citizen.
-
And now you know why so many of us here no longer support Trump.
@Hoodat
That's not an answer.
-
According to the Constitution, a child born on U.S. soil is not here illegally. Their parents are, but the child isn't.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Sooooo,you are saying the US Government has the right to split up families?
I don't believe the US Constitution allows us to separate children from their families,when the logical option would be to send the children back with their parents.
And Donald Trump cannot change the Constitution by Executive Order.
Where did I say he could
As has been pointed out by others, if he truly has the power to do that, you should be furious that he didn't do it in his first term.
And you would be bitching about that if he had done it.
He's flat-out lying to you.
I gotta news flash for you,ALL politicians lie. In some cases,it is even a requirement.
-
The parents can also be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced to prison, and finally evicted, regardless of whether their child is a US citizen.
@Hoodat
That makes sense. After all,they are not only here illegally,they are committing other crimes while here/
Not that the ACLU won't defend them for free,of course.
-
Sooooo,you are saying the US Government has the right to split up families?
Of course - happens all the time.
I don't believe the US Constitution allows us to separate children from their families.
Sure it does. If parents - or a single parent - commits a crime, they get separated from their child and locked up. Kids go to a relative or social services. It would be janky as hell if you could commit murder with impunity knowing they wouldn't send you to jail because you had a kid.
And you would be bitching about that if he had done it.
No, because my point was that he doesn't have the authority to do that, which is one reason why he didn't do it in his first term.
I gotta news flash for you,ALL politicians lie. In some cases,it is even a requirement.
I guess an acknowledgement that Trump lies to his supporters like everyone else is progress.
-
According to the Constitution, a child born on U.S. soil is not here illegally. Their parents are, but the child isn't. And Donald Trump cannot change the Constitution by Executive Order.
As has been pointed out by others, if he truly has the power to do that, you should be furious that he didn't do it in his first term.
He's flat-out lying to you.
:thumbsup:
-
It will be necessary. In the mean time, can we please just cut off the free stuff?
Agreed. Cutting off the free stuff would solve at least 90% of the problem, without having to go through the grief of a Constitutional amendment process.
-
Agreed. Cutting off the free stuff would solve at least 90% of the problem, without having to go through the grief of a Constitutional amendment process.
Absolutely. Although the one we're still stuck with is educating for free kids who are here illegally.
Supreme Court definitely got that one wrong.
-
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
-
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
Then they must all have been idiots, because that is what they did.
-
Then they must all have been idiots, because that is what they did.
No! They did NO SUCH THING, and the legislative record is 100% clear on the matter.
-
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
Amen!!
-
You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!
What difference would that have made back in 1868 when the US wasn't a socialist nanny state?
-
No! They did NO SUCH THING, and the legislative record is 100% clear on the matter.
Yes, they did, and the legislative record is 100% clear in that regard. The only people who were excluded from birthright citizenship were tribal indians and the families of ambassadors and legatees. Children of people who were private citizens of other countries were not excluded. The legislative history is crystal clear on that point.
-
Yes, they did, and the legislative record is 100% clear in that regard. The only people who were excluded from birthright citizenship were tribal indians and the families of ambassadors and legatees. Children of people who were private citizens of other countries were not excluded. The legislative history is crystal clear on that point.
BZZZZ! Wrong! again! Excluded were ALL those whose parents did not have full and complete allegiance to the United States!
-
BZZZZ! Wrong! again! Excluded were ALL those whose parents did not have full and complete allegiance to the United States!
Sorry, but that is simply not true. The only people excluded were Indians and the families of ambassadors.
-
Sorry, but that is simply not true. The only people excluded were Indians and the families of ambassadors.
Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...
Anyone interested is free to examine the record for themselves.
https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment
-
Why didn't he do this the first time around?
-
Anyone here illegally is still subject to US jurisdiction. Hence the term 'illegal'..
Just a reminder, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the US wanted more citizens, not less. And Republicans wanted to ensure that the children of slaves born here had a future here as citizens.
-
Anyone interested is free to examine the record for themselves.
https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment
Yup, and the only people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are indians with tribal affiliations and ambassadors and their staff.
Claiming that someone whose parents were foreign citizens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. leads to the ludicrous result that such a person could not be arrested, tried, and if convicted, fined or imprisoned for committing any crime; the only remedy available to the U.S. would be expulsion.
So, people who claim that newborns whose parents are citizens of another country at the time of birth are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are effectively claiming that the U.S. has no power or authority to arrest those parents for DUI, or robbery, or arson, or fraud, or any of the other innumerable crimes for which ordinary private individuals can normally be arrested, tried, and punished.
That is a far more ludicrous result than the result that, because exclusionary immigration policies had not yet become standard in the U.S., the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded only Indians and Ambassadors.
-
Yup, and the only people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are indians with tribal affiliations and ambassadors and their staff.
Claiming that someone whose parents were foreign citizens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. leads to the ludicrous result that such a person could not be arrested, tried, and if convicted, fined or imprisoned for committing any crime; the only remedy available to the U.S. would be expulsion.
So, people who claim that newborns whose parents are citizens of another country at the time of birth are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are effectively claiming that the U.S. has no power or authority to arrest those parents for DUI, or robbery, or arson, or fraud, or any of the other innumerable crimes for which ordinary private individuals can normally be arrested, tried, and punished.
That is a far more ludicrous result than the result that, because exclusionary immigration policies had not yet become standard in the U.S., the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded only Indians and Ambassadors.
Hogwash! 100% USDA Choice grade. I was born a U. S. citizen and have never been anything else. I have also had the privilege of working in numerous foreign countries but have never been immune to arrest in ANY of them.