Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship

[bullmarket79]

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I dislike birthright citizenship, but I dislike using an EO to bypass the constitution even less.

Well you're in luck! The Constitution does not allow birthright citizenship to people who are not under the jurisdiction of the US or state they are in. So, the EO will be perfectly legal and warranted. ----unlike many of Hussein's EO's (or treaties).

 

[Buy1Sell2]

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
Birthright citizenship is fairly unique. It looks like only 30 of the world's 195 countries have it. The US and Canada are the only developed nations that have it. The UK, Ireland, France, India, Australia etc. have repealed it over the past few decades.

I dislike birthright citizenship, but I dislike using an EO to bypass the constitution even less.

117 postings and 116 likes??? I smell a rat.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I dislike birthright citizenship, but I dislike using an EO to bypass the constitution even less.

Indeed, but that statement is based on the premise that the constitution requires birthright citizenship for illegals. That is not clear or possibly more clearly does not.

In any case, the court- as with daca has the power to stay the implementation of Trump's order until the Supreme Court or other court reviews it so little harm is done.

Trump's action actually is done with the intent to get Supreme Court clarification rather than go out around the unclear law.

 

[Tom B]

Not exactly. The 14th Amendment states in relevant part : " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The key phrase here is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." People lawfully in the country are subject to its jurisdiction. So are their offspring. An invading army would not be, and their offspring would clearly not be entitled to birthright citizenship.

Where do illegal aliens fit in? Are they more like lawful residents or are they more like an invading army? The Supreme Court has never directly answered the question. U.S. v. Won Kim Ark is widely credited with establishing the principle that presence in the US is all that is required to confer birthright citizenship, but that case turned on the issue of whether the parents could be citizens of another country, not on whether they were in the US legally.

I think it is arguable that Won Kim was wrongly decided. The 14th Amendment, the Constitution's Pandora's Box, was poorly drafted but it seems hard to believe the drafters intended to sanction tourism citizenship. The case itself can be distinguished as illegal immigration was not involved.

I think you make a strong and compelling argument. I would like to see the Supreme Court rule on this issue. However, I think a law passed by Congress and the President, would carry more weight with the court than an executive order.

 

[Scataphagos]

I dislike birthright citizenship, but I dislike using an EO to bypass the constitution even less.

You might appreciate... that an EO is only officially effective during the term of the president*. It's kind of like a "temporary thing"... later to be determined whether or not it should "stick". America history is full of HUNDREDS of them.

* That's how Odumbo tried to flood America with a GAZILLION illegal immigrants, even after he claimed... "by law, I don't think I can do that". (Some anti-American shithead attorney told him "he could"... so he did.)

By the same notion... Trump can "seal the border with what ever force he deems necessary"... to prevent transgressions. Fully implemented under law.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

You might appreciate... that an EO is only officially effective during the term of the president*. It's kind of like a "temporary thing"... later to be determined whether or not it should "stick". America history is full of HUNDREDS of them.

* That's how Odumbo tried to flood America with a GAZILLION illegal immigrants, even after he claimed... "by law, I don't think I can do that".

This is not correct. EOs have to be revoked by succeeding presidents or else they continue indefinitely.

 

[LS1Z28]

You might appreciate... that an EO is only officially effective during the term of the president. It's kind of like a "temporary thing"... later to be determined whether or not it should "stick". America history is full of HUNDREDS of them.

I know that executive orders can easily be repealed. I'm just not a big fan of using them to superficially pass legislation regardless of who's in the white house. DACA wouldn't exist if congress would've done their job. They should've tackled immigration reform a long time ago.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I think you make a strong and compelling argument. I would like to see the Supreme Court rule on this issue. However, I think a law passed by Congress and the President, would carry more weight with the court than an executive order.

No. We can't wait for Congreff to do anything that is already provided for in The Constitution.They wouldn't repeal HusseinCare, what makes you think that they would legislate this?. You have recently begun exhibiting leftist tendencies and I would like to see that stop.

 

[Scataphagos]

This is not correct. EOs have to be revoked by succeeding presidents or else they continue indefinitely.

Hmmm... contrary to what I've read. The authority of EOs end with end of the presidency. But not biggie. If a new pres wants to repeal a former EO, can do so with the stoke of a pen.. ??