Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship

[piezoe]

LONG OVERDUE!

We are one of the few countries on the face of the earth where simply by illegally invading our country your child becomes a citizen. This is absurd and it is time for it to end.

Why not re-think this. Regardless of the merits of your position regarding birthright citizenship it would be dangerous for congress to let such an E.O. go unchallenged. * There is a better way. A California District judge ruled that even children born to illegals are citizens by birth. This is a straight reading of the constitution. I haven't read the opinion, but it would seem to ignore the way children born to foreign diplomats while they are stationed in the U.S. are treated. I think that on appeal the district courts ruling would likely be overturned. Particularly considering the courts present make-up. Any such order E.O. by Trump, however, must be immediately challenged by Congress. The California District Court ruling should be moved through the appeals court to the Supreme Court to settle this issue. I am confident that the California court's decision will be overturned as it makes absolutely no sense. More difficult is the question of citizenship for a child born to one legal and one illegal parent. There my guess is that the child would be found to be a natural born citizen.

Regardless we are in grave danger if we allow the president to set a new precedent of interpreting our constitution via tweet and E.O. We must absolutely not allow that.

______________________
*I imagine this is no different than the other outrageous things Trumps says he will do but doesn't follow through on. I can't imagine that White House lawyers would not put a stop to such an order.

 

[UsualName]

There are flaws in the way that the constitution is interpreted and applied that are not necessarily flaws in the constitution itself. That is what the Court addresses.

The legal/consitutional issue hinges on the clause in the constitution stating "subject to the jurisdiction." ie. is a child born to an illegal or to a hit-and-run chinese birth tourist truly a child born to a person "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united states within the meaning of that clause or are they just passers-by or unattached to a jurisdiction. It is given that they are subject to the criminal laws just by being here even if illegally but does that meet the constitutional test and intent is the question.

I don’t dismiss this. I’m totally open on this issue. I think Trump is going uphill in it but there is a case of merit here.

 

[exGOPer]

LONG OVERDUE!

We are one of the few countries on the face of the earth where simply by illegally invading our country your child becomes a citizen. This is absurd and it is time for it to end.

By one of the few you mean one of 34

For the record, the following countries recognize jus soli(Birthright Citizenship):
1 Antigua and Barbuda
2 Argentina
3 Barbados
4 Belize
5 Bolivia
6 Brazil
7 Canada
8 Chile
9 Cuba
10 Dominica
11 Ecuador
12 El Salvador
13 Fiji
14 Grenada
15 Guatemala
16 Guyana
17 Honduras
18 Jamaica
19 Mexico
20 Nicaragua
21 Panama
22 Paraguay
23 Peru
24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
25 Saint Lucia
26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
27 Trinidad and Tobago
28 United States
29 Uruguay
30 Venezuela

Also US is one of few with electoral college, why not eliminate it as well? Oh, no?

 

[Tsing Tao]

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.

This is a very flimsy interpretation. The subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that all persons born are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It doesn't mean other otherwise imply that persons not subject to the jurisdiction thereof who then go on to have babies means their babies aren't subject and therefore citizens.

Sorry, but I disagree.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I don't think Trump can abolish or change the 14th amendment by EO, nor do I think he should. Beyond the obvious challenges in the courts, EO's aren't permanent enough.
The 14th amendment absolutely needs to be amended. The "anchor baby" non-sense needs to go. Congress should address this, but never will, gutless cowards that they are. We're stuck with it. Better idea and more do-able to come up with a immigration policy that actually gets enforced. Of course, that'll take some guts too, something which is lacking in D.C.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

This is a very flimsy interpretation. The subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that all persons born are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It doesn't mean other otherwise imply that persons not subject to the jurisdiction thereof who then go on to have babies means their babies aren't subject and therefore citizens.

Sorry, but I disagree.

We dont really know. This issue has been hands off and untouchable for so long that there is not sufficient case law to even flesh some of this stuff out.

For example, if I were to accept as true your argument, then I would then be arguing that the children of foreign diplomats are automatically deemed citizens which- my belief anyway- is that they are not based on congressional action or congressional acceptance of international law. But if "jurisdiction" simply means being born here and their right flows directly from the constitution, then by what authority does congress deny them citizenship? Apparently because Congress believed that "jurisdiction" requirements are not met simply by being born here.

Congress undoubtedly has the right to grant citizenship in more circumstances than the constitution specifies, but it does not have the authority to deny citizenship where given by the constitution. Where it is "given" or not remains to be defined.

 

[newwurldmn]

Let's not get into the number of leftists that have committed violence in the name of progressivism.

With respect to the USA, you probably don't want to get into those numbers.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I don't think Trump can abolish or change the 14th amendment by EO, nor do I think he should..

But as discussed earlier, it is not clear that his actions are a changing of the constitution or merely the implementation of the proper interpretation of it.

That remains to be seen.

 

[UsualName]

We dont really know. This issue has been hands off and untouchable for so long that there is not sufficient case law to even flesh some of this stuff out.

For example, if I were to accept as true your argument, then I would then be arguing that the children of foreign diplomats are automatically deemed citizens which- my belief anyway- is that they are not based on congressional action or congressional acceptance of international law. But if "jurisdiction" simply means being born here and their right flows directly from the constitution, then by what authority does congress deny them citizenship? Apparently because Congress believed that "jurisdiction" requirements are not met simply by being born here.

Congress undoubtedly has the right to grant citizenship in more circumstances than the constitution specifies, but it does not have the authority to deny citizenship where given by the constitution. Where it is "given" or not remains to be defined.

Like I said this is an uphill climb for your side because it is so long standing as understood buuuuuuuuut I think the proper argument in this case is congress has set the parameters for jurisdiction through the various immigration laws it has passed.

So the argument is not whether the 14th amendment grants citizenship but what are the parameters of the jurisdiction and does congress have authority over those parameters.

Also, this would have to take into account all of the various non discriminatory laws that apply as well.

 

[UsualName]

This is a very flimsy interpretation. The subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that all persons born are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It doesn't mean other otherwise imply that persons not subject to the jurisdiction thereof who then go on to have babies means their babies aren't subject and therefore citizens.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Try looking at it from an angle of who can regulate the jurisdiction in question, not the citizenship.