Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship
Dylan Stableford 15 hours ago Eight months after first raising the idea , President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is again “very seriously” looking into ending the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship on anyone born in the United States
“We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby — congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. “It’s frankly ridiculous.”
In October, on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, Trump said he believed he could end birthright citizenship by executive order, claiming it was not part of the U.S. Constitution, and predicting the question would ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
The legal consensus is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
President Trump and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP, NARA)
“The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship,” John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who served in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in an essay in response to Trump’s claim . “According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board said Trump’s “birth citizenship gambit” puts him “on the wrong side of immigration law and politics,” and that the meaning of the amendment is clear.
“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.”
Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
104 visitors
Just like he's serious about gun control, buying greenland, etc., etc., etc.
I guess a lot of people disagreed with you in 2016?
Deflect away, it's 2019
And 2020 is right around the corner!
Yes we know, Russia is gearing up for it, and Trump has invited them in.
No deflection, just plain fact.
Here is the problem:
"Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14 th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment."
The intent of the birthright provision section of the 14th Amendment was aimed directly at helping the former slaves and Native Americans. Nobody at that time could conceive of the idea that migrants would be using the law to gain citizenship for their babies & themselves.
"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship."
The correct interpretation of the 14 th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)] 13 . In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case 12 , the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk , the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Will we all have to apply for citizenship, now?
Not if your parents were citizens! It's really quite simple.
It can be resolved by the SCOTUS. It is they who have to determine the context of birthright citizenship. A challenged executive order might just get it there!
Some people don't understand my jokes
We got it the first time. And what was my response? It is up to the SCOTUS to sort out!
Let's see how much you got? If the President issues an executive order - what happens?
It's a Constitutional amendment. [Deleted]
I think birthright citizenship has outlasted its usefulness, but Trump is not a dictator and this should be done the right way.
It is a part of one. Written in specifically to address former slaves and Native Americans. Arguably no one else!
Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?
Are you generalizing about Trump supporters again? [deleted]
I think birthright citizenship has outlasted its usefulness
I say it was only supposed to apply to former slaves [&] Native Americans, but it is nice to see you agree. So your only objection is that it's Trump trying to fix it? You know it's being abused, but you are always against Trump.
but Trump is not a dictator and this should be done the right way.
There are but two ways to solve it: Either congress fixes the Amendment (Do you see that happening?) OR the Supreme Court determines what was meant by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You need a mechanism to get it to the court. If Trump issues an illegal executive order, it will be immediately challenged, right? Might then it find it's way to the Court?
Sure, I think Trump is an asshole - but if anyone else tried to end it by executive order, I'd be against that too. It's the act of a dictator.
Congress needs to do their job. No, I'm not very hopeful - after all, they can't even do their job of providing oversight over this wreck of a president - but there's a reason our founding fathers didn't make it easy to amend the constitution.
It's Trump supporters who are agreeing with Trump's mockery of our Constitution. Am I supposed to not notice that?
So, you have told us a million times. I consider that trolling btw.
but if anyone else tried to end it by executive order, I'd be against that too.
I find that hard to believe, but I'll take your word.
Congress needs to do their job.
A measure that Trump wants would have to go through the House. There isn't much to think about. Not in a million years!
It's Trump supporters who are agreeing with Trump's mockery of our Constitution.
You know that is another sweeping generalization, right?
Am I supposed to not notice that?
I expect decency!
Funny, I consider your conspiracy theories to be trolling.
Because they don't understand it
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to not be decent. But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled at Trump's whim, I'm going to call it out. And they're usually the same people who complained about Obama's use of executive orders - which is outright hypocrisy.
[deleted]
That would be all the federal judges who deliberately made unconstitutional rulings to obstruct Trump starting with the President's right to enact a travel ban!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I didnt ask anyone to have your article closed. I was having fun pointing out how ridiculous it was.
[deleted]
So you're more of a constitutional expert than federal judges? You know damn well that Trump shot himself in the foot by tweeting and blabbing all about what his true intentions were with that ban. If he had half a brain and a modicum of impulse control, he could easily have gotten away with it.
Did you really think the President didn't have that right? [deleted]
You know damn well that Trump shot himself in the foot by tweeting and blabbing all about what his true intentions were with that ban. If he had half a brain and a modicum of impulse control, he could easily have gotten away with it.
Anything the President said during a campaign is irrelevant. Only an Obama judge would use that! The case had to be decided on it's merit. It did take a long time to go through the legal system. I bet your glad. He was sabotaged huh? [deleted]
So my surviving parent was not a citizen (but was there as a legal visitor) when I was born in the US, but he is now because I sponsored him. So would either of us still be citizens after this EO?
I'd tell you to check with the local Immigration Office...but then they might kick down your door, drag you off, and then we never hear from you again. I wouldn't like that.
Agreed!
Because it gets in the way of what they, and Trump, want to do. Personally, I expect any day for Trump to declare the Constitution null and void, or at least try to, and his rabid supporters would do all they could to help him void it.
Not that they would have a chance of succeeding, but, they would likely give it a real effort, saying it is now out dated and of no value in today's world.
With Trump and his boot lickers anything is possible.
It also included indentured slaves, many from Ireland.
Lol that'd be interesting given I haven't lived in the US since I was 3.
Awwww shucks
At least you have a sense of humor while some here do not, unless they think of it first.
As has already been pointed out, they already have.
The litigation of the EO need not be based on the 14th. His tweet stating that he has the authority to usurp the Constitution by citing a national emergency gives fodder to the ACLU and others to get an injunction.
were you OK when obama did it? or did you call out his bs also?
just curious
Well, it's obviously not "clear" or we wouldn't have so much debate about it.
In either event, I'd say it's at least worth reconsideration. I don't think it can be said about the United States that it needs more citizens so badly that unrestricted jus soli should be the standard. We also don't have some large population of people living within our borders (such as indigenous people or slaves) who have been existing outside the protections of American citizenship.
Most countries in the Americas have this standard, but most countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia do not. I would guess this is because they don't feel they need it. I don't see the US needing it either.
Just because some people choose to spit on the constitution doesn't mean it's not clear. Whether you think its time has passed or not, if we want to get rid of it, we have to do it right and amend the constitution.
It was needed at the time, to protect the former slaves and the indigenous people. Now, it isn't needed IMO. I personally think that birthright citizenship should only be granted to people whose parents are citizens.
Not these days. 5 Justices just decide the Constitution changed overnight. Thanks liberals.
I do think the best fix would be an amendment clarifying it one way or the other. I think if it went before the Supreme Court, we'd end up with another 5-4 decision that we could all fight over for the next 50 years.
So, you're saying there's a chance!
I think there's still a lot of debate over whether that should apply to someone who is in the country illegally. I think that's a fair question and one that is properly seen as an issue of first impression for the high Court.
Taken to the extreme, enemy combatants could give birth to citizens just by invading. There must be some place where people are willing to draw some kind of line . . . but perhaps not.
Birthright citizenship doesn't apply to anyone in the country illegally since a person born here didn't enter illegally.
How about those here legally just to procure dual citizenship? You know, those rich Russians that rent Trump properties in FL to have their 'anchor babies' here.
Do you think that Trump will figure out a cut out for them in his EO?
Something needs to be done about them, the Chinese and everyone else playing that game.
And Chinese... and Koreans... and... well... the wealthy from wherever.
I kinda doubt Trump objects to rich anchor babies...
I'm not a fan of dual citizenship. I think you should have to pick one.
Since the alleged motivation is 'chain immigration', it's a easy fix without changing the Constitution.
When do you propose that decision be made? Does the parent make that decision or do we wait for the child to reach the age of majority? Will the US waive the fee or still charge the parent $2000+ to renounce?
Perhaps if the IRS concentrated on nailing dual citizens for the taxes that they owe, the word would get out that there is a high price to pay for that US passport.
When you are granted and accept citizenship in a country, that is when you should renounce citizenship in all other countries. Being a citizen is not like joining a social club. You should be fully invested. Otherwise, just be a visitor.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
I wasn't thinking about the Supreme Court. You asked me about how I think things should be. You didn't ask me what current caselaw was.
Now that Melania's parents have used chain immigration, Trump is probably fine with eliminating it. He may want to see if any of her other relatives want citizenship first, though. Just to be on the safe side.
What about children? If they're born here to legal citizens but they are also granted citizenship in another country due to their ancestry, at what age do you think they should make up their minds?
Some adult age. 16, 18, 21. Something like that.
Where?
When did I do that?
What?
You didn't, but whoever I was talking to did. If you had read the thread, you'd know that. Then you would have understood the context of my comments.
This would require an amendment to the constitution. Trump as PotUS has no authority here.
Exactly. EO's are limited in what they can do.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez made an interesting point in an interview last week. She said human beings have been migrating for thousands of years, and the places people have migrated to have always improved. I guess exhibit A for our purposes would be the English migrating to North America in the early 17th century and beyond.
America stole these lands. Should we really be complaining so much about those who want to walk up here and join us?
Yes. It’s the right of every nation to determine who enters our country. You open borders folks seek the end of our Constitutional Republic
By that measure, pretty much everyone on earth stole the lands where they currently reside. I don't see how our stealing land from the Native Americans means we now have to let anyone who wants to join us in. Unfortunately, we can't support everyone in the world. We don't have the resources. It would be nice if we could, though.
And I certainly don't agree with AOC that the places people have migrated to have always improved. We've destroyed too many of them for that to be true.
Or, as John Ball said in 1381:
Unsurprisingly... he was hanged, drawn, and quartered.
These things generally go along the lines of "might makes right". We have the power to be able to say "no" you can't come in. It's not really a moral argument. If the migrants prevail then they will claim might , of a sort, was on their side.
"America stole these lands."
Funny, so did everybody else before us. The only people not guilty of such were those that crossed the Bering land bridge thousands of years ago. Countless native tribes displaced one another over the centuries until the first European settlers arrived here.
Correct - and we had piss poor immigration policies - and it shows.
I'm sure those darn Indian displaced one another..../s
How about the ''Tribal Termination Act of 1953'' another 2.5 million acres were taken...Oh, did I mention the Dawes act the tens of million acres of land that was taken....
The U.S. government ignored the treaties or changed the law to fit their needs and million and millions of acres were taken from the Indian community.
And the greed of our government and their big money donors continue to take that which was guaranteed to the Native Americans, in order to fill their own greedy pockets.
Most of the treaties and promises that the government made to the Native Americans have never been kept in order to feed the greed of those who do not feel it is necessary to keep their word.
America was already a plutocracy.
Now it is also a kleptocracy...
It'sresting.
Our right-wing members, who generally are so vociferous in defending a simplistic interpretation of the Constitution, are silent...
But, but, but I thought trumptards were all about the Constitution.
Just like they were absolutely against deficits... when a Democrat was President...
NO one should be granted citizenship because their parents broke the law. And the 14th Amendment NEVER contemplated doing so.
“Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)”
But he can't. And as usual he looks like the fucking idiot he is.