Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is making another hardline immigration play in the final days before midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens. Most scholars think he can’t implement such a change unilaterally.
With seven days to go before high-stakes elections that he has sought to focus on fearmongering over immigration, Trump made the comments to “Axios on HBO.” Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border. He is dispatching additional troops and saying he’ll set up tent cities for asylum seekers.
Trump has long called for an end to birthright citizenship, as have many conservatives. An executive order would spark an uphill legal battle for Trump about whether the president has the unilateral ability to declare that children born in the U.S. to those living here illegally aren’t citizens. Most scholars think he can’t.
Asked about the legality of such an executive order, Trump said, “they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.” He added that “we’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States.” A 2010 study from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports immigration restrictions, showed that 30 countries offered birthright citizenship.
The Pew Research Center found in a survey published two years ago that births to “unauthorized immigrants” were declining and accounted for about 1 in 3 births to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2014. About 275,000 babies were born to such parents in 2014, or about 7 percent of the 4 million births in the U.S. that year, according to Pew estimates based on government data. That represented a decline from 330,000 in 2009, at the end of the recession.
An excerpt of Trump’s interview was posted on Axios’ website on Tuesday.
The president said White House lawyers are reviewing his proposal. It’s unclear how quickly he would act and the White House did not provide further details.
A person familiar with the internal White House debate said the topic of birthright citizenship had come up inside the West Wing at various times over at least the last year, but has some internal detractors. White House lawyers have debated the topic, and expect to work with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to develop a legal justification for the action. It is one of many immigration changes being discussed including asylum law changes, and barring the migrant caravan from entering the country.
But administration officials said there would likely be no decisions until after the midterms, due in part to the president’s trip to Pittsburgh.
Legal experts questioned whether Trump has the authority to do this by executive order.
Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, said Tuesday that the Constitution is very clear.
“If you are born in the United States, you’re a citizen,” he said, adding that it was “outrageous that the president can think he can override constitutional guarantees by issuing an executive order,
Jadwat said the president has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Trump can try to get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment, “but I don’t think they are anywhere close to getting that.”
“Obviously, even if he did, it would be subject to court challenge,” he added.
Suzanna Sherry, a professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School specializing in constitutional questions, said those advising Trump that he can change the Constitution via executive order are simply mistaken. “He can’t do it by himself and, in fact, he can’t do it even if Congress passed a statue.”
“I think it would take a Constitutional amendment,” she said. “I don’t see it as having any plausible legal basis,” she said.
But others suggest the president may have an opening.
Jon Feere, a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is among those who has long argued that that the president could limit the citizenship clause through executive action.
“A president could direct his agencies to fall in line with his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s rulings, which are arguably limited to children of permanently domiciled immigrants (the court has never squarely ruled on children born to tourists or illegal aliens). He could direct his agencies to issue Social Security numbers and passports only to newborns who have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanently domiciled immigrant,” he wrote in 2015 in an op-ed in the Hill.
In the final days before the Nov. 6 midterms, Trump has emphasized immigration, as he seeks to counter Democratic enthusiasm. Trump believes that his campaign pledges, including his much-vaunted and still-unfulfilled promise to quickly build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, are still rallying cries for his base and that this latest focus will further erode the enthusiasm gap.
Trump voiced his theory that birthright citizenship could be stripped during his campaign, when he described it as a “magnet for illegal immigration.” During a 2015 campaign stop in Florida, he said: “The birthright citizenship - the anchor baby - birthright citizenship, it’s over, not going to happen.”
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
The amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.
In addition to the debate over Trump’s authority to declare that children born in the U.S. aren’t citizens, a separate question is whether Congress could pass a law to that effect, or whether only a constitutional amendment could accomplish Trump’s apparent aim of denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of those here illegally.
Republicans in Congress continue introducing bills to end birthright citizenship, including legislation this session from conservative GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa who has aligned himself with some nationalist political leaders abroad. King’s bill has almost 50 co-sponsors in the House. King’s legislation though would likely face a cool reception in the Senate where there is no companion bill pending, and a handful of senators supported past efforts.
King said he had not discussed the issue with the president at any length in recent months, but that it had come up “in passing” several times in group discussions. He said he hadn’t personally considered birthright citizenship to be part of the caravan issue and applauded the president for connecting the issues.
“Sending this message out, it’s another component of saying to the caravan: Don’t come in here. Some are pregnant, no doubt,” he said.
He stressed there’s never been a Supreme Court case on the issue, “so it’s never been tested.”
The Axios HBO series debuts on Sunday.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
537 visitors
Why is it so hard for some folks to realize that America does not have an open door policy?????
Trump also said we need to end chain migration, yet that's how his wife's parents got here. Seems to me, trump is wearing his hypocrisy on his sleeve as usual.
Exactly!
Sounds like Trump has once again ginned-up his seriously uninformed base with unconstitutional promises he can't fulfill, and has done so just to motivate them before an election.
Those folks must be incredibly gullible.
.
In fact that's the only way birthright citizenship could change, but it'll never happen in part because the consequences would be a class of stateless persons.
I am going to have to disagree, and I will lay out my thought process , first all the administration/ executive branch really has to do is ask the judicial branch for clarification on the meanings of certain parts of the amendment , in the case that I am thinking of , exactly what level of jurisdiction is needed for citizenship to be defacto. we can see that there are differing opinions on what level of jurisdiction , even status of parents are needed for citizenship to be considered a foregone conclusion. they can also ask the judiciary IF the amendment applies to non citizens about to give birth, reason I state that is because not all the amendments apply to foriegners/aliens in this country that are considered rights of citizenship.
Once those clarifications are made , an EO can be drafted so as to not need to change the amendment itself . AND as I stated from the onset in my first post , this is most likely something that the current supreme court is going to have to answer. and that is what the USSC is for.
If anything it will change the way the amendment is interpeded with more clarity . which would remove any and all arguments.
You either are or you aren't subject to US jurisdiction and it's abundantly clear that all undocumented persons in the US are subject to it. That fact has been clear since before the US was founded (google Calvin's Case). So you're hanging your wet dream on something which doesn't exist.
Or to put it another way, if you get what you want then those aliens and their US-born children all have diplomatic immunity. Looks like you'll have to reconcile that side effect with the fact that what you're really talking about is a return to the perverse standard used for the 9 years while Dred Scott was in force, plus the consequence that a large class of stateless persons would be created and the courts would be very adverse to that. That's why this is just a conservative extremist wet dream.
So a large class of stateless( meaning belonging to NO country) would be created ? actually that would be a fallacy , because a child is usually recognized as the nationality that the Mother claims , so a child born to an illegal alien /immigrant would be the citizenship of the mother where ever she may hail from. reason I say the mother, mothers can never deny paternity , fathers have to trust what the mother says....
I have tried to remain civil throughout the conversation , even put up with your juvenile accusations and assumptions , like you assuming I think the dredd scott case was a good one. you assume because you never asked.
I would really like to see things from your point of view , and have tried , but 2 things get in the way , one is the record and writings of those that authored the amendment and clause in question . the other and more pressing point is I cant get my head that far up my ass to see things from your point of view. that was my return insult incase you missed it.
Actually in most of the western world jus sanguinis applied only through the father, not the mother. US women couldn't even confer citizenship upon their foreign-born children until about 1934. In fact the Birther morons hung their hat on that aspect because there were still gender inequities in the law in 1961 when Obama was born.....so if he had been born outside the US there's a chance he might not have been a naturally-born citizen depending on the exact circumstances of his mother's age and her travels.
Other countries have varying standards on whether they recognize jus sanguinis but most in the EU do not and none south of the US do except Mexico, as far as I know. So you would indeed be creating a large class of stateless persons and the courts have always viewed that as a huge problem.
.
I don't know whether you think Dred Scott was a good ruling (I assume you don't), but that outcome is what you're trying to achieve by eliminating birthright citizenship regardless of whether you realize it. Those 9 years are the only time the US hasn't officially and judicially had birthright citizenship.
.
Cool - maybe you should read Wong Kim Ark and try to understand it? They even Cite Calvin's Case from several hundred years earlier and cite Dred Scott as the perverse case.
The real problem with a statement like this?
We are quite capable of reading and researching for ourselves, have a long history of being able to reason out things ourselves, and reject outrightly those that try and tell us how we should think....
And since that is the point of this dialogue you trying to convince everyone that your thinking is the correct interpretation, we summarily reject it. (especially since it has a plain latent political bias)
That would be one assumption you have made correctly.
I also looked up calvins case and it appears to be a 2 parter, the plaintiff was born after a Scottish king also became the English king and the argument was because he was a scot he could not inherit in England , but because of the timing of his birth , and whom his soverign was he held both Scottish and English citizenship and it was recognized that the soverign was one and the same , the other part of calvin was those born before the Scottish king became the English king(unification of the crowns) is they did NOT gain English citizenship or ability to inherit in England. It appears to me that the birthright was contingent on what the soverign was in charge of at what time to gain birthright citizenship.
So with that in mind , how can an illegal immigrant give birth and citizenship when they hold no alliegence or right to pass citizenship they do not have themselves onto their child ? the parent is still a citizen of whatever state or country they came from , and subject to that country and its jurisdiction/ protection. even in the case your using the Chinese immigrants were here legally and even though immigrants were subject to all US jurisdictions and priviliges allowed at the time , the same cannot be said about ILLEGAL immigrants.
Granted I used a simplified reasoning of using the mothers nationality vs the fathers and I admit most nations use the paternal line rather than the matriarchal line , but I did give my reasoning , mothers cant deny parentage , fathers use to be trust the mother until DNA testing came about to be certain. but in either case in the case of illegals , parentage and legal status applies , or should.
you also keep saying if I got my way , that illegals would then be classified as a set with diplomatic immunity , that is incorrect , the only entity that can grant diplomatic immunity is the government itself, when talking about birthright citizenship , each and every case has the parents have some sort of legal grounds to be in the country, thus conveying citizenship to their offspring , illegals have no legal authority to be in the country and since they do not have that , how can their offspring? and they in turn gain citizenship?
And it is the why it will be up to the USSC to determine , they may not want to , neither side may like what they decide , but there will at some point need to be a clear and defined clarification of the matter handed down from the court , and as I have stated it will most likely hinge , like it or not , on the jurisdiction part of the citizenship clause , the level of jurisdiction of the government needed for citizenship to be a birthright without question.
Strange then that you folks can't understand the plain language of the ruling, eh? Jus solis is determined solely through birth on US solely and the infant being subject to US jurisdiction. That's it. Thus the US-born children of undocumented immigrants, refugees, etc are all US citizens.
Correct, but that question was about which king Calvin was a subject of. The parallel question in the US is whether you're subject to US laws or have diplomatic immunity.
.
You're confusing Jus Solis with Jus Sanguis. The discussion is about the former.
.
That's 100% false. Virtually all persons in the US are subject to US jurisdiction which is what matters for Jus Solis. Only a tiny defined subset of persons are not, and they're not even the people you folks want to expel.
.
You're misunderstanding the point. The only way US-born children of undocumented immigrants don't have Jus Solis is if their parents (or the child itself) have diplomatic immunity. I'm not aware of even one who does.
So unless you're claiming that the undocumented immigrant who rear-ended your car can't be arrested and charged for the traffic violation because he has some kind of diplomatic immunity by virtue of being an undocumented immigrant, then you're admitting that his US-born kid is a US citizen through Jus Solis under the 14th Amendment (and our long dead friend Calvin).
And my reading of the case says that to be a citizen you have to be born to a citizen.....
That is the holding in that case in a nutshell.
Plain common sense meaning typical of English Common Law....
Reading comprehension problems, eh? Neither of Wong Kim Ark's parents were US citizens and in fact they had returned home to China long before the events of the case due to the horrific persecution of Chinese persons by conservatives in the US. His parents had originally come here as migrant workers and never applied for citizenship and were even prohibited from doing so after 1882. They were considered an undesirable class and unwelcome in the country - when they left they knew they could never return. Legally their status in the US was equivalent to undocumented migrants today.
.
No, you got it exactly wrong. You either didn't read the ruling or you don't grasp the basic facts of the case.
You've also unwittingly confused the concepts of Jus Solis with Jus Sanguis. The latter has nothing to do with that ruling.
So simply being subject to law is enough for Jus solis? can an illegal be prosecuted for not registering for selective service? are illegals subject to a draft if one is ever reinstated ? can an illegal legally serve on a jury if summoned and can they be forced to appear if summoned for said jury duty? Can an illegal legally own firearms , or vote legally?
If the answer is no to any of these then the government does not have complete jurisdiction over said person which is the question I ponder , what level of jurisdiction of the government grants birthright citizenship? and who actually has to answer that ? I answered with the USSC. It is that body that will have to make the determination of what level of jurisdiction by the government is enough.
Moving goal posts much?
I was talking about Calvin's case. (which you cite as the basic legal thesis, basis & authority, incorrectly I might add)
And Mark is correct you are confusing Jus Sanguis with Jus Solis.... Two completely differing thesis's in law.
The problem stems from the fact that it is an issue that has never directly come before the court before so there is no clear basis... and again I agree with Mark, it IS a question for the Supreme Court... (and it will be a case of first impression if they decide to take it)
Trump immigration executive order: President to terminate birthright citizenship
While I am not a Constitutional lawyer, I do not believe that an executive order can supersede the Constitution. But as I said.....
Luther - the Constitution DOES NOT grant automatic citizenship to the child born in the U. S. of an Illegal Alien.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
Our history shows otherwise. Hamilton was not a citizen, yet he helped write the Constitution.
subject to the jurisdiction thereof
That means you are either a legal resident or a citizen of the U. S. Illegal Aliens don't fit that category because they still owe allegiance to their parent country and are only subject to their citizenship.
They're subject to our laws while they're here.
You know this phrase was used to deny Native Americans citizenship, yes?
The court noted in Slaughterhouse::: “the condition of the parent determines the condition of the child”. Illegal parents cannot birth a citizen. That all agrees with the authors of the 14th.
Perrie - None of them were U. S. citizens when writing the U. S. Constitution as the U. S. was not a country/sovereign yet.
Sandy answered for me.
The U. S. Constitution still doesn't cover Native Americans.
No that's not what it means at all. Unless of course you're claiming that undocumented immigrants can't be arrested for crimes because they have diplomatic immunity.
Sorry but your side subsequently lost in US v Wong Kim Ark. Any person born in the US is a citizen unless their parents were diplomats (which is essentially the only class of persons in the US over which US law has no jurisdiction).
Yes it does if they are born on US soil. Most Hispanic Americans are also Native Americans who just happen to speak Spanish. After all, The American West and Southwest were Spanish territory for hundreds of years...
Nor does it prohibit it, therefore, the protections of the 14th Amendment apply.
Read 8.1.2. You're still wrong.
Yawnnnnn - and the East coast was English, French, Spanish, and Portugese and a couple others for hundreds of years (1492 - 1776).
Your point?
BULLSHIT! An illegal alien in the US is 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US government.
WTF does 'allegiance' have to do with 'jurisdiction'?
The answer is NOTHING, it's a deflection.
WHERE? Here's a link to the ruling. Please copy and paste the section where 'the court noted' that statement. I'll wait.
BTW, Slaughterhouse held that there is a difference in being a citizen of a U.S. and being a citizen of a state and therefore the 'privileges and immunities' clause didn't require the state to provide the same protections. That has since changed, as you well know.
But that was why the 14th was put into the Constitution. If you want it changed it must be done properly and not by executive order.
So Native Americans aren't citizens of the US?
Any person, citizen or no, can and are arrested for crimes with the exception of diplomats. Illegal Aliens are not diplomats.
You exactly right 1st, nowhere in the Constitution does it grant citizenship....
For those saying it does, point out the clause with specificity....
Right.
Probably why someone hasn't by now....
Birthright citizenship:
(from wiki, I left the footnotes in in case someone wishes to actually research it)
Birthright citizenship is a policy of the US government with some force of statuary law based upon the 14th Amendment, but is not in the constitution itself......
Hence it is subject to the whims of an EO and court review subsequent to that. Actually it would be a constitutional case of first impression cause the direct issue of Birthright citizenship has never directly come before the court.... Although the court has decided cases before on citizenship as a birthright the actual issue itself has never presented itself to the court on the basis of it being a "Right" guaranteed by the constitution.
A little research always helps clarify things...
I'm sorry Dulay, but that is bullshit.
Look up the answer yourself - not doing your homework.
They are citizens, by virtue of the treaty that ended the revolution, the US obtained dominion over all peoples within the territory ceded to the new nation including those tribes that were considered citizens of the british colonies....
And common sense. the Founders ideals as far as citizenship were get here, take up residence, follow the laws, and be of good moral character....
Seems like most Natives qualify...
Thank you for admitting that. Thus the US-born children of "Illegal Aliens" are automatically US citizens per the 14th Amendment and per the Wong Kim Ark precedent, as well as several centuries of common law.
The contrary argument you've unwittingly been making is that "Illegal Aliens" have diplomatic immunity or their US-born children magically aren't subject to US jurisdiction. Both claims are obviously false.
Native Americans were not made citizens of the United States until 1924.
Yes legally with specificity, but the Founders considered them as citizens. Others that followed did not, hence the reason for the law which came way to late, IMHO.
A lot of horrors were perpetrated by selfish interests because of that policy choice. Even such, many of the horrors continued after they were granted citizenship which in my opinion they had all along....
Thomas Jefferson on native citizenship. It doesn't look like he, as a founder, did not consider natives to be citizens.
Indian Sovereignty:
The sovereignty of Indian nations was expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Under the new U.S. Constitution, the American leadership-President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Secretary of War Henry Knox-assumed that Indian policies were now vested in the federal government rather than in the state governments. Furthermore, they saw Indian affairs being directed by the executive branch. They saw Indian policy as a branch of foreign policy and viewed Indian tribes as foreign nations.
Well gee 1st, since YOU made the assertion that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' precludes illegal aliens. it's on YOU to prove it. Please proceed.
The only question I asked was:
Which I immediately answered accurately.
Actually, the statement is - "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." - page 73
Only by an Act of Congress - and not by the U.S. Constitution.
But, you already knew that.
Sorry, that has not been my argument and you well know it,
It's the obvious consequence of your perverse and irrational argument. It sounds like you really want to return to the era when the Dred Scott ruling was in force, something which even contradicted basic common law principals of citizenship.
It's not clear to me why you want to create a large class of stateless persons but I can guarantee that the courts will never go for it. Birthright citizenship is the standard in virtually the entire western hemisphere from Tierra del Fuego to the north pole. What amazes me though are the dullards and Trump supporters who think he has ANY control over this issue. They must be incredibly ignorant people.
IF my understanding of British history is correct , US citizenship was not recognized until AFTER the war of 1812, otherwise the british wouldn't have attempted to impress American seamen into the british navy , before that lttle skirmish , the brits thought of americans as still being subject to the crown and could be gang pressed into service to the british crown..
Whether the Brits recognized the US as a sovereign nation isn't even remotely relevant to what citizenship standard the US uses.
The only intersection is that the birthright citizenship standard dates to a 1608 English common law case and thus was present during the colonial era and when the US was founded......as legal scholars noted at the time.
Actually, there are only 30 nations in the Western Hemisphere that grant citizenship at birth.
Give me a link to that case.
1st the case he is referring to is this one...
Calvin's case which established the legal principle of jus soli in english common law as the basis point of birthright citizenship.
From Wiki:
According to him it's is just as simple as that..... (and it's a 150 year precedent in this nation that can't be changed just like any other precedent they happen to agree with)
In other words virtually all of north & south America.
.
Google "Calvin's Case" from 1608. It was cited by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark and also by St George Tucker, a US jurist responsible for key legal doctrine at the founding of the US. It's the doctrine the US has always held except for the 9 years when Dred Scott was in force.
I'm just telling you where the doctrine derives from. Except for 9 bad years it's been the doctrine the US has always used.
With only one or two exceptions the rest of north and south America use the same doctrine.
Which is comparing apples to oranges. In Calvin, James Colville (Calvin) was born in Scotland in 1602 under James I as king. James became the king of the unified country(ies) of Scotland and England in 1603. Calvin's "citizenship" was postnati—subjects born into the allegiance of the Scottish king James after he had become the king of England in 1603—and on the fact that the monarch into whose allegiance he was born (the same James, in his capacity as King of Scots) was also the English king at the time of Calvin's birth—meaning that Robert Calvin, in the judgement of the court, was just as much a subject of the king of England as if he had been born in England instead of Scotland.
The illegal aliens from outside of the U. S. do not fit either category - postnati or antenati as they have never been subject to the laws and rules of the U. S. and its Constitution, hence their children born in the U. S. to Illegal Alien parents in that they were postnati (their country is not/was not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
It’s also amusing that contemporary England has also formally rejected the principle of birthright citizenship.
Trumpism is another name for FASCISM. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Vote Democratic...
No thanks. I prefer personal freedom and civil rights.
In the 1930s Germans voted way you will and that all ended badly...
I'd really like to hear what mechanism exists so that Trump can declare martial law and declare himself president for life. Trump can't do it anymore than Obama or Bush could. If you don't want Trump to have a second term then I advise to encourage Dems to try to appeal to non coastal Americans instead of dismissing them all as "deplorables" or "clingers".
Those are both things which Trump has long opposed.
Presumption of innocence and due process apply to legal asylum seekers. No birthright US Citizens can or ever should be denied their guaranteed Constitutional rights by Trump's unconstitutional illegal orders. If Trump tries to pull this crap move then Trump must be impeached post haste. He is out of control...
LOL. Aren't you one of the folks who opposes marriage equality?
Imagine that even the sperm that fertilized the egg that made you had never been on foreign soil, but being told as a kid in school that you must go live in some country that the President* calls a shithole anyways. I don't know how conservatives live with themselves. What a sorry ass existence.
Sorry Hal - that sentence makes absolutely no sense.
I'll dumb it down just for you. It's one thing to tell a child he or she has to go back to where they came from (still heartless and cruel), but when they have never existed at any stage of their life anywhere other than the US, telling them to leave is the lowest form of humanity. It's completely disgusting. Maybe the thought of being the person to tell that child of their fate is something you relish.
Oh, absolutely wrong Hal. The PARENTS are at fault and should be charged with abuse, negligence and child abandonment.
Made total sense.
Right 1st - keep blocking out of your mind the fact that an actual child is involved. That's how this administration got through tearing babies from their mother's arms, I'm sure.
For whatever reason, their parents chose not to follow the laws of the US. They certainly could have applied for citizenship, or permanent residency...negating the need to tell their children anything at all. Because their parents were irresponsible, this nation is not responsible.
That may seem cruel, but making immigration laws gray to accommodate those who choose to ignore the law...cheapens what many legal immigrants have done with great pride for 100's of years.
Do you realize coming to the country and asking for asylum is LEGAL? And don't bother bringing up the entry points. Republicans have made sure to limit who even gets to present themselves. Why are you all so afraid? Why are so many conservatives cowering about beleaguered (mostly) women and children?
Yes, and most who seek asylum continue forward in the legal processes...unless their asylum was denied. Then they are in this country illegally.
There isn't any fear involved at all. Women and children must also abide by the laws of this Nation or face the consequences.
????? Whether a kid's parents are ax murderers or give birth while on vacation, etc, has nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship of a child born in the US. Heck, even a black guy born in Hawaii is a US citizen.
The best part is that there's nothing Trump or his xenophobic followers can do about that fact despite Trump's pre-election pandering to these morons.
This will eventually make it to the SCOTUS and then they can decide what the 14th actually means. If the left doesn't like the verdict then there'll be nothing they can do about it except throw a bigger temper tantrum.
Well, if you want to enter the EMOTIONAL call versus the LEGAL call. "Tearing babies from their mother's arms"????????? You mean the illegal alien who DEMANDS her child become a U. S. citizen just because a political party needs votes???
And sent them to 'summer camps' according to Ingraham
Don't bet on it. The "kid" is subject to the same sovereignty as it's parents. As they are illegal aliens, so is the child.
I can't believe he still has a 'rally' every couple of days (pre-election pandering) and had the song 'Happy' playing to the Jewish killings survivors when he went to Pittsburgh.
Did he also tell them to 'enjoy' or 'have a good time' or 'TRUMP TELLS CAROLINA FLOOD VICTIM: 'AT LEAST YOU GOT A NICE BOAT OUT OF THE DEAL'
Lib - evidently, you and many others don't seem to understand that there are NINE embassies in Mexico and a huge one in Mexico City where, technically and legally, asylum applications are offered, taken and reviewed. You don't need to get in a caravan of 10,000 people to cross into the U. S. ILLEGALLY to request asylum. That's why the proper process was placed with the embassies.
See US vs Wong Kim Ark. Your side already lost this on this issue a very long time ago.
However I'm not surprised that just before an election Trump is pandering once again to his incredibly ignorant base, all of whom apparently skipped high school civics.
You've said some really dumb things, Wally, but that's got to be one of the dumbest.
Let me woman - splain it to you:
"Anchor babies" are babies born on US soil, therefore, are citizens. "Dreamers" are those kids that were brought into the US illegally by their parents and are now seeking a path to citizenship.
That's up to the refugees to decide how they want to safely seek refuge.
It's also rather amusing that neither you or any other right winger has ever mentioned the US role in creating the issues which cause people to flee their countries, including with this particular group of refugees.
Maybe he can throw them a few paper towels to soak up the blood and the water?
I can't wait to see how his unwanted presence in Pittsburgh today works out. Maybe he can hold another rally there to gin up more violence from his white nationalist base.
What would he do without his 'rallies' to stroke his bloated noxious ego?
Trump's Olde White Dumbass Rallieis surely are Nurembergesque...
"It's Spring Time For Fascists In Trumpster Land"...
I know neither me nor my parents were attempting to scam anyone when I was born in the US. Although my anchor baby status was beneficial when my father and brother wanted to become citizens several decades later.
Donald and Melaria Trump condemn such "chain migration."
Virtually none of the comments you've made here are true, accurate, or have any foundation in law.....that one included.
You might want to study up and learn why the reality of this issue is entirely different from what you think it is.
"See US vs Wong Kim Ark. Your side already lost this on this issue a very long time ago."
Too bad for you that there have been legal scholars debating the effect of that case since it involved the child of parents who were here LEGALLY. The parents however weren't citizens. It's debatable if those same citizenship rights apply to children of parents here ILLEGALLY. But I know the ignorant base of the open borders Democrat party don't care about details like that.
They also might not have worn blue hats. Are you suggesting that the children of parents who don't wear blue hats should be denied citizenship even if they're born here and are subject to US jurisdiction? That's the essence of your argument since the court simply ruled that the US birth and being subject to US jurisdiction were the only relevant factors.
Note that's also what the 14th Amendment states and it's what has been the legal standard under common law since 1608, except for the Dred Scott era. Are you suggesting we return to the Dred Scott standard? That's the only time in US history when birthright citizenship wasn't recognized as a rule.
I realize this is a conservative extremist wet dream to revoke birthright citizenship, but that's all it is. Only conservative extremists treat it seriously - every other knowledgeable person knows it's a joke.
"the US role in creating the issues which cause people to flee their countries"
OOOOhhhhhhh - so NOW the U. S. is to blame for all the economic, political, racist, criminal issues of all the countries of the world?????
No, it's just bears particular responsibility in regards to certain humanitarian crises like the ones in Honduras, Guatemala, Iraq and Syria. In fact in the latter two cases the US & UK really should be taking in 100% of those refugees since we directly caused the problems which created those refugee crises.
Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted - freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.
If they were born here, they're citizens. That's how it is.
But not for long..
But that is contrary to law and they are not citizens of the U. S.
They most certainly are citizens of the US if they were born here.
You declaring they aren't doesn't make them not citizens.
Sounds like you've swallowed a whole lot of BS.
No, but the Constitution states, and the SCOTUS supports, that they are not citizens of the U. S.
You "claim" to have a legal background - try using it before you argue.
Um, SCOTUS does not.
Ummm - see 8.1.2 below. It has stated so in three separate cases.
I've never made that claim but it sounds like the xenophobic right wing wants to formally restore a key aspect of the Dred Scott v Sanford ruling. Maybe you should google it before you review the Wong Kim Ark case?
You really don't want me to cut and paste your comments from Ashinaabee, do you?
One of the tenants of the Anishinaabe group is that everything that is said in there remains in Anishinaabe.
I would expect that each and every person that is a member or was a member should honor their commitment and refrain from making comments that are deemed as private within the group.
Feel free to do so. You obviously misunderstood them.
However it does remind me that you were just as wrong in that discussion as this one.
Concur - sometimes idiocy of others brings out the tempers of the mild-mannered.
Mea Culpa - seriously.
And how is trump going to change it? Do tell.
I reckon our constitution gives citizenship to anyone born here... but that does not transfer to either parent or mean the parents get to stay and raise their kid here.... when the child is of age it can come back on its own no problem.
there is a hole in the loop hole.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
obviously, by definition, illegals do not reside here.
re·side
Wow, what a great plan. Spend your formative years in a country where you won't get a decent education, then come on back as an uneducated adult. Genius.
that child can thank their parents later.
being an uneducated adult here beats being an uneducated adult in guatemala
When was last time the gop had good ideas? I'm old and can't remember it.
Do you have any thought or concern at all for the children? Can you answer that without pivoting to the parent or anything else? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? One would think this would be an opportunity for the GOP to show they actually do care about life outside the uterus. Instead there is a total lack of compassion and caring for people Jesus would call 'the least of us'.
planning to enter a country illegally is never a great plan.
but even people here legally as a tourist, if they have a baby here - they must take the child home to raise them... but, that child also retains us citizenship and may return on its own.
should an illegal "tourist" be treated differently than a legal tourist?
they can thank, or blame, their parents later.
just like everyone else on the planet
cheers
Funny how you guys routinely miss the point. When we talk about inhumanity to innocent kids, you respond that it is for the good of our country. When we talk about what's good for our country, you respond that the kids need to despise their parents. You guys are so overflowing with hatred that you can't even think straight.
If you're so concerned about what's good for our country, then why on earth would you suggest it is fine to let in an uneducated poor adult as long as they were born on American soil but we didn't have to educate them with the skills that would have made them a worthy, independent adult?
if a tourist is here legally and has a baby?
do they get to suddenly stay here and raise that child here?
the answer is NO
why should we treat illegal tourists better than legal tourists?
dual citizenship is nothing new, but the idea that breaking a law magically gives citizenship rights to the parents as well? that's new... and also laughable. no way in hell this notion gets passed the supreme court.
autocorrect is a blessing and a curse.
sometimes I like it.. sometimes not so much.. LOL
And we're supposed to hand out "decent educations"????? How 'bout the 560,000 homeless U. S. CITIZENS that aren't given those same opportunities?
as you just said people not educated here are not worthy independent adults. I seriously tend to disagree here/
but running with your premise just for fun we find...
another reason not to grant asylum to anyone in the caravan who has not been educated here.
by your own words..
not worthy independent adults and therefore a future burden on our society.
Where is the 'inhumanity' exactly? Are you expecting the parents to be granted citizenship since they have given birth to a child in this Nation? Perhaps you're expecting an 'anchor baby' orphanage to be opened in each state to accommodate the new citizens and to give them an education that meets your standards? Are you suggesting that without a US education...these innocent kids couldn't possibly enter this Nation as worthy, productive adults?
You mean in the creation of a class of stateless persons? The courts have long frowned on that.
.
?????? SCOTUS ruled long ago that states cannot refuse a public education due to immigration status or citizenship status. You might want to catch up on the past 35 or 40 years of news.
the supreme court has never ruled we have to let illegals stay here to be educated. but while their here waiting on deportation... nothing wrong with furthering their education... maybe they will learn not to break the law? possible.
And we're supposed to hand out "decent educations"????? How 'bout the 560,000 homeless U. S. CITIZENS that aren't given those same opportunities?
You should probably talk to the magic eight ball, since he's in favor of letting the kid come back in once he's had a couple decades of Central American style "education". It's too bad you guys are so screwed up that you can't even agree on what the problems are.
Nor did I claim that. What it did rule is than a public education cannot be denied to undocumented minors and that schools cannot use immigration status to disadvantage these kids, and that their school registration cannot be used to deport them or their parents or otherwise used against them.
It sounds like you folks can't stand that.
Ok, so by your answer you give zero fucks about the children. Or you didn't comprehend my post. Either way speaks volumes.
This is one of those subjects I think will eventually end up being decided by the USSC, and personally I think it is going to hinge on the part of the clause in question , where it states "under the jurisdiction of". the Court will have to decide the level of jurisdiction needed by the government before citizenship is considered.
In the words of Senator Trumbull, author of the 13th amendment when asked about what under the jurisdiction there of meant at the time of the clauses writing "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
A couple of interesting links to read in regards to the citizenship clause of the 14th with the words of the principles involved at the time of its writing and the discussions that took place , all in the congressional record I add.
That's already been decided and your side lost.. See US v Wong Kim Ark. In fact the question of who's subject to US jurisdiction and who's not had been settled since the founding of the republic.
FYI the only persons in the US who aren't subject to US jurisdiction are those who have diplomatic immunity like foreign ambassadors. If your claim is that undocumented immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction then the US has no authority to deport them, imprison them for any crimes they might commit, etc. You dig a deep and illogical hole with your line of "reasoning".
WOW - you still can't get that one right. Wong's parents were in the U. S LEGALLY - resident card, jobs/business, homeowner, did not owe China allegiance.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
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)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, 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 or legally domiciled in the U. S..
hense I started my post with it would most likely have to be brought before that panel of 9 justices, since there have been other cases that went both ways on the subject of citizenship. and I included the links for further reading on the subject from those that authored and got the amendment passed .
actually alien nationals/visitors are only somewhat under US jurisdiction if one thinks of it , if a foreign national commits a crime in this country , their home nation because of their nationality has the right to get involved in the legal process , they do not fall wholely under US jurisdiction, which our government allows. partial jurisdiction over an immigrant or alien is NOT complete jurisdiction , and even that partial jurisdiction does not mean they cannot be imprisoned , or deported or fined for crimes committed.
LOL. Funny that you can't grasp such a very simple ruling. What the court found was that Ark was born a US citizen because he was born in the US and was not immune from US law (because his parents weren't foreign diplomats). There are only a tiny fraction of US-born persons who aren't subject to US jurisdiction, and having undocumented parents isn't one of them. Otherwise your actual and rather unwitting claim is that kids born to undocumented persons in the US can't be charged with crimes.
You've repeatedly cited the Slaughterhouse cases but the Ark case is the current controlling precedent on this issue and there's lots of water under the bridge since then.
Pffft. That's just a silly comment, especially the last part. Despite the erroneous claim you're now trying to walk back, your argument amounts to saying that a US-born person whose parents are undocumented has diplomatic immunity. Which is a silly and obviously false claim.
There are only a tiny subset of persons in the US who are not subject to US jurisdiction, and it sure as hell ain't undocumented persons or their kids. In fact it's safe to say that 100% of that class of persons are subject to US jurisdiction.
Maybe you need to learn what US jurisdiction means and who exactly is exempt from it? Seriously, this debate is for the uninformed rabidly xenophobic base of the GOP to fret about, the folks who are blissfully unaware that the issue was decidedly settled 120 years ago.
I am actually walking nothing back , a person that commits a crime outside their national boundries are only somewhat subject to certain aspects of law, I point to death penalty cases of foreign nationals whose nations have abolished the death penalty citing that their citizens cannot be put to death.
it is accepted , when a US citizen goes abroad and breaks a countries laws that they become subject to that countries legal system, any US civil and legal rights end at our borders and are unapplicable in another nation. nutshell? our constitutional rights as US citizens ends at the border.
And if you look I also stated one of the principal persons stated exactly what jurisdiction meant , another nutshell , in my definition, no other country has a claim of being able to step in on legal proceedings on the persons behalf because of citizenship claimed in more than one place, yes we are now talking about dual citizenship.
So I will ask this question , what jurisdiction does the US government have over any alien that has not declared that they are in the process of citizenship? can they be drafted into military service? can they be called to serve on a jury? are they subject to complete and total adjudication of US law as is every other US citizen where ever they may be in the country? If the answer is No to any of those , then the US does not have complete jurisdiction over the individual, and as per the clause , and the statement written at the time of the amendments adoption about jurisdiction , citizenship , is in question.
Actually following the law is not something on their radar Mark, they believe that they don't have to follow laws they don't like...
I will simply leave this discussion with the words of the author of the 14th amendment Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) as to how and whom the amendment applies ,
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States , that I think is rather important coming from the man that authored the amendment. and that is not to say other legislation and president has not been established in the ensueing years since the adoption of the amendment itself .
Wrap your head around this - with only a tiny handful of exceptions, all persons currently in the US are subject to US jurisdiction. The only persons in the US over whom the US has no jurisdiction are those with diplomatic immunity.
And with that said, the only persons born in the US who don't get birthright citizenship are those whose parents are diplomats.
In other words the argument you and your kindred spirits have been unwittingly making is that undocumented immigrants and their US-born children shouldn't be subject to US jurisdiction. That's the only way you can get what you want unless you want to overturn the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling, or perhaps restore the Dred Scott ruling.
"original intent" at the time of writing a law is a very solid legal argument.
if that quote is documented, verified, and presented before the court? case dismissed.
skrekk - your eyes are so closed you can't even read what is above your post.
Actually you're misunderstanding not just that statement but the context of the statement since Howard was rebutting those who wanted to exclude from citizenship certain classes of immigrants and their children, like Italians and Irish and the Chinese.
In any event SCOTUS settled that issue in Wong Kim Ark.....and they did review the congressional intent. Your cause is part of the proverbial Lost Cause and it runs against centuries of common law doctrine on this issue as well as what one of the founding legal scholars of our republic specifically said. The only time in our history that things actually worked the way you and the seeder want is for a brief period between Dred Scott and 1868. Otherwise all persons born in the US have always been treated as citizens unless their parents were ambassadors or black slaves.
I should correct that - it was only for 9 years between Dred Scott in 1857 and the 1st Civil Rights Act in 1866, an act which Congress passed twice and overrode Johnson's racist veto the 2nd time. Subsequently they passed and ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments in 1868, but the Dred Scott era ended in 1866 when the veto override happened. From the 1866 CRA:
Except for the children of black slaves and native Americans and a brief 9 year period that's always been the standard in the US for persons born here, and it actually dates to a 1608 English Common Law ruling in "Calvin's Case". In other words it's been the standard here since before the US existed.
So what your trying to tell me is that any alien can come into the country , give birth AND remain a citizen or subject of a foreign power/ nation and US citizenship is granted to the child ? CRA of 1866 contradicts that .
Actually I think what was stated by sen howard excluding , aliens , foreigners as he stated , already settled citizenship issues under the law., falls in line with what the CRA stated back in 1866, that citizenship was NOT granted to the children of said people BECAUSE they were subject to a foreign power/ nations jurisdiction and not under complete and total jurisdiction of the US government or the states.
which the jurisdiction part of the clause is important to keep in mind , How can a citizen, be subject to 2 different countries sets of laws? at the same time? Part of the naturalization oath for citizenship is the resinding of ALL ties of alliegence to ones former nation and pledging alliegence to the US, making US governmental jurisdiction total and complete.
AND like I said before , this is an issue of clarification that the USSC will have to make .
remind me again whom was the president and party affiliation of said President in 1866? and wasn't he one of 2 US presidents impeached and not removed from office?
That's right , it was Andrew Johnson , a democrat who replaced Lincoln when he was assassinated.
Yes. Except for the Dred Scott that's the way it's always been. Including Wong Kim Ark and his Chinese citizen parents and everyone else before them.
.
That's a blatantly false claim.
.
I suggest you read that full debate in context to understand the discussion, but regardless what Congress passed in 1865, 1866 & 1868 is not what you think it passed. What they passed and formalized was the same birthright citizenship standard which had existed in the courts since 1608. To the degree that you're not understanding the language, part of it was about native Americans who were a separate class of non-citizens who explicitly could not confer US citizenship.
.
Ummmm.....why? The legal precedents on this are very clear particularly after Wong Kim Ark. Only two factors matter in determining birthright citizenship, that you were born in the US and you were subject to its jurisdiction at the time. That's it.
.
A real shame Trump injected this today of all days, apparently just to support the xenophobic terrorist who acted out Trump's vile agenda.
Seems like conservatives (especially southern conservatives) haven't changed much at all in the past 160 years. All they've changed is their political affiliation but otherwise they're still just as xenophobic as they always were.
I wouldn't know , I am not a southern conservative, never have been, not even from the south, though I did change my political affiliation from republican to independent a couple decades ago. all that means for me is I cant vote in primaries or caucuses, not that I see too many on either side that are worthy of my vote.
fffffttttt - you really don't know how to comprehend what you read - sorry.
bwah ha ha. 1 week before the mid-terms. keep on talking you fucking clueless moron.
It's amazing isn't it? Trump throws an irrelevant and meaningless bone to his rabid base and they respond on cue. No wonder they also respond to his dog whistles for violence.
It's sort of the political version of Pavlov's dogs.
The real shame is I feel obligated to respond to their idiocy and their right-wing wet dreams even though though I know what they want will never happen. Every time I see this topic pop up I think "Same Clueless Idiots, Different Day".
Woof!
It's like tending a garden: the only chance it has to grow is if you keep pulling out the weeds and not let it overrun the garden.
there is a loophole in the loophole... lol
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
re·side - VERB - have one's permanent home in a particular place.
obviously, by definition, illegals do not reside here.
I would love to see this tested at the supreme court.
cheers
Pfffft. LOL.
they forgot to redefine "that word.... LOL
Is residence determined by one's physical living address?
Apparently in North Dakota them injuns don't have addresses so they can't be allowed to vote. They don't reside in ND, they reside in some vague native spiritual fantasy just outside the borders of the GOP-controlled state.
of course as usual you can't be bothered to actually learn what the law and the courts have ended up with
The district court held that residents who lack the necessary ID must be allowed to vote if they present documentation from a tribal government, like a formal letter establishing their residency.
Individuals can reach out to their county's 911 coordinator to begin the process of having a residential address assigned. They can then describe where their homes are located, enabling coordinators to assign addresses. The office assigning the addresses will provide letters upon request to confirm each individual's new address. The voter can use this letter to obtain a new ID , or as proof of a residential address for voting purposes.
In other words the federal courts had to fix a problem deliberately caused by the racist GOP in an attempt to suppress the votes of native Americans, but given the proximity to the election it's likely that the GOP's racist efforts will succeed.
By the way this sort of targeted voter suppression crap is going on in every GOP-controlled state in the country, like the small town in Kansas which moved its polling place out of town so that it will be inaccessible to anyone without transportation.
It's a real shame that SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act. No red state should be allowed to make these changes without preclearance.
You need to be very careful how you label Native Americans - you have gone over the line.
This, basically.
The idea that birthright citizenship exists for all persons born in the US is based primarily on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on a person born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It's the second half of that requirement that will be critical. What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction?"
Certainly anyone who is present in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of both the federal government and the state they are in. They have to obey the laws and they can bring suit in court. However, they are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the country or state. Their subjection to the jurisdiction is limited. They can't, for example, be drafted into the military, and if they committed some kind of crime, the US would deport or extradite them to their actual home country.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make citizens of ex-slaves who had no ties to other countries. i.e. they were exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This is an interpretation that dates to the Slaughter-House cases of 1873.
Another example is that the Court held that Native Americans born within US borders were not citizens. It took an act of Congress to change that, but that act was specific to Native Americans.
Some, based on US v Wong Kim Ark, might think that if an illegal alien is permanently "domiciled" in the US, their children are born citizens. However, being domiciled requires not just permanent residence, but legal permanent residence.
TL;DR: There is no Constitutional justification for the children of illegal aliens to be born citizens of the US based solely on the location of their birth, and there are multiple precedents that indicate they are not citizens.
Permanent residence or legal residence has literally nothing whatsoever to do with it. The deciding factor in US v Wong Kim Ark were that Ark was a citizen because he was born in the US and was subject to US jurisdiction because his parents weren't diplomats.
It's a very simple ruling and quite powerful given the intent of the Chinese Exclusion Act to prevent all such persons from being treated as US citizens. So even act of Congress can't evade what the constitution requires in regards to birthright citizenship.
[deleted]
Wrong - his parents were LEGALLY in the U. S. hence he qualified.
That's not the basis for the ruling, it's just part of the narrative. As the court noted the only relevant issues were that Wong Kim Ark was born in the US and was subject to US jurisdiction because his father wasn't a Chinese ambassador. The court even cited the colonial and foundational US legal scholar George Tucker:
There is NO predicate in the 14th about having 'no ties to other countries'.
Actually, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 wasn't 'specific to Native Americans'.
Or they could recognized that being permanently 'domiciled' or not is irrelevant. The ONLY reason that 'permanently domiciled' was a big deal in Ark was because of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Exactly. And is highly relevant that they ruled for the plaintiff despite the overwhelming anti-Chinese and anti-immigrant sentiment of that era.
It's also worth noting that Ark's parents had arrived in the US as migratory workers and never applied for citizenship before they returned to China, despite running a business in SF.
I was referring to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 , also known as the Snyder Act.
Oh the one that was not only ineffective in making all states recognizing Native Americans as citizens but was replaced in 1940, which was replaced in 1952. Got ya...
States' unwillingness to cooperate with the law doesn't make the law invalid. The law did what I said it did. It made Indians US citizens. The point is Congress fixed the problem as it pertained to Native Americans. The question really still remains to be settled as to what to do about people who have entered the country in violation of its laws and without permission - permission being a requirement for legal entry.
Since I didn't say anything about it being 'invalid', what's your point?
Yet NONE of that has a damn thing to do with birthright citizenship. Thanks for playing.
Personally, I think this is something that should be defined during the overhaul of our immigration laws through congress. If the immigration process was actually fixed we could make clear decisions on who is or isn't a citizen.
We ought to get together with Mexico and Canada and create the NAV. The North America Visa. If born in the US, Canada or Mexico you can apply for a travel visa which allows you to move across any of our borders and even apply for work in any of the three countries, but if you work out of your country of origin you have additional fees and taxes to pay and you get no benefits like Social Security or Medicare/Medical and any children you give birth to would only have citizenship in your country of origin. And if you commit a felony you're immediately deported and your country of origin agrees to prosecute their own citizen for crimes committed in their neighbor countries. We would be able to focus the millions we spend on border enforcement on getting rid of the criminals instead of hunting poor families just trying to feed their families. And businesses would be able to hire NAV workers at a regulated but lower minimum wage thus providing farm labor at costs that wouldn't cause our produce costs to rise exponentially as it would if every produce farmer had to pay their lettuce pickers $10-$15 an hr. And the workers wouldn't feel like they were always at risk of being arrested and deported.
Then the 20 year long wait to achieve citizenship wouldn't discourage people that can't wait to get their children out of harms way or be able to find a job where they can feed their families, that's why so many still choose to break the law. If they had a different path, a temporary status and a pathway to citizenship, even if it's a long one, they would be far less likely to choose a dangerous desert crossing and the threat of incarceration hanging over their heads. Citizenship could also be based on the total taxes paid in without any expectation of benefits. If you're a creative entrepreneur who builds wealth for our nation, boosts our GDP, pays tens of thousands in taxes over a several year process, and might even create jobs for our citizens, then your pathway to citizenship is shortened.
So we'd save money, largely eliminate the undocumented immigrant problems, and stop the illegal trafficking and criminal aspect of the immigration situation we have now.
I agree with that proposal, but note that the birthright citizenship issue has been formally settled for 120 years and really comes from English Common Law centuries before the US was a thing.
It's also worth noting that virtually every county in North and South America has birthright citizenship.
Are you saying that it would be okay to eliminate birthright citizenship as long as mechanisms were in place that would ensure tolerable produce prices?
Not exactly, it wouldn't take any act of congress or ruling by the SCOTUS, it would simply be in essentially the EULA of the NAV passport. You'd be agreeing to a stipulation to get easy, free access to the US and Canada where you could cross the border at will, but you had to accept some provisos to do so. And this would only apply to those born in the US, Canada and Mexico, all the refugees and immigrants from other countries would still have to go through their own passport and immigration process.
So children of refugees born on US soil would still get birthright citizenship even if their parents had not yet become citizens. We'll still have Chinese parents coming for a four month vacation to have a baby, its still going to happen and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, and its relatively rare. It's not like we're seeing hundreds of thousands of overseas vacation pregnancies. One of the most recent estimates puts it at about 40,000 annual "tourism" births. The thing I think many Americans concerned with the current law are more upset at the other 200,000 births to foreign nationals in the US, the majority of which come from our southern border.
People complaining for years about EOs now cheering for them.
People saying matters should only go through congress are now cheering bypassing that.
People saying the courts should not legislate are cheering exactly that.
The former Democratic Leader of the Senate's attempt to end birth right citizenship:
TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
t
But the same people who followed Reid now call Trump Hitler for wanting to end birth right citizenship. Hilarious.
What's hilarious is that you are want me to accept the false equivalency of the CONGRESS acting and Trump signing an EO.
Not going to happen.
s is that you are want me to accept the false equivalency of the CONGRESS acting and Trump signing an EO.
So you believe Congress can end birthright citizenship by passing a law?
Actually no, NO I do not. That doesn't make YOUR comment any less a false equivalency.
Nope. Still would have to ratified by the states. 2/3rds of them if I am not mistaken.
That doesn't make YOUR comment any less a false equivalency.
If you believe that....
But the point is that ending birthright citizenship is a pretty mainstream position, it certainly never hurt Henry Reid with Democrats. It's only since Democrats went off the deep end in this century that it's given rise to the sort of hyperbolic ranting that's so common on the frenzied left these days.
A Conservative politician should just reissue Obama/Clinton/Reid//Schumer/Pelois talking points on issues and watch the left freak out and accuse them of hate crimes.
But hey, since liberals don't believe the Constitution has any fixed meaning, maybe we will all wake up and find out the Constitution magically evolved and birthright citizenship no longer exists. Always a possibility in the "living Constitution" era.
Wow, decrying 'talking points' while spewing talking points.
Perhaps it would behoove you to review WHEN Reid made that proposal. Once you do, please explain to me HOW Obama or Clinton had ANYTHING to do with it.
Oh and BTFW, Reid's proposal NEVER made it to the House, so smearing Schumer and Pelosi is BULLSHIT too.
Try harder...
Actually it's a wet dream which only xenophobic conservative extremists hold, but I'm not surprised that a Mormon Dem would have submitted that proposal too. In fairness it should be noted that Reid repudiated his former position by 1999 and called it a low point in his career.
The reality is that virtually the entire western hemisphere uses birthright citizenship. The people opposed to it seem quite ignorant on the topic.
Before he served for years as leader of the Democrats in the Senate. As I said, his advocacy for unconstitutional legislation to end birthright citizenship certainly didn't hurt him with Democrats, who were more than willing to serve under him.
lease explain to me HOW Obama or Clinton had ANYTHING to do with it
The point is you can take almost any position that the Democrats now call a hate crime and just use Democratic leaders own language. Reid in this case, Obama on gay marriage, Durbin on abortion...etc..
BTFW, Reid's proposal NEVER made it to the House, so smearing Schumer and Pelosi is BULLSHIT too.
Did I ever say it did?
Harry Reid, xenophobic conservative extremist!
You can't make this up.
Really? So "virtually all" of Europe uses birthright citizenship? Why don't you start with Europe and list all the countries that grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens automatically. I promise it won't take long.
What a load of BULLSHIT.
No but that didn't keep you from smearing House members for it, DID it Sean? BTFW, I notice that your just glossed over my statement about neither Obama or Clinton being a part of it.
BTFW, perhaps you should note that in 2006, Reid APPOLOGIZED for his actions on that bill. You remember the old days when politicians apologized for fucking up don't you Sean?
No, it's not. Use a 2008 Obama quote on gay marriage and you'd be labeled a bigot. Democrats love to hitlerize their own past positions.
No but that didn't keep you from smearing House members for it,
What did you imagine I said about House members?
notice that your just glossed over my statement about neither Obama or Clinton being a part of it.
Would you prefer just arguing with a straw man of your own creation? Because your points have nothing to do with anything I wrote. I never said they were apart of Harry Reid's support for ending birthright citizenship.
Reid APPOLOGIZED for his actions on that bill
Again, he was in leadership before he "apologized." Sure, his struggle session purified him for the left wing zealots who were in the process of taking over the party, but as I said, his opposition to birthright citizenship didn't keep from leading democrats.
Sounds like you're confused about what the western hemisphere is. It's everything west of the Greenwich meridian, so essentially just north and south America. Here's how the US government defines it in addition to the US:
Here's the detail of birthright citizenship nations, and lots of explanation at the link which you'll almost certainly ignore.
How soon they forget. The Democrats have forgotten who they were.
Why did you reply to Sean with a quote from another member's statement?
IMHO, it's bad form to criticize a comment from one member from behind a reply to another member.
Shameful that on the very day Trump arrives unwanted and uninvited in a Pittsburgh synagogue he brings the terrorist Robert Bowers a gift he truly wanted - a president who would promise to erase birthright citizenship.
It's like Bush giving Bin Laden a token fragment of the WTC.
Setting aside the steps that would be required to make this happen, I would actually support this change.
There are countries other than Mexico that are taking advantage of this loophole. Specifically, Asian countries and Russia.
This has always been a big concern of mine. They come here specifically to give birth to gain citizenship for their children. Then they take their children back to their mother country and raise them.
Will these children actually have any loyalty to the US over their parent's country? I don't think so.
So we should return to using the Dred Scott standard? That was only in effect for a tiny and perverse fraction of US history, otherwise we've always used birthright citizenship as the basic standard.
No, that is a completely different situation.
I know that my opinion on this issue isn't perfect.
No, it's the actual and only historical precedent for birthright citizenship not being recognized despite the singular instance of Wong Kim Ark. Otherwise birthright citizenship has always been the standard in the colonies and in the US since at least 1608 (see Calvin's Case).
Dred Scott literally uprooted and reversed centuries of fairly consistent precedent, but fortunately it only lasted 9 years.
Your HAVE to recognize that just because one is raised here, doesn't guarantee one's 'loyalty to the US'. Right?
Yes, I agree. It's more and more evident under this President.
Timothy McVeigh comes to mind. He was also a Veteran.
Another good example would be the Bundy clan.
I was in Oklahoma City a couple weeks back and visited the memorial. Heartbreaking.
Bottom line here. Another day another target from an insecure, confused and afraid man occupying a position far above his ability.
There is neither legal consensus among Constitutional Scholars nor a Supreme Court Opinion specific to children born in the US to those here illegally
former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stated in 1993 that “no sane country” would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants solely because they were born on American soil.
Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have questioned whether the 14th Amendment should be read to mandate such a permissive citizenship policy.
Posner was recognized “by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.”
“ As a judge, ..., Posner’s judicial votes have always placed him on the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican Party, where he has become more isolated over time.” In 2012, Posner pointed out, “I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.”
Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration - Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)
Constitutional Lawyer Mark Levin has denounced the idea that the 14 th Amendment grants citizenship to these anchor babies
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of legal Chinese residents. And the frequently cited language in Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5-4 decision written by the notorious activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a credible authority—is dicta contained in a footnote!
LOL. Note that John Eastman is the dumb bigot who organized the anti-LGBT hate group NOM. He's never even supported equal civil rights for all US citizens. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that Dred Scott was decided correctly. Needless to say he has a very poor record on civil rights issues and has lost every legal case for the NOM hate group.
.
Actually that's 100% incorrect. The ruling wasn't based on the immigration status of Ark's parents but on the fact that they weren't diplomats. In essence anyone born in the US is a US citizen UNLESS their parents have diplomatic immunity.
Here's a helpful article on the topic but I doubt you'll read it:
There is NO ambiguity there, there is no argument, there is no amount of spin that can change that one sentence. You can post all the lawyers and opinions you want, it will not change a damn thing. And as has already been pointed out at least a dozen times....an EO has not, can not and will not EVER over ride the US Constitution.
For all the whining and crying about Obama "violating the constitution", you would think the right wouldn't turn around and BLATANTLY try to circumvent the same thing.
Time to go to bed - manana.