╌>

Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  5 years ago  •  159 comments

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








9197dca0-94e1-11e6-9718-4d4a4a2e45f0_US-   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.”

631463b0-c44c-11e9-a7e8-19f21539f963
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
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    5 years ago

Another move to stir up his rabid base.

The fucking moron knows that this will not happen.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Tessylo    5 years ago

“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.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3  lady in black    5 years ago

Just like he's serious about gun control, buying greenland, etc., etc., etc.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3    5 years ago

I guess a lot of people disagreed with you in 2016?


 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 years ago

Deflect away, it's 2019

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3.1.1    5 years ago

And 2020 is right around the corner!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    5 years ago

And 2020 is right around the corner!

Yes we know, Russia is gearing up for it, and Trump has invited them in.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @3.1.1    5 years ago

No deflection, just plain fact.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Tessylo    5 years ago

“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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    5 years ago

Will we all have to apply for citizenship, now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    5 years ago

Not if your parents were citizens!  It's really quite simple.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    5 years ago
“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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    5 years ago

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!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    5 years ago

Some people don't understand my jokes

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 years ago

“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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.3    5 years ago
jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    5 years ago

We got it the first time.  And what was my response?  It is up to the SCOTUS to sort out!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.6    5 years ago

Obviously 'you' didn't get it.  

“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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.8    5 years ago
Obviously 'you' didn't get it.  

Let's see how much you got?   If the President issues an executive order - what happens?

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.10  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    5 years ago
It's a Constitutional amendment.

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    5 years ago

[Deleted] the 'president' use the Constitution as toilet paper.  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    5 years ago
So your only objection is that it's Trump trying to fix it? 

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.

Are you generalizing about Trump supporters again?

It's Trump supporters who are agreeing with Trump's mockery of our Constitution. Am I supposed to not notice that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.13    5 years ago
Sure, I think Trump is an asshole

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!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    5 years ago
So, you have told us a million times. I consider that trolling btw.

Funny, I consider your conspiracy theories to be trolling. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    5 years ago
Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?

Because they don't understand it

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.15    5 years ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.18  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    5 years ago
I expect decency!

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.15    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.18    5 years ago
But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled

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!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.19    5 years ago

What source?  What fact(s)?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.22  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    5 years ago
'I expect decency!'

Regarding this 'president', don't hold your breath.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.21    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.22    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.23    5 years ago

I didnt ask anyone to have your article closed.  I was having fun pointing out how ridiculous it was. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.25    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
6.1.27  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.20    5 years ago
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!

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.27    5 years ago
So you're more of a constitutional expert than federal judges?

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]

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
6.1.29  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    5 years ago
Not if your parents were citizens!

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.30  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.28    5 years ago

[delete]  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freefaller @6.1.29    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.1.32  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.31    5 years ago
I wouldn't like that.

Agreed! 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.1.33  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.16    5 years ago
Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?

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. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.1.34  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    5 years ago

It also included indentured slaves, many from Ireland.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
6.1.35  Freefaller  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.31    5 years ago
but then they might kick down your door, drag you off, and then we never hear from you again. I wouldn't like that.

Lol that'd be interesting given I haven't lived in the US since I was 3.

I wouldn't like that

Awwww shucks

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.38  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.1.27    5 years ago

'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'

Yup, a Muslim travel ban.

He prefers white folks over our dusky Muslim brethren.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.39  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.3    5 years ago

At least you have a sense of humor while some here do not, unless they think of it first.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 years ago
It can be resolved by the SCOTUS. It is they who have to determine the context of birthright citizenship.

As has already been pointed out, they already have. 

A challenged executive order might just get it there!

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. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
6.1.41  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  katrix @6.1.18    5 years ago
But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled at Trump's whim,

were you OK when obama did it? or did you call out his bs also?

just curious :)

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    5 years ago
I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.

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.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
Well, it's obviously not "clear" or we wouldn't have so much debate about it.

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @7.1    5 years ago
if we want to get rid of it, we have to do it right and amend the constitution.

Not these days. 5 Justices just decide the Constitution changed overnight. Thanks liberals.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.1    5 years ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.4  Tacos!  replied to    5 years ago
-2

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.4    5 years ago
I think there's still a lot of debate over whether that should apply to someone who is in the country illegally.

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? 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
7.1.7  dave-2693993  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    5 years ago
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. 

Something needs to be done about them, the Chinese and everyone else playing that game.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    5 years ago
You know, those rich Russians that rent Trump properties in FL to have their 'anchor babies' here.

And Chinese... and Koreans... and... well... the wealthy from wherever.

I kinda doubt Trump objects to rich anchor babies...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    5 years ago
How about those here legally just to procure dual citizenship?

I'm not a fan of dual citizenship. I think you should have to pick one.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.10  Dulay  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.7    5 years ago
Something needs to be done about them, the Chinese and everyone else playing that game.

Since the alleged motivation is 'chain immigration', it's a easy fix without changing the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.9    5 years ago
I'm not a fan of dual citizenship. I think you should have to pick one.

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.11    5 years ago
When do you propose that decision be made?

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    5 years ago

The Supreme Court disagrees.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.13    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.1.15  katrix  replied to  Dulay @7.1.10    5 years ago
Since the alleged motivation is 'chain immigration', it's a easy fix without changing the Constitution. 

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.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.1.16  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    5 years ago
When you are granted and accept citizenship in a country, that is when you should renounce citizenship in all other countries.

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?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.1.16    5 years ago

Some adult age. 16, 18, 21. Something like that.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
7.1.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.13    5 years ago

Where?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.14    5 years ago
You asked me about how I think things should be.

When did I do that?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.18    5 years ago

What?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.19    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8  TᵢG    5 years ago

This would require an amendment to the constitution.   Trump as PotUS has no authority here.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @8    5 years ago

Exactly. EO's are limited in what they can do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    5 years ago

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? 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
9.1  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 years ago

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 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
9.2  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 years ago
America stole these lands. Should we really be complaining so much about those who want to walk up here and join us?

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  katrix @9.2    5 years ago
By that measure, pretty much everyone on earth stole the lands where they currently reside.

Or, as John Ball said in 1381:

When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

Unsurprisingly... he was hanged, drawn, and quartered.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @9.2    5 years ago
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.

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. 

 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 years ago

"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.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
9.4.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4    5 years ago

Correct - and we had piss poor immigration policies - and it shows.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.4.2  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4    5 years ago

I'm sure those darn Indian displaced one another..../s

indianland.jpg

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. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
9.4.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @9.4.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.4.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Raven Wing @9.4.3    5 years ago

America was already a plutocracy.

Now it is also a kleptocracy...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

It'sresting.

Our right-wing members, who generally are so vociferous in defending a simplistic interpretation of the Constitution, are silent...

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
11  lady in black    5 years ago

But, but, but I thought trumptards were all about the Constitution.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
11.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  lady in black @11    5 years ago

Just like they were absolutely against deficits... when a Democrat was President...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12  livefreeordie    5 years ago

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.)”

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @12    5 years ago

The federalist is a bunch of bullshit and lies.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    5 years ago

Quoting US history and Supreme Court Decisions is lying.

[deleted]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    5 years ago

[Deleted.]

[The only editing was the deletion of a sentence which included an insult.  The remaining part of your comment is exactly as you typed it.]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
12.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    5 years ago

Well, it's certainly a blog site associated with The Federalist,

the article itself is an opinion piece from 2007, (admittedly repaired from a corrupted version sometime in 2016).

While people tend to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define what the meaning of "natural born citizen " means, the 14TH Amendment is pretty straight forward. "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." 

If Trump or anyone else wants to change the 14th Amendment, there is a path through Congress or if 2/3s of the states demand a Constitutional Convention.

Neither is likely to happen IMHO.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.3    5 years ago
'While people tend to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define what the meaning of "natural born citizen " means, the 14TH Amendment is pretty straight forward. "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." 

Yeah, like this nonsense:  'Thus, the statute can be read as'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to    5 years ago

WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
12.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.6    5 years ago
WTF are you talking about?

jrSmiley_74_smiley_image.gif I don't think he has a clue.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

Show me.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.10  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.3    5 years ago

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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 understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

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.

In 1898, in the case United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying out business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
12.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.10    5 years ago
With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.

Even within your unConstitutional argument...this makes no sense.

Allegiance goes from the person to the state. If a person says, "I swear allegiance..." that's the end of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.13  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1.11    5 years ago
'this makes no sense.'

per usual

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
12.1.15  Raven Wing  replied to    5 years ago
If you still don't know about it, you can Google it.  

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

Karri - you really need to get a better grasp on your immigration law before you attempt to educate others.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.18  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.17    5 years ago

[delete]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.20  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

As long as the parent is NOT a citizen of the U.S. at the time of birth, the child is under the legal jurisdiction of its parents.

Yes, Illegal Aliens are covered under our laws - most of them - but they are NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S. because their allegiance is to their home country.

You should have continued reading the definitions of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants. Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to persons born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons. The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.

Illegal Aliens are NOT stateless peoples until, and only until, they take the oath of allegiance of their new state/country.  As such, their children, wherever they are born, are also not stateless peoples as they are tied to their parent's State through their parent's oath of allegiance/citizenship standards.

When a case actually addressing anchor babies/children born to Illegal Aliens reaches SCOTUS, the present "practice" of GIVING citizenship to a new-borne will be declared improper and that the INTENT of the authors of the "citizenship" section of the 14th will become the actual law that will be followed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
12.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to    5 years ago

Karri,

Rebutting is pointless. You can disprove something a hundred times... and the zombie will always rise again.

Facts don't matter, reality doesn't matter....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.23  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

Karrie - please don't try to go there. My qualifications on this subject outweighs the need to discuss in depth on this thread.

And Tess - no, she did not "school" me.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.24  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1.22    5 years ago

You're speaking of your own opinions Bob?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.26  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

Federal Indian Law Attorney who's worked on immigration.

Yours?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.1.27  1stwarrior  replied to    5 years ago

Karri - in a nutshell, when and if (which I sincerely hope happens) an immigration case hits SCOTUS's calendar, their primary concern is going to be reviewing the entire law, starting with the "intent" of the law, which is the complete foundation of the law.  As stated previously, the authors of the "citizenship" portion of the 14th Amendment, during discussion of the "intent" of the requirements for citizenship at birth, explained their "intent" of their insertion of the description of their clause.

The court's Clerks will then be given the task(s) of conducting research into/on all citizenship cases and sorting through them until they get just a few binders of cases, i.e. case laws, that they can/will use in their further research.  Each case will need to be directly applicable to the definition of the "intent" as decided and placed in the search engines.

The intent of the birth rights described in the "citizenship" portion of the 14th will be the primary focus of the judges in their decision making after having reviewed all the available case law and precedents established by those cases.

The starting place is from 1866 - the discussion of the 14th Amendment.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

"Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he 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.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now

That, Karrie, will be the starting point for the court cases - the "intent" of the law, not the bastardized version the Dems/Libs are using now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.28  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.23    5 years ago

Sure she did.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
13  Thrawn 31    5 years ago

But he can't. And as usual he looks like the fucking idiot he is.

 
 

Who is online







bugsy
Snuffy


59 visitors