Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

a reply to: Ahabstar

Speaking of.

Gunz and Bombz.

Maybe Trump is getting a head start.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Everyone that is in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction, not just citizens. Tourists, visiting workers, legal or illegal are subject to its jurisdiction, and can be arrested and punished for violating its laws. Undocumented immigrants that are convicted for crimes in US courts, serve their time in US prisons before they're deported.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I think the really key line to pay close attention to here is “subject to the jurisdiction of”

Because while the main goal would be to strip the citizenship of anchor babies, if you abdicate your jurisdiction of them, then you cannot legally deport or do other things like conduct trials for crimes. So while education, medical and other welfare could be declined, it would also grant immunity to laws, effectively granting protected residency on whim or choice of the individual once across the border.

Not such a good idea if you had to repel an invading army, they could claim they were coming as non residents not subject to jurisdiction and merely bringing their guns for self defense.

International law mandates that people visiting foreign nations should abide by their laws regardless of citizenship.

This is one of those items that needs clarification. Constitutional Clarification. And if needed, defined so that there is no wiggle room.

Trump is doing this to fire up the left (I personally think he loves to get them fired up), and to be able to put to rest, this issue. Get it properly defined. No wiggle room. Make the SC decide, OR decide that the 14th amendment needs more clarification.

Take away the wiggle room. The left lives in the wiggle room. Take it away. Permanently.

Fred..

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The line right here is the issue, specifically -
* - subject to the jurisdiction of

They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship). Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments. Their presence in the US is illegal.

I would interpret that as being a citizen, are subject to the laws that all citizens have to obey.

Not as a qualifier for citizenship.


Caveat; I am not a Constitutional scholar.

Fair enough but consider this -
We have immigration / criminal laws on the book that prevents a foreign national from marrying a US citizen solely to obtain citizenship and prevent deportation.

It is committing a fraud on the federal government / state governments. By extension so does coming to the US specifically to have a child to obtain US citizenship.

This is one of those items that needs clarification.

Here it is.

Trump haters think foreigners(illegal immigrants) rights are more important than legal us citizens.

That's ALL anyone needs to know.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Except in this case the argument (and a valid one at that with supporting precedence) is the 14th amendment and citizenship has been misapplied since the early 1960's. Prior to that time illegal aliens who have a child while in the US did not get US citizenship for their child.

As the article explains the requirement is jurisdiction over US citizens. In a legal sense illegal aliens are not subject to said jurisdiction because they are not citizens of any US state or territory.

Duly noted, but I will pose a hypothetical; let's say you think Star trek is cooler than star wars, would it be wrong of me to alter the facts? lame phasers versus awesome laser swords and hand lightning? Obviously Star Wars is better, but that is not written in law and I shouldn't have the right to make that a matter of fact.

For the people, by the people.

Immigration (legal/illegal) is a matter of law.
Perpetrating a fraud on a government entity to bypass laws is a matter of law.
Immigration requirements to enter the US is different depending on the country (or in your analogy lasers are not the same as turbolasers are not the same as proton torpedo's are not the same as a Romulan wanting to visit the federation as opposed to a Klingon wanting to enter the federation).

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The line right here is the issue, specifically -
* - subject to the jurisdiction of

They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship). Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments. Their presence in the US is illegal.

I would interpret that as being a citizen, are subject to the laws that all citizens have to obey.

Not as a qualifier for citizenship.


Caveat; I am not a Constitutional scholar.

Fair enough but consider this -
We have immigration / criminal laws on the book that prevents a foreign national from marrying a US citizen solely to obtain citizenship and prevent deportation.

It is committing a fraud on the federal government / state governments. By extension so does coming to the US specifically to have a child to obtain US citizenship.

Point taken.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra


Everyone that is in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction, not just citizens. Tourists, visiting workers, legal or illegal are subject to its jurisdiction, and can be arrested and punished for violating its laws. Undocumented immigrants that are convicted for crimes in US courts, serve their time in US prisons before they're deported.

As I pointed out our criminal justice system applies to everyone inside the US. However certain laws dont apply to foreign nationals / illegal aliens. Namely they cant vote (yet they do), they dont pay taxes (aside from a sales tax), they are not assigned a social security number, they dont pay into our safety net programs (medicare / medicaid / social security / etc) yet obtain access to it.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You noticed that as well.

Seems like that is his negotiating tactic. He goes to an extreme in order to settle on a reasonable solution.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

So you cant provide the requested info to support your claims and are now trying to deflect.

Cite your source about illegal immigrant workers getting US citizenship thru ancestry. Its been pointed out that native Americans are grandfathered. No where does it say what you claim.

Lol. Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving dinner? Study the civil war.

Migrant workers came, stayed, became citizens.


Study the civil war for heaven sakes.

Cite your source

City my source for a historical fact? It's pretty easy to look up.

We gave Mexicans the choice prior to the civil war to bulk become us citizens. After that we had at least a century of migrant workers.

In 1911 the mexican war brought thousands of immigrants and we literally rolled back any fees to expedite it.


These were all laws passed by Congress. Congress passes laws when there is a loophole they fix it.


EO's are not made to do this. Though its becoming more and more popular. And more supported by both sides.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As I pointed out our criminal justice system applies to everyone inside the US. However certain laws dont apply to foreign nationals / illegal aliens

Not true. Foreigners, legal and illegal, have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, to bare arms, privacy and search and seizure laws, due process and equal protection. Granted, they can't vote, because that is a right reserved for citizens only.

a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra

As I pointed out our criminal justice system applies to everyone inside the US. However certain laws dont apply to foreign nationals / illegal aliens

Not true. Foreigners, legal and illegal, have the right to free speech, to bare arms, privacy and search and seizer laws, due process and equal protection. Granted, they can't vote, because that is a right reserved for citizens only.

Those are unalienable rights. They are not rights granted by the U.S. government, they are unalienable rights that everyone is born with...regardless of citizenship.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.

They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.

They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.

Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Not true. Foreigners, legal and illegal, have the right to free speech,

Correct

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
to bare arms,

Incorrect. It is against the law for an illegal alien to purchase / obtain a firearm.
It is also prohibited for a resident alien on a non immigrant visa to purchase / own a firearm.

From ATF -
An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
privacy and search and seizer laws, due process and equal protection. Granted, they can't vote, because that is a right reserved for citizens only.

The 4th amendment and due process ONLY apply if the person is violating a criminal law of a state or federal government. Illegals / anyone entering the US falls under the border search exception to the 4th amendment (no probable cause needed to search). Illegal aliens who are in custody do not get bail nor do they get a government funded defense lawyer. Illegal aliens can also be held indefinitely until their legal situations are cleared and and is either deported or decides to serve out his sentence in their home country forfeiting all rights to appeals.

Immigration courts are not a part of the judicial branch. They are a part of the Executive branch and are overseen by the Attorney's General. The AG can appoint judges and make changes to that system on his own authority. Also Illegal aliens and immigration enforcement are considered by the supreme court to be administrative courts and not judicial.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.

They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.

Except for that tiny issue where the US Supreme Court decides matters of constitutional disagreements, which is what this is. The interpretation of the application of the 14th amendment is not a Congressional issue to fix because nothing is being changed. The interpretation is whats being called into question, with the executive branch saying one thing and members of Congress saying another.

A textbook example of what the Supreme Court is for.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.

They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.

Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?

Yep.

Its very clear you have to change the law in the amendment. For instance marriage was never part of the 14th. So some people don't really have any idea what they are talking about.

Either way thsi issue will eventually be dealt with. Issuing an EO in this matter will push this to scotus to determine. Like I said prior to the 1960's Illegal aliens who had kids did not have US citizenship applied to their kids.