Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

I think this is why conservatives said that ruling by executive fiat was dangerous when BHO was doing it. “I gotta pen and a phone.”

a reply to: Nyiah

This is not about going against the Constitution. It is about interpretation of the Constitution.

Interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been controversial for a very long time.

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.

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted as only applying to citizens.

This might go up to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see their interpretation.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Nyiah

This is not about going against the Constitution. It is about interpretation of the Constitution.

Interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been controversial for a very long time.

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.

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted as only applying to citizens.

This might go up to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see their interpretation.

Actually it is about going against the constitution. Because there isn't a real clear way to interpret that clause.

If it no longer is useful it need to be amended.


Who would the birthright citizenship be for? Nobody has an answer for that.

Who does birth right citizenship apply to today?

Anyone?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually the appeals court didnt rule in that manner. The 7th circuit, at the end of it all, actually affirmed the district courts ruling, meaning the motion to dismiss based on the argument that the federal law in question violated an illegal aliens right to bear arms was denied.

Entire case history
* - United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez (14-3271) - Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

* - Final judgement


Except in this case, even though a 7th circuit judge issued her opinion of the argument and laws, in the end the 7th circuit found the laws valid and denied the motion to dismiss.

Illegal aliens / non-immigrant visa holders are prohibited from possessing firearms.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So your argument is birth right citizenship doesn't apply to anyone anymore, but it's being interpreting wrong, and doesn't need to be amended, the court is going to say "hey guys this law doesnt apply to anyone"

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Seems like common sense to me. It's either that or get rid of welfare benefits for all citizens and non citizens.

really??.....that means at least 3 of his own children will have to be deported......(shakes head)....and this is your leader???...you can't fix stupid

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Nyiah

This is not about going against the Constitution. It is about interpretation of the Constitution.

Interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been controversial for a very long time.

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.

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted as only applying to citizens.

This might go up to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see their interpretation.

Actually it is about going against the constitution. Because there isn't a real clear way to interpret that clause.

You can look at the debate history of the amendment for more info. I loathe directing you to Wikipedia, but the following does have sources listed:

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.[28] The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.[29]

Howard said that the clause "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."[28] He added that citizenship "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"[28] —a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[30] Responding to concerns expressed by Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania that liberalizing the right to citizenship might result in certain states being taken over by large populations of undesirable foreign immigrants,[31] John Conness of California predicted that the Chinese population in California would likely remain very small, in large part because Chinese immigrants almost always eventually returned to China, and also because very few Chinese women left their homeland to come to the United States.[32]

James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin objected that the citizenship provision would not be sufficiently narrow to exclude American Indians from citizenship,[33] and in an attempt to address this issue, he proposed to add a phrase taken from the Civil Rights Act—"excluding Indians not taxed".[28] Although most Senators agreed that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the Indians, a majority saw no need to clarify the issue,[34] and Doolittle's proposal was voted down.[35] Upon its return to the House of Representatives, the proposed Fourteenth Amendment received little debate; no one spoke in opposition to the Senate's addition of the Citizenship Clause, and the complete proposed amendment was approved by the House on June 13, 1866,[36] and declared to have been ratified on July 28, 1868.[37]

Link

a reply to: jimmyx

If one parent is a citizen, their children would be citizens.

This is insane.

If this hairbrained idea comes to pass I genuinely will start trying to get the hell out of this country. Once you start changing the constitution by executive order the writing is on the wall.

It should be obvious at this point how little respect this man has for the constitution. And that should make everyone uneasy.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I have been studying this subject far longer than since it hit the news.


Every argument being posed so far is circular.


All the examples given of altering immigration law have come from Congress. Sometimes we make it easy sometimes we don't. That is basically it.


However, this is a glaring problem, it has nothing at all to do with interpretation.

For one it's a liberal conservative proxy war and for two it's obvious.

Even all of you against this clause are saying it.

No need for dirty tricks.

If this is a clause solely for slavery and native Americans (which it is not. When it was made we took anybody because of all the dead from the civil war) than it needs to be amended.

There is no way to interpret something wrong when the argument is it doesnt even apply to anything at all...

I seriously doubt they say you guys are right it only applies to slaves.

They probably say sorry guys do your job.

I don't exactly mean literally but I do also predict a scathing ruling by the court against Congress.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jimmyx

If one parent is a citizen, their children would be citizens.

Would it be retroactive? Is there any indication they are going to dig back genealogically to find out if your parents are only citizens because their parents came here illegally and your parents benefited from the potentially 'misunderstood' 14th amendment?

a reply to: Xcathdra


Okay.

Four different U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have answered this last question in the affirmative. The first three decisions reached this result by concluding that illegal aliens were not among “the people” covered by the Second Amendment. The fourth and most recent decision, Meza-Rodriguez, handed down in August 2015, concluded that illegal aliens were among “the people” but that they nevertheless could be barred from gun ownership consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

www.heritage.org...

American citizens who also happen to be felons, minors, people on certain medications or with certain mental health issues are also on that list.

The point is, not whether or not it's constitutional to limit a citizen or non-citizen's rights, but whether or not those rights apply to documented and undocumented immigrants. They do. Undocumented immigrants have the right to free speach, freedom of religion, land ownership, personal privacy and protection against search and seizure. By virtue of their residency, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state in which they reside.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jimmyx

If one parent is a citizen, their children would be citizens.

Would it be retroactive? Is there any indication they are going to dig back genealogically to find out if your parents are only citizens because their parents came here illegally and your parents benefited from the potentially 'misunderstood' 14th amendment?

Basically the two parties are rushing to get their dumb idea implemented first and the only defense they have is the other guys idea is dumber.

Fast forward 35 years and we have a real dumb dumb brain trust leading politics.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

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.

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

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.

I have copies of the naturalization paperwork of my ancestors who came to this country as immigrants and earned citizenship the right way. In the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance the person declares:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The above oath is what puts someone under the jurisdiction of the US. It happens when they renounce any allegiance to their former country. THAT is what the 14th Amendment means by "subject to the jurisdiction".

a reply to: luthier

You put a lot of words in my mouth.

I don't know if I am for or against the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment because I am not sure what the heck it means. If you are naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. you are a U.S. citizen?

So, if you are born German, naturalized as a U.S. citizen, go and visit France...you are no longer a U.S. citizen while you are in France?

It's just so poorly written.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jimmyx

If one parent is a citizen, their children would be citizens.

that's not in the 14th amendment...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: luthier

You put a lot of words in my mouth.

I don't know if I am for or against the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment because I am not sure what the heck it means. If you are a naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. you are a U.S. citizen?

So, if you are born German, naturalized as a U.S. citizen, go and visit France...you are no longer a U.S. citizen while you are in France?

It's just so poorly written.

This has nothing to do with the 14th in case you didn't realize.


It is poorly written and should be amended.

The reason it's not is the problem. The judges are scholars and know the intent of founders better than nearly anyone.

Plain and simple Congress has made a mess of immigration because the parties benefit in many ways not solving the problem.

The banter and squabble over the rash is what they hope to keep you from curing the disease.

Who could birthright citizenship be for in 2018?

That is a simple question.

If it is slaves and natives than I don't think the supreme court can say the amendment clause is void....

However that appears to be the only real argument when strip away the bs.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jimmyx

If one parent is a citizen, their children would be citizens.

that's not in the 14th amendment...

Yes! Like the marriage law.

a reply to: jimmyx

and this is your leader???

oh, did you finally make that move to canada?

originally posted by: luthier

This has nothing to do with the 14th in case you didn't realize.

Wait? You just wrote:

Even all of you against this clause are saying it.

No need for dirty tricks.

If this is a clause solely for slavery and native Americans (which it is not. When it was made we took anybody because of all the dead from the civil war) than it needs to be amended.

What clause were you talking about if not the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment?