Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

a reply to: luthier

Well that was not your argument. As for the ambiguity of the wording its for the Supreme Court to decide and not for Congress to rewrite it as you suggest.

You still have to overcome the fact that prior to the 1960's the 14th amendment and citizenship never applied to illegal aliens or foreigners.

As for laws being challenged yes however as I already pointed out this amendment issue meets the criteria for the Supreme Court being the court of original jurisdiction and therefore can go directly to them, bypassing all lower courts.

Currently there is no federal immigration laws dealing directly with illegal aliens / foreign nationals giving birth in the US. The only exceptions are for Diplomats and thats because they are immune from US jurisdiction.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Scotus has ruled that all components of due process do not apply to illegal aliens.

No they didn't.

In the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bondarenko v. Holder, the court held that an applicant for asylum possess due process rights that must be observed even if the government or an Immigration Judge believes that the applicant is not credible.

www.shautsova.com...
And,
www.nationalreview.com...

Are you trying to tell me that if an illegal alien robs a bank or kills someone while driving under the influence, they don't get a day in court?

Also, on a that guns topic, are you trying to tell me that only American citizens can be police officers, because immigrants can't carry guns?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states.

Nope just buying them.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

Cool story. I hunt with canadians who bring their guns...they can borrow mine, they can rent them while here etc...

Maybe read the law before running your mouth and look ridiculous. Had you done so you would have noticed it refers to nationals of friendly governments with the sole purpose of entering the country for legal hunting and obtaining all required permits to do so. Just as Canadian law prohibits foreign nations from bringing a weapon into their country with the exception of hunting.

Since Canadian arent trying to enter illegally or be in possession of a firearm illegally your point is moot and not applicable to the discussion.

Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.

With no loyalty to the US government and present for means of espionage. Applying the 14th amendment the correct way would still prevent their child from being a US citizen.

You are correct but there is no other application pr enforceable aspect. Surely you don't think the parents would lie...its written as its written. It's not interpretation. It was from a time gone past.

Interpretation isn't relevant. It's the words that need changing. The only alternative view is they were from another era and don't apply.

Going back to the misinterpretation, which is what this debate is based on. There is no need to change words. All that is required is to decide specifically if the wording of the 14th applies to illegals / foreign nationals. Again you are ignoring the fact the 14th was never applied to illegals / foreign nationals until the 1960's.

Just as the 2nd amendment did not need to be rewritten. Scotus looked at the wording and clarified what it meant -

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Are "the people" individuals or member of a militia?

The lefts argument is it only applied to individuals who were part of a militia and given the time frame it was written in the left argued that the section bolded above meant members of the militia could keep their weapon with their persons / in their residence instead of having the weapons controlled and locked up.

Scotus clarified that section to mean the individual and not a member of a well regulated militia.

No changes / rewriting were needed.

Again it's not that 2d. SCOTUS ruled against laws that were challenged. I don't get how you don't see this. They ruled the constitution applies and the states can only do so much with their own rights under public safety and the right of states to create their own constitutions. But through the process of legislation or laws being challenged.

and in the process Scotus interpreted the 2nd amendment to clarify the meaning of the section I pointed out so it is that simple.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Trump is wrong here.

It states rather simply in the 14th amendment. . .

Section 1. 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.

-Wiki

Sorry Donny, but you'll lose this fight.

Two problems.

1. Citizenship can be revoked at any time.

2. And subject to jurisdiction there of.

Which means. Ending anchor babies is within the states power.

Wait. That's just not true. Citizenship most definitely cannot be revoked at anytime. If you're a citizen of the US, you are for good. Unless you yourself give up that right.

It says so right there in the Constitution.

Ok.

I will say this after reading through all of the posts.

I am completely confused.

There.

And THAT'S for the record!

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

I disagree with your use of statute picking and clipping. But hey I am sure it has a 30 percent chance of going your way.

and I disagree with your method of constantly shifting your argument when you are proven to be incorrect while ignoring facts that dont support your argument.

I guess we wait and see.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22

I've gotten a kick out of all those who have no problems with a violation of the 1st or 2nd amendment crapping themselves and acting like strict Constitutionalists over the 14th.

This can easily be reversed. I've gotten a kick out of all of those who (apparently) have no problem violating the 14th acting like Constitutionalists over the 1st and 2nd.

The entire document is meant to be amended. It has been since it was first written. But, EO is definitely not the way to go about doing it.

Not addressing you specifically, just adding a point:

Hypothetical: If the supreme court decides that the constitution can be amended by presidential EO, and the next President happens to be Democrat, and she or he signs an EO to amend the 2nd amendment to mean only single shot hunting rifles are allowed, and all other guns are outlawed and need to be collected or you will face fines and imprisonment...would y'all be ok with that?

My point:
EO amendments are a VERY slippery slope.

Think through what you're wishing for, everyone.

a reply to: narrator

Yes it can.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And subject to the jurisdiction there of..

For citizens born in the United States, the only ways that citizenship can be lost are through an affirmative action on the part of the citizen to renounce his or her citizenship or through the committing of several actions listed in § 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). U.S. citizens who lose their citizenship are said to be “expatriated.”

bmkllp.com...

I remember presidents droning US citizens over seas.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
No they didn't. www.nationalreview.com...

Yes they did -
* - Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Held In Detention Are Not Entitled To Bail Hearings
* - Government not required to provide lawyer for illegals

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Are you trying to tell me that if an illegal alien robs a bank or kills someone while driving under the influence, they don't get a day in court?

You really need to read / understand what you are reading. As I have stated numerous times now they get full due process when it comes to criminal law violations. Bank Robbery would be a criminal violation. Dwi is a criminal violation. They get their day in court. They dont get bail though. When it comes to the immigration courts Illegals do NOT get full due process. Again they are administrative and not judicial courts.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Also, on a that guns topic, are you trying to tell me that only American citizens can be police officers, because immigrants can't carry guns?

18 USC 922 specifically addresses this topic and a foreign national lawfully present in the US with a non immigrant visa can receive a waiver in order to be in lawful possession of a firearm provided he meets all US requirements (state / local) to become a law enforcement officer and if the nationals embassy verifies that the person in question is not prohibited from possessing a firearm in their home country.

A petition for waiver is not automatically granted even if the person meets all criteria.

Absent the exception foreign nationals cannot posses a firearm or ammo in the US.

originally posted by: narrator
Not addressing you specifically, just adding a point:

Hypothetical: If the supreme court decides that the constitution can be amended by presidential EO, and the next President happens to be Democrat, and she or he signs an EO to amend the 2nd amendment to mean only single shot hunting rifles are allowed, and all other guns are outlawed and need to be collected or you will face fines and imprisonment...would y'all be ok with that?

My point:
EO amendments are a VERY slippery slope.

Think through what you're wishing for, everyone.

The issue with your hypothetical is in this case the 14th amendment is not being amended by executive order. Absolutely nothing is being changed. The EO clarifies the relation between birthright citizenship and if it applies to illegals / foreign nationals. The EO only affects those agencies responsible for overseeing that birth process.

2 issues would go before the court although I am going to wager that if this goes before the courts the people challenging it will ignore the interpretation part and rely solely on the EO part.

Issue #1 - Can potus use an Executive order to clarify how illegal aliens / foreign nationals relate to the 14th amendment.
Issue #2 - Can the court define the meaning of the words in the 14th amendment as to whether it applies to or does not apply to said groups.

The left will go after the first one since its the least destructive to their agenda on illegal immigration. The real threat is allowing the 2nd issue to make it to the court where they could lose any possible ways of changing the interpretation in the future should they retake the White House / Congress.

If #2 makes it and the court rules it doent apply to illegals or foreign nationals then the hands of the next Democratic congress / presidency are tied since the constitutional question was decided.

a reply to: Xcathdra

First, you say that Due Process only applies to criminal cases, then you say "Scotus has ruled that all components of due process do not apply to illegal aliens".

In the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bondarenko v. Holder, the court held that an applicant for asylum possess due process rights that must be observed even if the government or an Immigration Judge believes that the applicant is not credible.

www.shautsova.com...

- Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Held In Detention Are Not Entitled To Bail Hearings
* - Government not required to provide lawyer for illegals

Due process doesn't promise bail or government appointed legal representation. Due process promises a timely, fair and impartial trial.

a reply to: jtrenthacker

I say rule should be only if parents are citizens or a neutralized citizens period just crossing the border to pop a baby out so you can claim benefits is wrong. I remember a report on 20/20 years ago which told how a Texas town by the border had like 500 people living there but had 10,000 post office boxes because so many Mexican women crossed into Texas from Mexico there and had babies that as citizens were entitled to food stamps and welfare checks and Medicaid. And on check day the parents would come pick up the checks and cash them and use the food stamps up and cross back into Mexico.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Correct - Due process applies to criminal law.

Immigration law is not criminal and the courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. Immigration courts are administrative which is why a person can be denied bail/bond and why lawyers do not have to be provided - something due process requires in the Criminal realm.

The case you cited was a result of the immigration judge denying a request for more time from the detainee to investigate a medical report the detainee himself turned over to the court (and where investigators for immigration found the records did not support the claims he made). The original appeal went to the immigration court review panel who upheld the original ruling and denied the detainees requests. The 9th circuit heard the case and remanded it back to the board for further review and consideration.

It is a narrow ruling in that it only applied to this one case and all they did was told the review board panel to reconsider and allow him more time to investigate the documents.

Bonderenko vs Holder

Meaning he was given more time to evaluate the documents he himself turned over when this started that had absolutely no impact on his case in the end.

The panel remanded to the Board for further proceedings to allow petitioner a reasonable opportunity to investigate the forensic report on the medical report and to present additional evidence, as appropriate, to the IJ.”

It does not affect my statement that due process is restricted for illegal aliens and immigration law.


The Due process clause and the incorporation of the 5th and 14th amendment are whats used (in addition to UN treaties the US is a signatory to and Senate ratified). It means any person in this country accused of a crime are treated in the exact same manner when it comes to the administration of justice and equality under the law. That will include bail and access to a lawyer. Those are exempted under immigration law by the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: tovenar
Trump wants "U.S. Citizen" to actually mean something. When I was a cop were were instructed never to use the term. Using it would elevate some over others, when anyone here enjoys all the rights whether citizen or no. We weren't supposed to say resident either, because that implied that locals were more important than the homeless population. It was "individual."

I'd like to get rid of birthright citizenship altogether. The only automatic citizenship would be for honorably discharged veterans. I'd require a citizenship test and a clear criminal record. I'd restrict the 2nd Amendment to citizens only, same with jury duty and voting.

I'd also go with an English Only law, modeled after Mexico's official language rules. If you're going to live here, you need to speak enough of the language to talk to emergency responders.

Citizenship doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the lawyers. I'd fix that.

see, it could always be worse than Trump

So let me understand your reasoning:

You'd institute an English only law, even when English is not the United States of America official language. You'd also limit voting rights and constitutional liberties to those that want to become citizens, even if all citizens are born equal according to your own declaration of independence.

I suppose you're not aware that if citizenship was not a birth right in the USA most of you guys would be illegals, right? Or do you reckon all the Irish, Italian, German, Dutch, Portuguese, etc, moved there legally? You're a nation of immigrants.

By the way, I'm loving how inflexible you guys are with the 2nd but so very flexible with the 14th. I agree that any constitution can be changed, even if I don't agree with said changes. This means the whole constitution, not just the bits I disagree with. But does show the extreme lengths some people go justify the actions of a, IMO, maniac that only serves his and his friends interests.


Edit 2: I suppose that will all these limitations you'd be ok if immigrants paid less taxes as well.

awesome Im all for it.
US citizens have had it too good compared to rest of world for far too long.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

I disagree with your use of statute picking and clipping. But hey I am sure it has a 30 percent chance of going your way.

and I disagree with your method of constantly shifting your argument when you are proven to be incorrect while ignoring facts that dont support your argument.

I guess we wait and see.

I guess. Except that isn't true. You just can't make an argument.

www.nationalreview.com...

Speaker Ryan: ‘You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order’

www.politico.com...

But legal eagle Alan Dershowitz, known for his frequent defenses of Trump, says that the 14th Amendment authorizes birthright citizenship and it can’t just be changed by executive order.
“[Birthright citizenship] doesn’t make a lot of sense logically, but it’s in our Constitution and it would be impossible to amend the Constitution to change that, so we’re going to stick with that for better or worse,”

In the [1880s], the court held that all babies born here of alien mothers are citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.
Some well-intended folks have argued that the language “all persons” doesn’t really mean “all” because it is modified by “and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States).” But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government — like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not — and cannot — impose an intent requirement upon infants.

If Napolitano is correct here, then it would appear that attempts to get around birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. 

mises.org...

Judiciary's GOP chairman says ending birthright citizenship would require rewriting Constitution

thehill.com...

This is the legal backdrop that led Edward Bates, President Lincoln’s Attorney General, to write just a few years before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment:

I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated Senator Howard’s language, is properly understood to have codified Attorney General Bates’ contemporary understanding. That is what it meant when it was adopted in 1868, and no amount of current political controversy about illegal immigration should lead conservative critics of birthright citizenship to abandon that original understanding.

www.nationalreview.com...

You guys crack me up.

Its obvious its not supposed to work how those that abuse the system have been abusing it...Then you add that Trump is not going to change the 14th, just force them to agree on a clear and practical definition of exactly what it means...I would not be ok with him just changing the actual law with an EO by the way...but making SCOTUS finally put a valid definition is long over due. Then next , and I hate to be the guy to rub it in...but the SCOTUS is not going to be leaning the other way to change the 2nd for the rest of most of our lives on this forum, so that wont happen....

Also it gets obvious you lefties like to toss around how everyone is an immagrant...but again , BIG, no HUGE difference between legal and illegal immagrants. Yes in the day you had to come into certain ports and it was legal and guess what else, those people wanted to be an Amercan , not just s citizen, and actual American, they did anything they could to learn the language and fit in. What we have these days are a far cry from what made the US the great nation it is...Are we perfect, nope we are not, not by a long shot, but still the greatest there ever was.

Asylum is not a right, its a privalige. Just cause you want it, doesnt mean you get it, you gotta earn it. And the first step is follow the proper channels, cant even start doing the right thing and wonder why people dont trust you?? Millions come over the correct way every year, if you can afford to pay a coyote to bring you over, you can afford to do it the legal way...just wait your turn and no line hopping and it will be here before you know it....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Ok.

I will say this after reading through all of the posts.

I am completely confused.

There.

And THAT'S for the record!

so am i and so should all the scholars arguing here with citations from highschoolcivics.net

fact is this is complicated #.
fact is none of us know exactly how this could legally play out.

there are libraries with law books as fat as my....... well not very fat but there are a lot of books detailing all this #.
another fact.
none of us has read any of them

You still have to overcome the fact that prior to the 1960's the 14th amendment and citizenship never applied to illegal aliens or foreigners. 

False.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….

More than a century ago, in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.” Rather, it continued, “[t]hese provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States], without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

Correct - Due process applies to criminal law.

Immigration law is not criminal and the courts are not courts of general jurisdiction.

Due process also applies to asylum seekers.