It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The EO simply changes policy, not law.
Then it isn't the same as they are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
The only difference is that nation is not itself within the bounds of the United States.
Nor can it violate the Constitution.
It still doesn't address my point, if there isn't birthright citizenship then why does there need to be an EO to eliminate it?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is no provision in the Constitution about naturalization of new citizens...
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The EO simply changes policy, not law.
Attempts to. My opinion is it will be found to be un-Constitutional based on precedent.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The EO simply changes policy, not law.
Any such executive order would have to declare that the children of undocumented aliens, and their parents, are not within the jurisdiction of the United States.
That's the rub, though. There is no legal precedent for the children of illegal aliens. The closest was the child of a Chinese couple who was born while they were legally in the USA with green cards.
The SCOTUS ruled that he was 'subject to the jurisdiction' because the parents had been admitted/processed per laws and treaties, therefore the child qualified as an American citizen.
The second-most relevant ruling that ever occurred for the SCOTUS was during the Warren court era, when the State of Texas wanted to deny the children of illegal aliens the ability to attend public schools. Their ruling was that is was difficult to impossible to determine if the children were 'subject to the jurisdiction' when they were born, so Texas just had to accept them all.
Yes. That was their ruling.
The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
The 14th Amendment does not control the naturalization process. Where did you get that from?
And I am basing my interpretation on past rulings of the Supreme Court. I'm the one posting them. You haven't posted a single case for analysis, unless I missed it.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
As per the 14th Amendment Section 5 it's actually up to the Congress to sort this mess out. The President has discretion on how to enforce the laws on the books, but otherwise: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The EO simply changes policy, not law.
Attempts to. My opinion is it will be found to be un-Constitutional based on precedent.
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
From Wong Kim Ark:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
I don't see anything in there that precludes people in the country illegally.
The court ruled they were in the jurisdiction of the state, something completely different than what is being discussed here.
The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.