Trump Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

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.

"Respect muh CONSTUTION!!! Except that part. And the part where Bush, Kavanaugh, and company whittled away the 4th. We really only care about one of the amendments. Pew pew. "

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Ummm... that's what I said. I'm glad we agree.

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?

No, an Executive order cannot violate the Constitution. But it does not take Constitutional mention for the United States to grant citizenship either. There is no provision in the Constitution about naturalization of new citizens, but we get new citizens legally every week. the Constitution states who must be granted citizenship, not who may be granted citizenship. I believe that is the approach that will be used.

The Executive Order will likely state that the Executive branch does not believe it is required to grant citizenship to those born in the US to parents not under its jurisdiction and is therefore discontinuing the practice. As long as a reasonable explanation for Constitutionality is presented, that would fly unless the Court intervened with a different interpretation or the Congress interceded with a new law. Nevermind, that last part will never happen; Congress couldn't even codify DACA when they were given 6 months notice.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is no provision in the Constitution about naturalization of new citizens...

Sure there is, it's in the 14th Amendment, which you seem to think you understand better than 100+ years of Supreme Court rulings.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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.

TheRedneck

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.

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.

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: 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.

Fingers crossed!

I hope he puts that in the order.

If it's illegal for them to be here, and they are here anyway......... that would seem to suggest that they have not willingly made themselves subject to the USA's laws.

Trump could do one better!

He could require the government NOT to treat illegal immigrants as being subject to the USA's laws.

(This would be unfortunate if they commit crimes, although if their actions were illegal under Mexican law, then Mexico would be expected to punish them. Because they are, after all, subjects of Mexico.)



But then no illegal immigrant could claim the meet the criteria, because at no time during their visit here would they ever have been subject to America's laws. Only Mexico's laws.

I am playing a civilization game and any sane country would do exactly what trump is doing.

You cannot have a porous border,
Non English speakers will be a detriment to the country.
Poorly educated people will be a detriment to the country.
It will cost the country billions and take a lot of American lives by not being able to control your border.

These are very simple live off the land type of people who have over bred their country.
They do not use birth control and are known for having more children then they could ever handle or what society could handle.

If anyone wanted to hurt the country in the long run, promoting caravans to overwhelm the border is a perfect out of the box attack by the enemy.

Press 2 for English

Why do they only feel the need to translate for one group?
Many different languages out there, but the u.s. is changing their language around 1 group.

Everyone else in history learned the language of their host country, not this group.

They are either too proud to drop it, or the Gov understands that it's much harder for this group to assimilate then others and just panders to them.

What ever the case its extremely disrespectful to all other languages.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

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.

LOL...They didn't have green cards back then. They didn't even have VISAs. What they did have was the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is what Ark's denial to enter the country was based on.

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.

No, SCOTUS ruled that although his parents were under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Emperor, they determined that because they owned and ran their own business, and maintained their own home/domicile, they were not working in the service of, or acting as diplomats or ambassadors to the Emperor. Therefore, their son, born on US soil, was not under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Emperor, and was therefore, covered under the 14th Amendment, being under the jurisdiction of the USA and a citizen by birth right.

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.

No it wasn't. This 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.

a reply to: Drucifer

Can you explain who wants to alter the 14th and what their proposed alteration is?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The 14th Amendment does not control the naturalization process. Where did you get that from?

The 14th defines who is and is not a citizen based upon where they are born.

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.

If your interpretations were correct there wouldn't need to be an Executive Order attempting to change what the amendment says.

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."

If Congress does not do anything, which is likely, then the long running legal precendent stand, there is nothing for him to use discretion on.

Ultimately, even with the Court being decidedly conservative, I think they will rule to uphold birthright citizenship if it comes to that. There's far too much in the way of previous rulings for them to go the other way.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And yet that ruling only applied to k-12 because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That ruling applied to non-citizens and the equal protection clause. People born in another country here illegally. The court ruled they were in the jurisdiction of the state, something completely different than what is being discussed here. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction as it applies to birthright citizenship and that ruling allows in-state college to be denied to illegals, although k-12 can't be.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There is policy, not legal precedent. Please show me the legal precedent that gave illegals birthright citizenship.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Being bound by US law is not the same thing as jurisdiction in the 14th amendment. Native Americans were subject to US law, if they left the reservation and committed a crime they would be tried for it. If they left the reservation and had a child that child would not be a US citizen before 1924.

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.

That is exactly what needs to happen. There is no precedent. It needs to be made an EO and then go to the SC for a ruling. The only precedent we have is suggestive of illegals not getting birthright citizenship. There is nothing explicit either way, so anyone who says they know the outcome is a fool. The SC cases we have so far say being subject to US law and being on US soil is not the same as being under the jurisdiction of the US. (Elk case). The other case says being here as a permanent resident and having legitimate business in the US places someone under the jurisdiction of the US (Kim case).

Neither of those cases has anything that applies to illegals. Please show me what case you refer to and how it applies to illegals.

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.

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.

I do. Illegals are not legal permanent residents. Illegals are not engaged in legal legitimate business. That is what precludes them.

I see nothing about someone here legally, working legally, that has anything to do with being illegal. And you can not show anything that directly relates to the situation of someone here illegally and I have asked several times. One more time, please highlight the parts of that ruling that DIRECTLY apply to illegals where you can say illegals are in the same situation so they are covered.

Question, are tourists legally permanently domiciled in the US? Are illegals legally permanently domiciled in the US?
Question, are tourists legally engaged in enterprise in the US? Are illegals legally permanently engaged in enterprise in the US?

There is a reason why the argument made was one of them being permanent residents engaged in legitimate business. If anyone born in the US gained citizenship regardless of the circumstances then they would not have made the argument that they made. They would have made it the simple argument of everyone born on US soil gets citizenship. They did not make that argument, the reason they did not is because the thought it would likely be a bad argument and lose.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The court ruled they were in the jurisdiction of the state, something completely different than what is being discussed here.

No it's not. The State is within the jurisdiction, and the ruling specifically named the 14th Amendment "jurisdiction".

I'm going to repeat the ruling for you to re-read:

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.