Trump says administration looking 'seriously' at ending birthright citizenship

[catfish1957]

I overwhelmingly support this position.  This premise served us well as a growing country, needing the people for homesteads, and labor.

Now?  we are full...   No vacancies.  Add the fact we are $22T in debt, we just can't afford freeloaders, who abuse and game the system.

[GrouchoTex]

It would take a law being passed, and reviewed.
Supreme Court ruled on this around 1890(?).
I don't thing the current congress has the will to try it.

[kidd]

This is more important than the wall.
If he can enact this, it'll make up for his blunder on the wall

[Bill Cipher]

This is more important than the wall.
If he can enact this, it'll make up for his blunder on the wall

Not happening.  Neither the Congress nor a sufficient number of the States will ratify an amendment to the Constitution to undo the 14th Amendment. 

[Bigun]

@Bigun, thank you I missed this as well.

 

[Bigun]

Not happening.  Neither the Congress nor a sufficient number of the States will ratify an amendment to the Constitution to undo the 14th Amendment.

But there is no need to undo the 14th so your strawman doest work @Bill Cipher

[skeeter]

Me too!  It is being abused by many countries and is a cottage industry for China and others.

No kidding. I seriously doubt the framers had 'pregnancy holidays' in mind when they wrote 'all those born within the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

[jpsb]

So Trump is going to amend the Constitution?

Under the Jurisdiction of.

executive order says people here illegally are not under the US jurisdiction for citizenship.

[jpsb]

/snicker


There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

The purpose of the 14th was to give citizenship to the former slaves. It is being abused and I am totally in favor of
correcting that abuse.

[Bigun]

Under the Jurisdiction of.

executive order says people here illegally are not under the US jurisdiction for citizenship.

People who are here illegally have never been under the sole and complete jurisdiction of the US.

[GrouchoTex]

This was ruled by the Supreme Court, an Asian man (Chinese, I think) in favor of birthright citizenship, in the 19th century.
Not sure an EO can undo it.
I think a law would need to be passed by congress.
Then, "Under the Jurisdiction of" would need to have a 2nd look by the courts.
Unfortunately, I would not be too hopeful that is would reach the desired outcome.
Will we never know until it is tried, and I do not think this current congress has the make up or the will to do such a thing.

[jpsb]

People who are here illegally have never been under the sole and complete jurisdiction of the US.

Agreed we need one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court and then Trump can issue an executive order, Dems will take it to the courts and lose in the Supreme Court. One more reason to vote Trump in 2020.

[skeeter]

This was ruled by the Supreme Court, an Asian man (Chinese, I think) in favor of birthright citizenship, in the 19th century.
Not sure an EO can undo it.
I think a law would need to be passed by congress.
Then, "Under the Jurisdiction of" would need to have a 2nd look by the courts.
Unfortunately, I would not be too hopeful that is would reach the desired outcome.
Will we never know until it is tried, and I do not think this current congress has the make up or the will to do such a thing.

Wong Kim Ark was born of parents in the US legally. While this part might not be changeable by EO certainly it is possible to prevent those who's parents are illegal or who aren't legal residents from taking advantage of birthright citizenship.

[Mod5]

Topic merged.

[Bigun]

This was ruled by the Supreme Court, an Asian man (Chinese, I think) in favor of birthright citizenship, in the 19th century.
Not sure an EO can undo it.
I think a law would need to be passed by congress.
Then, "Under the Jurisdiction of" would need to have a 2nd look by the courts.
Unfortunately, I would not be too hopeful that is would reach the desired outcome.
Will we never know until it is tried, and I do not think this current congress has the make up or the will to do such a thing.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

@GrouchoTex

[GrouchoTex]

@Bigun

Thanks for that!

[Bigun]

@Bigun

Thanks for that!

You are more than welcome @GrouchoTex! 

[Cyber Liberty]

Unfortunately, "Original Intent" and five bucks will get you a Starbucks.  OI has disappeared in the puff of a penumbra and emanation.  Nobody in black robes gives a crap about original intent anymore, so long as they can twist words to elicit the desired liberal outcome.  Advantage:  Leftists who consider the Constitution a lump of clay to be molded in any shape they like.  Conservatives don't have that advantage because they want the Constitution followed, not molded.

Once the meanings of the words are distorted such, it's difficult to restore the shape because any attempt to right the wrong in the courts is rubbished as hypocritical judicial activism, and any attempt to fix it with either Congressional or Executive action is slapped down by the courts.  This is what we are seeing today with the endless stream of universal Injunctions issued by the lowest level National Courts.

[Bigun]

Unfortunately, "Original Intent" and five bucks will get you a Starbucks.  OI has disappeared in the puff of a penumbra and emanation.  Nobody in black robes gives a crap about original intent anymore, so long as they can twist words to elicit the desired liberal outcome.  Advantage:  Leftists who consider the Constitution a lump of clay to be molded in any shape they like.  Conservatives don't have that advantage because they want the Constitution followed, not molded.

Once the meanings of the words are distorted such, it's difficult to restore the shape because any attempt to right the wrong in the courts is rubbished as hypocritical judicial activism, and any attempt to fix it with either Congressional or Executive action is slapped down by the courts.  This is what we are seeing today with the endless stream of universal Injunctions issued by the lowest level National Courts.

And yet SCOTUS has never said anything other than the status of the parents is paramount in determining the citizenship of the child @Cyber Liberty.  Not once!

[Cyber Liberty]

And yet SCOTUS has never said anything other than the status of the parents is paramount in determining the citizenship of the child @Cyber Liberty.  Not once!

Who needs a SCOTUS decision when there are hundreds of low-level National Court Judges with the same power as SCOTUS in inflicting their will on an entire country?

[Bigun]

Who needs a SCOTUS decision when there are hundreds of low-level National Court Judges with the same power as SCOTUS in inflicting their will on an entire country?

And that S&^% needs to stop RFN!

[Cyber Liberty]

And that S&^% needs to stop RFN!

Since it's not likely the Congressional swamp will stop it (because they like the results), it will take a SCOTUS decision and I don't see one forthcoming because they like having the lowest National Courts do the heavy lifting of tyrannical decisions. 

[Bill Cipher]

But there is no need to undo the 14th so your strawman doest work @Bill Cipher

There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

The 14th Amendment clearly and unequivocally grants birthright citizenship to everyone other than the children of ambassadors, foreign government officials on official business, and, at least when it was enacted, so-called “wild Indians” who were members of conquered tribes with which the US had signed treaties insofar as they resides in the territories or on reservations.

The mere fact that you do not like that result matters not one iota to the fact that it IS the result under the 14th Amendment.

But, if you want to continue making a mockery of conservativism, and want Trump to be made to look like and idiot once again, please do continue.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

/snicker


There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

an absolutely predictable and appropriate response to a legitimate question.

[Sanguine]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

The 14th Amendment clearly and unequivocally grants birthright citizenship to everyone other than the children of ambassadors, foreign government officials on official business, and, at least when it was enacted, so-called “wild Indians” who were members of conquered tribes with which the US had signed treaties insofar as they resides in the territories or on reservations.

The mere fact that you do not like that result matters not one iota to the fact that it IS the result under the 14th Amendment.

But, if you want to continue making a mockery of conservativism, and want Trump to be made to look like and idiot once again, please do continue.

So, take your blinders off, Bill.