Trump, GOP should keep DACA but scrap birthright citizenship

[Right_in_Virginia]

Trump, GOP should keep DACA but scrap birthright citizenship
Fox News Opinion, Sep 4, 2017, Liz Peek

Tuesday, President Trump is expected to announce whether or not he will ax the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals aka “DACA” program. House Speaker Paul Ryan wants him to delay the decision, and give Congress time to address the future of President Obama’s executive order through legislation. Apparently Mr. Trump may choose to do just that.

Seriously? The same divided GOP caucus that failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare after seven years of squawking about it will now resolve our nation’s thorny immigration problems in just a matter of months? Unlikely.

More likely, given the recent history, Republicans in Congress would be cowed by the liberal media into swallowing whole the program that allowed an estimated 800,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally to stay and to acquire permanent status.

If Trump does turn the matter over to his wobbly Republican colleagues, he must demand they cut a deal: agree to grant the “Dreamers” permanent status in the U.S. in exchange for abolishing birthright citizenship. That single change could forever reduce the allure of sneaking into the U.S.

Our country and Canada are the lone developed nations that still promise citizenship to anyone born on U.S. or Canadian soil. President Trump says the antiquated policy, drawn from the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, remains “the biggest magnet for illegal immigration” and he is correct. The parents of those Dreamers risked everything to come to the U.S. for jobs and security, but also knowing that any future children would automatically become American citizens.

Pew research estimates that about 275,000 children were born to undocumented persons in 2014 (the latest year available. That’s about 7 percent of all births.


More:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/04/trump-gop-should-keep-daca-but-scrap-birthright-citizenship.html

[Right_in_Virginia]

Do both.

And build the wall. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The first is enforcing the law, the second is establishing a sane law to replace a liberal interpretation of the Constitution by activist judges.

[INVAR]

The first is enforcing the law, the second is establishing a sane law to replace a liberal interpretation of the Constitution by activist judges.

Not gonna happen.  As the Democrats are openly stating - they intend to take this to the courts and to the streets.

The rule of law is dead.

The rule of thugs is now the way of things.

[Oceander]

You can't scrap birthright citizenship without rewriting the Constitution.  Who's prepared to open that can of worms?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You can't scrap birthright citizenship without rewriting the Constitution.  Who's prepared to open that can of worms?

Basically. It may have been a bad decision, but you really can't overrule a bad decision except with an amendment.

[skeeter]

You can't scrap birthright citizenship without rewriting the Constitution.  Who's prepared to open that can of worms?

Its a matter of judicial interpretation, and it has been interpreted wrongly for a long time.

Even the amendment's author specifically denied the 14th amendment was inclusive of "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".

There's a long list of supreme court decisions that have been subsequently reversed by other decisions. No Constitutional Convention necessary.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There's a long list of supreme court decisions that have been subsequently reversed by other decisions. No Constitutional Convention necessary.

Not really. That's what stare decisis and precedent are. Although it is true that decisions can be weakened.

[skeeter]

Not really. That's what stare decisis and precedent are. Although it is true that decisions can be weakened.

SCOTUS can reverse itself on the same issue, depending upon changing conditions. The issue of birthright citizenship seems like a perfect candidate for this.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

SCOTUS can reverse itself on the same issue, depending upon changing conditions. The issue of birthright citizenship seems like a perfect candidate for this.

They can, but AFAIK they almost never do. There's a "gentleman's agreement". I doubt they would break it. Doing so would make the courts way more chaotic.

[Cripplecreek]

You can't scrap birthright citizenship without rewriting the Constitution.  Who's prepared to open that can of worms?

I think there are ways of preventing foreign people from coming here to give birth for the purpose of gaining citizenship for their children without manipulating the constitution.

After being informed by a couple of different posters at TOS that I should be stripped of my citizenship and thrown out of the country for the crime of not supporting Trump, they can go to hell. I've got ancestors in this country going back to the 1600s, revolutionary war heroes like Ethan Allen and declaration of independence signers like Lyman Hall.

They are why I've abandoned any support for constitutional changes. They simply can't be trusted.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You can't scrap birthright citizenship without rewriting the Constitution.  Who's prepared to open that can of worms?

I cannot find where in the Constitution that it appears aliens who arrive here uninvited can have children who are automatically citizens.  Do you have a source?  It certainly is not in the 14th Amendment. 

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/comment-page-1/

And the USCIS, the entity designated to make the determination of citizenship, certainly does not contain anything like that in its policy manual either.  https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I cannot find where in the Constitution that it appears aliens who arrive here uninvited can have children who are automatically citizens.  Do you have a source?  It certainly is not in the 14th Amendment. 

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/comment-page-1/

And the USCIS, the entity designated to make the determination of citizenship, certainly does not contain anything like that in its policy manual either.  https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html

Like it or not the USSC has ruled otherwise. Meaning that for all intents and purposes, it's in the USC.

[skeeter]

I cannot find where in the Constitution that it appears aliens who arrive here uninvited can have children who are automatically citizens.  Do you have a source?  It certainly is not in the 14th Amendment. 

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/comment-page-1/

And the USCIS, the entity designated to make the determination of citizenship, certainly does not contain anything like that in its policy manual either.  https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html

Its been over a hundred years since the US vs. Wong Kim Ark. Its time SCOTUS revisit the issue in view of developments since. I don't know how any impartial judicial body couldn't see how that ruling has been routinely abused. Pregnancy vacations, for $@&s sake.

Although I'm not sure I'd want this to happen before either Breyer quits or Ginsberg keels over and we get another appointment.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Like it or not the USSC has ruled otherwise. Meaning that for all intents and purposes, it's in the USC.

You obviously did not read the link, and just regurgitated the liberal mantra that the SC is the Constitution's and enforcer.

No, the SC only gives an interpretation, which can be over-ruled by itself or by more specific laws or Amendments.

Also, did you not read where I said that Congress charged the USCIS with determining citizenship?  The SC cannot enforce a ruling, as it must depend upon one of the other branches to do so, which is the purpose of USCIS.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Its been over a hundred years since the US vs. Wong Kim Ark. Its time SCOTUS revisit the issue in view of developments since. I don't know how any impartial judicial body couldn't see how that ruling has been routinely abused. Pregnancy vacations, for $@&s sake.

Although I'm not sure I'd want this to happen before either Breyer quits or Ginsberg keels over and we get another appointment.

Interesting that you brought that one up. This is good reading.  http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You obviously did not read the link, and just regurgitated the liberal mantra that the SC is the Constitution's and enforcer.

No, the SC only gives an interpretation, which can be over-ruled by itself or by more specific laws or Amendments.

Also, did you not read where I said that Congress charged the USCIS with determining citizenship?  The SC cannot enforce a ruling, as it must depend upon one of the other branches to do so, which is the purpose of USCIS.

The USSC doesn't generally overrule itself. See stare decisis.

As for "enforcement" then the court will find the officer and hold them in contempt, just like it did with Sheriff Joe.

[skeeter]

Interesting that you brought that one up. This is good reading.  http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

Even if the decision was defensible at the time, it was rendered before the welfare state, before revolutions in transportation, before modern national security concerns, and while the country was still transitioning from an agrarian to industrial economy.

There are plenty of grounds to re-define the amendment without causing a constitutional crisis.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The USSC doesn't generally overrule itself. See stare decisis.

that is no argument, as it still can do so.

As for "enforcement" then the court will find the officer and hold them in contempt, just like it did with Sheriff Joe.

so what?  What enforcement do they have for their edicts?  The Elephant in the room is that the Judicial branch is by far the weakest of the three, and must depend upon the other two branches to enforce its decisions.

Nothing prevents the disregard of those decisions by the Congress or Executive branches.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

that is no argument, as it still can do so.so what?  What enforcement do they have for their edicts?  The Elephant in the room is that the Judicial branch is by far the weakest of the three, and must depend upon the other two branches to enforce its decisions.

Nothing prevents the disregard of those decisions by the Congress or Executive branches.

The US federal marshals report to the USSC and Judicial branch, despite being in the DOJ.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The US federal marshals report to the USSC and Judicial branch, despite being in the DOJ.

so what?  You think federal marshals will arrest Sessions?  You really think they would ever try?