Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens if president again

[Kamaji]

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens if president again

By Josh Christenson
May 30, 2023

Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to enact an executive order ending birthright citizenship guarantees for children of illegal aliens if he regains the White House in 2024, despite past constitutional objections and failures to follow through on the move.

Trump, 76, said the agenda for his second nonconsecutive term would end both birthright citizenship and so-called “birth tourism” in the US on his first day in office — a proposal he also floated before and during his first term in the Oval Office.

“My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming, and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go back to their home countries,” Trump said in an Agenda 47 announcement video, calling the policy a “willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/05/30/trump-vows-to-end-birthright-citizenship-for-illegal-aliens/

[Kamaji]

Delusional twit.  So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?

Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.

[libertybele]

Delusional twit.  So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?

Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.

What is he thinking??? He opens his mouth and inserts his foot and it's not the first time he's announced he's going to do something and because of a pesky document called the Constitution he can't.

[GtHawk]

Delusional twit.  So now a mere executive order supersedes the text of the U.S. Constitution itself?

Of course, plenty of marks will lap this sh*t up.

Is he going to single handedly do this before or after he ejects all the illegals from the United States. Trump makes ridiculous unkeepable promises and yet we are still told he's not a politician.

  Will he make it retroactive stripping citizenship from people like me who were born before their parents became citizens?

[Hoodat]

Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to enact an executive order ending birthright citizenship guarantees for children of illegal aliens if he regains the White House in 2024, despite past constitutional objections and failures to follow through on the move.

I have a better idea.  Why not enforce the law instead.  Prosecute people in this country illegally.  Convict them.  Sentence them.  And when their sentences are complete, they get kicked the hell out.  And if they want to leave their US citizen children behind, they have to forfeit any and all parental rights.

Of course we all remember where Trump was on this back in 2016.  His great idea then was to deport all illegals, and then fast-track them right back into the country, making them 'legal'.

[berdie]

This has always been an issue I think needs to be addressed. Anchor babies and birth tourism are misinterpretations of the Constitution.

Would it be so that it could be banished by one person. But it can't be.

This is a worthy "promise" but I fear it ranks up there with Mexico paying for the wall.

[Kamaji]

This has always been an issue I think needs to be addressed. Anchor babies and birth tourism are misinterpretations of the Constitution.

Would it be so that it could be banished by one person. But it can't be.

This is a worthy "promise" but I fear it ranks up there with Mexico paying for the wall.

No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.

[libertybele]

No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.

There have been numerous debates and constitutional scholars weighing in on the issue of anchor babies.  Any pregnant Juanita can enter this country ILLEGALLY, deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen.  I see it as wrong!!  Any pregnant women who is also a terrorist can deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen -- wrong again.

PARENTS need to be citizens of the U.S. in order for their babies to be citizens period.

[Kamaji]

There have been numerous debates and constitutional scholars weighing in on the issue of anchor babies.  Any pregnant Juanita can enter this country ILLEGALLY, deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen.  I see it as wrong!!  Any pregnant women who is also a terrorist can deliver a baby and that baby is then a U.S. citizen -- wrong again.

PARENTS need to be citizens of the U.S. in order for their babies to be citizens period.

It may very well be wrong; it may be bad policy; but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the Constitution provides for.  One solution is, as has been noted, to rigorously enforce immigration law - a policy I whole-heartedly accept; however, if one manages to get through - for example, by overstaying a visitor or student visa, and then gives birth, that child will still be a U.S. citizen.

Otherwise, it'll be necessary to amend the Constitution.

[libertybele]

It may very well be wrong; it may be bad policy; but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the Constitution provides for.  One solution is, as has been noted, to rigorously enforce immigration law - a policy I whole-heartedly accept; however, if one manages to get through - for example, by overstaying a visitor or student visa, and then gives birth, that child will still be a U.S. citizen.

Otherwise, it'll be necessary to amend the Constitution.

Yes, of course, that's the whole point -- there has been so much controversy on this issue that they need to amend the Constitution.

[Bigun]

No, actually, they aren't a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written very broadly, intentionally, to include everyone who was born within the physical confines of the U.S., excepting only certain indians and ambassadors and their staff.

They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.

[berdie]

They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.

That is how I have always read the 14th as well @Bigun . Given the time period it was written that is all it could refer to.

Has it been misused? You betcha!

[Kamaji]

They were written to include former slaves and their descendants and none other.

Absolute nonsense.  They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors.  The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure.  Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.

[libertybele]

Absolute nonsense.  They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors.  The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure.  Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.

I disagree.  If the 14th amendment was so clear, there wouldn't be so much controversy over its meaning.

[Bigun]

Absolute nonsense.  They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors.  The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure.  Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.

You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!

[Kamaji]

I disagree.  If the 14th amendment was so clear, there wouldn't be so much controversy over its meaning.

Hardly.  There is controversy because so many people do not like the implications of the 14th Amendment, and would prefer to impose their own personal political beliefs on the Constitution.  That is a vice that is not solely limited to liberals.

[Fishrrman]

The issue of birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment will remain ambiguous until a definitive decision is rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Mr. Trump can force their hand -- one way or the other -- then more power to him.

[Kamaji]

You want to know what absolute nonsense is? It's the idea that ANYONE would pass an amendment to the constitution that would automatically confer citizenship on the child of ANYONE from ANYWHERE who could somehow manage to get herself onto U. S. soil for long enough to have a child. THAT sir is ABSOLUTE nonsense!

Then I guess the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were fools, because that is precisely what they did.

[Bigun]

The issue of birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment will remain ambiguous until a definitive decision is rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Mr. Trump can force their hand -- one way or the other -- then more power to him.

They have twice now weighed in on the matter @Fishrrman !

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother.

Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.

[Bigun]

Then I guess the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were fools, because that is precisely what they did.

I'm quite sure that was drummed into your head at law school, but the fact is that it just isn't true!

[berdie]

Absolute nonsense.  They were written to include everyone other than tribal indians and ambassadors.  The legislative history makes that clear beyond peradventure.  Furthermore, the words themselves in the 14th Amendment are quite clear, so there isn't even any basis for going behind the words themselves to have recourse to the legislative history.

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The legislative history is very revelant. This is one of the "slave amendments" is it not? It has nothing to do with anchor babies. That is a more recent bastardazation of the amendment. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue at the time.

[Kamaji]

I'm quite sure that was drummed into your head at law school, but the fact is that it just isn't true!

No lawschool required, just the text of the 14th Amendment itself.

[Kamaji]

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The legislative history is very revelant. This is one of the "slave amendments" is it not? It has nothing to do with anchor babies. That is a more recent bastardazation of the amendment. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue at the time.

Sorry, what matters - especially with the Constitution - is the words themselves as written, not the words that we wish had been written.  The words of the 14th Amendment are pretty clear.

Sort of like the Second Amendment.  But that doesn't stop controversy being generated by people who wish the Second Amendment said something other than what it actually says.

[Kamaji]

Ahh well.  That's why we have the Supreme Court:  to protect us, as much as possible, from people who wish to impose their personal desires on the the words of the Constitution itself, and thence to impose their personal predilections on the rest of us.

[berdie]

Sorry, what matters - especially with the Constitution - is the words themselves as written, not the words that we wish had been written.  The words of the 14th Amendment are pretty clear.

Sort of like the Second Amendment.  But that doesn't stop controversy being generated by people who wish the Second Amendment said something other than what it actually says.

So, what you are telling me, is that both the 2nd and the 14th are being interpreted by the supporters of specific causes for their own benefit? History is very revalent to both.

I will agree with the issue of controversy.