At the time the 14th Amendment was enacted there was not a major problem with illegal immigration and the "anchor baby" situation wasn't even on their radar. I believe it would require another Amendment to clarify the 14th such that babies born to illegal aliens were NOT given US citizenship--that their citizenship stayed with that of their parents. I also think that such an Amendment, if passed by Congress (2/3) would easily be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

flashguy

If I had known it would be this easy...

There will certainly be a fight, preceded by an injunction to stop enactment of the EO. It’s reasonable to assume the Founders did not mean to grant citizenship to any baby whose mother makes it into the U.S. The EO will just start the debate and perhaps bring about a permanent fix to this issue.

First, this wasn't the founding fathers who caused this issue. It's in an amendment that came after the Civil War. So in trying to slam the door on one problem (slavery), the authors of that amendment, caused another problem they didn't think of.

Second, as I said before, the only real way to solve the problem is an amendment. I don't see any debate we'd have as a result of Trumps EO, leading to enough consensus on this issue to sustain an amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
If I had known it would be this easy...

There will certainly be a fight, preceded by an injunction to stop enactment of the EO. It’s reasonable to assume the Founders did not mean to grant citizenship to any baby whose mother makes it into the U.S. The EO will just start the debate and perhaps bring about a permanent fix to this issue.

Jurisdiction for births also includes US Territorial Waters, up to 12 nm from shore.

I love that Trump isn't a politician that came out of a cookie cutter but this is just dumb.

No need to kick that hornet nest only to have it jammed where the sun don't shine. He can't ignore the Constitution nor change it with an EO.

Well, this is Trump we're talking here. If it flies, good. If not it'll be a massive distraction that will give him room to get other things done without attracting the kind of media attention the other side seems to need to make a viable opposition gel.

If "Subject to Jurisdiction thereof" means everyone, then why include it as a qualifier? It does say born and subject. It is a two part test.

I can see this going either way at the USSC. We all know how it will go at the lower courts.

I'm certainly going to enjoy reminding leftists that now Trump has the phone and a pen.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I'm certainly going to enjoy reminding leftists that now Trump has the phone and a pen.

Enjoy away, but remember: Obama got shot-down by SCOTUS more than any other President in modern history. I don't think it's in the nation's best interests to have another President repeat that performance.

Long Overdue!

This a very slippery slope in that if the 14th Amend is changed without the consenting vote of the legislating branch, at a later date, the libs will attempt to make illegal changes to the 2nd Amend in the same way.

quote:

If "Subject to Jurisdiction thereof" means everyone, then why include it as a qualifier? It does say born and subject. It is a two part test.

They are talking about diplomats. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US while in the US. If they really screw up though, the US can petition that country to strip the diplomat of their protections.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
If I had known it would be this easy...

There will certainly be a fight, preceded by an injunction to stop enactment of the EO. It’s reasonable to assume the Founders did not mean to grant citizenship to any baby whose mother makes it into the U.S. The EO will just start the debate and perhaps bring about a permanent fix to this issue.

What makes that reasonable to assume? Have you researched the history of the 14th? Read the congressional record? Read what, if anything, the drafters said in public? Do you know what "subject to the jurisdiction" means? Did they think of that potential consequence at all? Are there any contemporaneous court opinions?

You aren't even assuming, you are just making a guess that is consistent with your preferences. I agree that granting citizenship to children of foreign citizens automatically isn't what I'd do either, but we shouldn't assume an answer because we like it. We have to know.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
If "Subject to Jurisdiction thereof" means everyone, then why include it as a qualifier? It does say born and subject. It is a two part test.

A response to the Dred Scott decision about 10 years prior?

It's not like the courts haven't looked at this before. And we can see how the current lower courts have been reacting to Trump's earlier anti-illegal immigration actions (which have much less clear cut constitutional issues, and which should be much more subject to executive authority.)

It think it's a given that lower courts will enter injunctions against this. At some point it will probably end up with the SCOTUS. If they take it, the legal-logic to disallow birthright citizenship is much more convoluted than to allow it. It puts them in the position of saying that the constitution doesn't mean what it seems to say.

If they get around that issue, they can essentially find a way to explain away anything in the Constitution (think the Second Amendment.) Having said this, that path has been taken before (think the legal disaster that is Griswald vs Connecticut.) Although in that they took the reverse approach (saying the Constitution means what it doesn't actually say.)

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
If I had known it would be this easy...

There will certainly be a fight, preceded by an injunction to stop enactment of the EO. It’s reasonable to assume the Founders did not mean to grant citizenship to any baby whose mother makes it into the U.S. The EO will just start the debate and perhaps bring about a permanent fix to this issue.

What makes that reasonable to assume? Have you researched the history of the 14th? Read the congressional record? Read what, if anything, the drafters said in public? Do you know what "subject to the jurisdiction" means? Did they think of that potential consequence at all? Are there any contemporaneous court opinions?

You aren't even assuming, you are just making a guess that is consistent with your preferences. I agree that granting citizenship to children of foreign citizens automatically isn't what I'd do either, but we shouldn't assume an answer because we like it. We have to know.

The 14th amendment NEVER applied to NON-Citizens
No part of the Constitution is applicable to NON Citizens.
Nothing Slippery; No Slopes

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:

quote:

If "Subject to Jurisdiction thereof" means everyone, then why include it as a qualifier? It does say born and subject. It is a two part test.

They are talking about diplomats. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US while in the US. If they really screw up though, the US can petition that country to strip the diplomat of their protections.

Fine. Grant illegal aliens diplomatic immunity while in labor, then PNG their asses.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I'm certainly going to enjoy reminding leftists that now Trump has the phone and a pen.

Enjoy away, but remember: Obama got shot-down by SCOTUS more than any other President in modern history. I don't think it's in the nation's best interests to have another President repeat that performance.

Agreed, but I think this is a debate worth having, and one that is long overdue. My only concern with this going to the SCOTUS for deliberation is that Roberts would once again scuttle this issue (like he did with BarryCare) because he doesn't want the court to appear to determine policy in this country.

Apparently the federal courts don't agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
The 14th amendment NEVER applied to NON-Citizens
No part of the Constitution is applicable to NON Citizens.
Nothing Slippery; No Slopes

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

No part of the Constitution is applicable to NON Citizens.

Completely and most assuredly FALSE.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
The 14th amendment NEVER applied to NON-Citizens

I agree with you here however. It had to do with slaves. It was never meant to deal with aliens who birthed children in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
At some point it will probably end up with the SCOTUS. If they take it, the legal-logic to disallow birthright citizenship is much more convoluted than to allow it. It puts them in the position of saying that the constitution doesn't mean what it seems to say.

The court has done that very thing many times. Roe V Wade comes to mind, and the most recent ruling on homosexual marriage being a right because the SCOTUS said it was. I think there's plenty of basis to look at this from both directions. With the current justices on the court, the issue may be reviewed on a bit more Constitutional basis than a partisan one for a change. Regardless, the debate is long overdue, regardless the final outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I agree with you here however. It had to deal with slaves. It was never meant to deal with aliens who birthed children in the US.

But, but, doesn't the 14th also have to do with homosexual marriage? Yeah.