I know this was mentioned in the Trump presidency thread, but it should have its own stage. This should have happened ages ago, and would go a LONG way to discouraging people from coming here to Drop kids and anchor themselves here. Now to get it permanently legislated... predictably,the left is losing it- bye bye new voter base!

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...rthright-citizenship

You already know that the commies are going to shop for judges sympathetic to their cause. And, it will eventually end up in SCOTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
You already know that the commies are going to shop for judges sympathetic to their cause. And, it will eventually end up in SCOTUS.

There has never been a better time to try and get it reversed. Next step should be to tighten up the voting by non-citizen issue.

Not that I am against the concept, but where is the authority to do so?

US Constitution -

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How do you get around this by executive order? Is their a claim if you are here illegally, the child you birth is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Not that I am against the concept, but where is the authority to do so?

US Constitution -

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How do you get around this by executive order? Is their a claim if you are here illegally, the child you birth is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Thank you, that was going to be the topic of my post. Are we not walking down a slippery slope when the President can begin "lining out" parts of the US Constitution?

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Not that I am against the concept, but where is the authority to do so?

US Constitution -

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How do you get around this by executive order? Is their a claim if you are here illegally, the child you birth is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Thank you, that was going to be the topic of my post. Are we not walking down a slippery slope when the President can begin "lining out" parts of the US Constitution?

I believe that with some digging we will find this extends to those whose parents are legally in the United States such as diplomats.

quote:

US Constitution -

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How do you get around this by executive order? Is their a claim if you are here illegally, the child you birth is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Yes. That's the argument.
If you are here illegally, you are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You haven't followed the process to make yourself "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
If you argue otherwise, and focus exclusively on the "born" part, what is the purpose of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part ot that sentence?
I think it's to prevent people from claiming citizenship for their children when they are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country.

The intent of the drafters is important. It was to make all former slaves citizens, but not to allow any illegal alien to automatically make citizens of their children.

It’s a slippery slope indeed. But i’m not worried that Trump’s intent will stand. Just keep illegals out of here.

On the other hand, I am tempted to agree that children born of illegal aliens shouldn’t be US citizens. Tough luck, kid. But I don’t see the basis for denying citizenship in light of the constitution.

So the problem isn’t with the constitution, the problem is with letting illegals into the country.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Not that I am against the concept, but where is the authority to do so?

US Constitution -

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How do you get around this by executive order? Is their a claim if you are here illegally, the child you birth is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Thank you, that was going to be the topic of my post. Are we not walking down a slippery slope when the President can begin "lining out" parts of the US Constitution?

I believe that with some digging we will find this extends to those whose parents are legally in the United States such as diplomats.

I don't think you will. SCOTUS ruled, long ago, Constitutional protections apply to everybody in the U.S., regardless of citizenship status.

If you think about it logically: It would have to be that way, otherwise, Constitutional protections being suspended, the government could do whatever it liked with anybody it asserted to be in the country illegally.

Trump's gonna get shot down on this one. Either somebody's not advising him well or he's ignoring advice.

^^^ Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has long recognized exceptions for border zones and ports of entry.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
If you argue otherwise, and focus exclusively on the "born" part, what is the purpose of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part ot that sentence?

That's the part about diplomats' kids and the kids of those who happened to give birth while in transit through American jurisdiction. Back before the days of the Jones Act, there was actually a pretty fair chance of a kid being born on an American-flagged vessel that was sailing from one non-American port to another. The big concern behind the "jurisdiction" part for many years was also about kids born into Indian tribes on reservations. Since the US has treaties with various tribes, they are in some legal sense foreign nations. Thus the famous Snyder Act of 1924, which was required to establish that an Indian kid born on the rez is also born an American citizen.

This is going to be a tough one. Not impossible, but very, very tough.

I guess this would stop the maternity tourism industry in Hawaii and California (and other states I suppose).

maternity tourism --- where rich folk from other countries come to the USA to give birth, such that the child has USA citizenship.

You have no idea how much this occurs, but trust me, it's out there.

The child born here is a citizen. The parents aren't. Boot the parents asses out. They can take the kid or not.

If US citizens have a child born in another country what is that child's citizenship status?

Say the parents, whom are US citizens, are on vacation or legally working in Mexico have a child in a hospital in Mexico. What country is that child a citizen of?

quote:

Originally posted by kx90:
If US citizens have a child born in another country what is that child's citizenship status?

Say the parents, whom are US citizens, are on vacation or legally working in Mexico have a child in a hospital in Mexico. What country is that child a citizen of?

Most (but not all) countries do not automatically grant citizenship just for being born there. Not sure about Mexico.

As far as US citizenship for children born abroad, the question is slightly complicated.

https://travel.state.gov/conte...ild-Born-Abroad.html

Basically, if one or both parents are US citizens, subject to some restrictions about the parents' past residency in the US that vary based on the parents' status, the child is granted US citizenship.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
[QUOTE]US Constitution -

. . .
If you are here illegally, you are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You haven't followed the process to make yourself "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
. . .

This is nonsensical on its face -- how can someone be illegal if they are not subject to the laws of the jurisdiction? One cannot break laws one is not subject to.

You can't claim on the one hand that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and are illegal because they are breaking US immigration law, and then on the other hand say they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US for other purposes.

If you are within the physical borders of the USA you are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Doesn't matter if you are having a baby or robbing a bank, you are subject to US law regardless of your nationality or legal status.

The way to correct the problem is to secure the border, period. I don't want any President striking a line through the Constitution. We may like it today but I guarantee we will hate it tomorrow.

Really? The scads of illegals in prison in the US for violating US law would love to not be considered that they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Anyone physically in the US for any reason is subject to it's jurisdiction (and sometime people outside the US also.)

It's not that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to confer birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, they just never considered the issue (were there even any restrictions on immigration in 1865-ish?). So the language was expansive enough that it was retroactively found to grant that after restrictions on immigration started to be imposed.

Here's a question: When were the children of American Indians considered US citizens by birth? The Indian tribes have some legal status as independent nations (or did at one time.) But as far as I know, there children were (and certainly are now) considered US citizens. This being the case, the children of illegals would fall under the same status.

The only legitimate way to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, and in the end the only way that will be recognized by the courts, would be a constitutional amendment. I really hope this is the case, because if it isn't, it means the rest of the government can essentially repudiate any language in the constitution it doesn't like.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Yes. That's the argument.
If you are here illegally, you are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You haven't followed the process to make yourself "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
If you argue otherwise, and focus exclusively on the "born" part, what is the purpose of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part ot that sentence?
I think it's to prevent people from claiming citizenship for their children when they are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country.

The intent of the drafters is important. It was to make all former slaves citizens, but not to allow any illegal alien to automatically make citizens of their children.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:


I believe that with some digging we will find this extends to those whose parents are legally in the United States such as diplomats.

No, it is about slaves.

What I need to know more about is what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant to the drafters. If it is like being subject to the jurisdiction of a court (personal jurisdiction), that doesn't require much more that physical presence. I don't know if they meant something more.

Sadly that may have intentionally been left vague in order to secure enough support to get ratification.

And immigration was very much on the minds of Congress at the time -- remember this was only a few years after the first real big Irish immigration wave -- you know, those dirty, drunken, degenerate, poor, illiterate disease-carrying, breed-like-rabbits Papist mongrels who would pollute the pureness of America and destroy the American way of life.

No, really, you should read the commentary and political cartoon of the time.