Executive order to curtail birthright citizenship of non-citizen children

October 30, 2018, 12:38 PM

I'm trusting trump on this... perhaps it is one more attempt to stir the pot and prompt congress to act on immigration.

My wife was born in Germany of US citizens.
Her Father, an officers aide in the military, was allowed to bring his wife with him.
She's not a German or Dual, Just a US citizen. Her birth cert simply states Germany as her place of birth.

Seems to me that's how it should be.

October 30, 2018, 12:40 PM

bigeinkcmo

Even if he's bluffing he's now got the perpetual caravaners of the world re-thinking their plans.

October 30, 2018, 12:41 PM

cworetired

About time. Just another thing to blow the Lefts mind

October 30, 2018, 12:43 PM

BBMW

Let's talk about what's really going on here. I'm pretty convinced this is a sideways get out the vote tactic on Trump's part to motivate his base. He, and everyone else knows this isn't going to hold up. But it's a bit of red meat thrown out to the faithful to get them to vote.

October 30, 2018, 01:13 PM

icom706

President Trump is overreaching on this one.

Any person within the borders of this country is subject to its laws. Citizenship or lack there of does not matter.

It get really fun as a green card holder because upon leaving the borders of the U.S. you are still expected to adhere to U.S. laws, but with citizenship of another country, well, it can get interesting.

I fully expect the courts to deep six this executive order, as the courts should.

Propose an amendment to the constitution if you want this changed. The founding fathers included the process in how to legally accomplish this.

Btw - if you are a student in an F-1 visa, after six months in U.S. jurisdiction, you are eligible for U.S. military service.

As a former 5th class citizen (green card holder), I could not vote, but had to register for Selective Service when it was brought back in 1980. Could not be a commission officer either - just cannon fodder.

-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Ayn Rand

"He gains votes ever and anew by taking money from everybody and giving it to a few, while explaining that every penny was extracted from the few to be giving to the many."

Ogden Nash from his poem - The Politician

October 30, 2018, 01:37 PM

Monk

I'm fine with it. We can either hide behind the sanctity of the Constitution, or we can take steps to eliminate a huge cause of America's continual problems.

October 30, 2018, 01:38 PM

berto

Amend or get out. If you're willing to let your guy discount the Constitution by EO you run the risk of the other guy doing it to you.

October 30, 2018, 01:40 PM

berto

quote:
Originally posted by Monk:
I'm fine with it. We can either hide behind the sanctity of the Constitution, or we can take steps to eliminate a huge cause of America's continual problems.

Pretend you're a leftist and apply that same logic to guns. That's exactly their dream and their endgame. The honest handful of them would use your exact words in regards to the second amendment.

October 30, 2018, 01:47 PM

a1abdj

quote:
The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

October 30, 2018, 01:51 PM

Fenris

I don't think anyone is saying that Trump can amend the Constitution by EO.

What is being said is that this specific question has not been decided by the court. Thus it is ripe for Executive and or Legislative interpretation until such time as the court weighs in. Just like any other Constitutionally controversial matter.

October 30, 2018, 01:54 PM

Gustofer

quote:
Originally posted by Fenris:
Thus it is ripe for Executive and or Legislative interpretation until such time as the court weighs in.

It'll take a grand total of about five minutes for a liberal judge to say, "NO!".

October 30, 2018, 02:02 PM

Fenris

quote:
Originally posted by Gustofer:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenris:
Thus it is ripe for Executive and or Legislative interpretation until such time as the court weighs in.

It'll take a grand total of about five minutes for a liberal judge to say, "NO!".

Of this I have no doubt.

But ultimately, 5 trumps the 9th.

It is less relevant how the jurisdiction is seen today but rather how it was seen at the time. There does seem to be some evidence that Trump is correct. He's had a pretty good track record of winning thus far.

He's not called "Donaldus Invictus" for nothing.

October 30, 2018, 02:02 PM

Balzé Halzé

quote:
Originally posted by berto:
Amend or get out. If you're willing to let your guy discount the Constitution by EO you run the risk of the other guy doing it to you.

He's not discounting the Constitution at all. If anything he's reaffirming it.

October 30, 2018, 02:14 PM

46and2

quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Let's talk about what's really going on here. I'm pretty convinced this is a sideways get out the vote tactic on Trump's part to motivate his base. He, and everyone else knows this isn't going to hold up. But it's a bit of red meat thrown out to the faithful to get them to vote.

I agree.

It's a distraction, some pot-stirring, a means to a different end. No way President Trump actually expects this EO to be effective at its stated goal. And I wouldn't want it to, either.

I'd welcome an amendment that ends anchor babies, or tightens the practice significantly.

October 30, 2018, 02:20 PM

Crom

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.

It is quite logically argued that an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". In fact, their mere presence inside the USA is proof that they are not subject to its jurisdiction. If they were subject to it, they would have been forced to use legal immigration channels. An illegal alien is therefore, by definition, **not** subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We might try to catch them, and impose our jurisdiction, but they are currently simply "outlaw foreigners".

October 30, 2018, 02:21 PM

HayesGreener

quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
quote:
Originally posted by berto:
Amend or get out. If you're willing to let your guy discount the Constitution by EO you run the risk of the other guy doing it to you.

He's not discounting the Constitution at all. If anything he's reaffirming it.

This. And if we can get a case into the US Supreme Court we can get the question answered once and for all. That is the long game.

October 30, 2018, 02:22 PM

triggertreat

There has been some discussion that a child born in the US doesnt really become a citizen until they reach the age of majority.Can someone point out the Anchor clause in the 14th?Also show me where chain migration is included.The child could leave with the parents and then return on their 18th birthday and claim their citizenship.Lots of countries recognize dual citizenship.

October 30, 2018, 02:57 PM

TMats

quote:
Originally posted by berto:
Amend or get out. If you're willing to let your guy discount the Constitution by EO you run the risk of the other guy doing it to you.

I don’t think he’s “discount[ing] the Constitution,” I think this is the first step in following through on yet another campaign promise. The fact is, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the application of the 14th Amendment to the offspring of illegals born here. He knows there will be an injunction halting the EO, before the ink is dry. The case is nearly certain to make it to the Supremes and a ruling favorable to President Trump may well end discussion. Others in this thread have expressed the view that it will take another amendment. Seems strange that the country would have to go through an amendment process to bring clarity to an earlier amendment. Really?!?

Forcing Democrats to publicly fight for this ridiculous interpretation of an amendment is good for the GOP too.

October 30, 2018, 03:21 PM

joel9507

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"?

Reverse the assumption.

1) Obviously anyone physically here is subject to local jurisdiction while they are here. Nobody wanders in, and gets a free pass to ignore our laws. In that sense, everyone physically present is subject to US jurisdiction.

2) Assume the authors of this part of the Constitution were aware of #1. If the Constitution wanted anyone and everyone born here to be automatically citizens, why would they have added the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' bit? That'd be extra irrelevant superfluous duplication.

It boils down to, what does 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean? Does it include birth-tourists, who come in massively pregnant, clutching passports from other countries (and, obviously then, subject to the jurisdiction of the country.)

Does it include illegals who come in without paperwork, but subjects of other countries anyway?

There have been some clarifications over the years in the courts, a couple of which were spectacular fails, and under those, which guide current interpretations, birth-tourists and illegal immigrants get to have US citizen babies.

I'm glad Trump is going after this. He has to know it'll be challenged, and there's not been a better time in recent memory to get the Supremes to fix this.

October 30, 2018, 03:21 PM

sdy

Lindsey Graham:

I will be introducing legislation to deal with the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants -- in a prospective manner -- as I have always contended it has become a magnet for illegal immigration in modern times.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am completely against anchor babies. Let's get on w attacking it and getting things changed.