SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Executive order to curtail birthright citizenship of non-citizen children
Main Page The Lounge Executive order to curtail birthright citizenship of non-citizen childrenGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
I agree with you... and Harry Reid:
Michael Anton, (who's Wapo Editorial is on the last page) is awesome. Having said that, an Act of Congress, rather than an Executive Order, would be the best way to tackle this. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Member |
The Speaker of the House basically stated that an Executive Order could not apply here. This will take Congressional action to change. | |||
|
| 10mm is The Boom of Doom  |
Who, one way or the other is retiring. God Bless and Protect the Once and Future President, Donald John Trump. | |||
|
Member |
Based on this thread so far 1. What are the UNINTENDED negative consequences, if any, if the Constitution is ammended in EITHER direction ? 2. If the Constitution were amended, and the Democrats didn't like the outcome, does that mean they will follow it ? Hell no they won't, they won't give one fu about it, they will keep letting them in. The Democrats don't give one damn bit of consideration to our Constitution, somewhere between most to all of them. That's why we need to vote them out and replace them with people who love our Constitution whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, or anyone the hell else that loves the Constitution. This boils down to authoritarianism vs freedom and who is stupid enough to look to "leaders" to make their life better. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
Corgis Rock |
There’s an oddity with the 14th Amendment. It reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” but, Native Americans had to wait until 1924 to become citizens. It seems the 14th, does have exceptions. “ The work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull. | |||
|
Member |
I don't think the Constitution requires any 'ammending' regarding this issue. I spent a bit of time this evening reading the background history for the 14th Amendment. There is no SCOTUS decision I could find defining or clarifying exactly what the 14th actually means and who or what it covers. From my limited reading tonight, those who penned the 14th only envisioned addressing the issue of citizenship and treatment of freed slaves throughout the 'entire' US. I believe a reasonable argument could be posed that people born to non-US citizens should not be rewarded with US citizenship. Regardless, I think its an issue worth debating given the impact it has on this country. Unfortunately, the problem "we the people", have in addressing this issue to the benefit of the country is 1) the abject cowardice of the GOP, and 2) the blatant dishonesty of the Dem's who look upon these people as their future voting majority. ----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
| Member |
If Trump chooses to act by EO the open-border GDCs will have it in Court in a nanosecond. It will wind up before SCOTUS quick enough.[/QUOTE] I believe this is the President’s intention. He is streets ahead of everyone else... ____________________________ "Fear is a Reaction - Courage is a Decision.” - Winston Spencer Churchill NRA Life Member - Adorable Deplorable Garbage | |||
|
| Wait, what? |
I believe this is the President’s intention. He is streets ahead of everyone else...[/QUOTE] This is the other potential side of the coin; Trump (and the Republicans) are playing chess, not checkers. They know an EO to this effect will get shot down (in other words, the dems want to see a horde of invaders arrive here and instantly start suckling at the teat), and have to resort to what they’ve already been prepping for- stopping them at the border. And right before the midterms are final. Not a bad way to drive a few more nails in the dem coffins. “Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown | |||
|
| Member |
Slippery slope? Are you kidding me? The slippery slope was started decades ago by the left. They have used similar tactics to ram thru modifications that should have gone thru congress or the amendment process for years and years. Remember Roe v Wade? Fair is fair. Now they can deal with it. | |||
|
| Member |
And that is a question that is answered with a resounding "no," as I heard one law professor state last night. Therefore, those that have not begun the process to become citizens, i.e., illegal aliens and diplomats, are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States. One thing President Trump could do with an executive order is to order the US Department of State to stop issuing passports to children of tourists and diplomats. Additionally, it took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to fully recognize American Indians as US citizens. If prior to that they were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they owed their allegiance to another sovereign, their tribe, then it's preposterous to claim that foreigners who have not given up their allegiance to another nation are subject to US jurisdiction. | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
Umm LOL Yeah, just try an exec order to repeal or restrict the Second Amendment. You can bet your bottom dollar that the reaction from gunowners in this nation would be a furious whirlwind. I say with the greatest confidence that the reaction would be terrifying to the leftists. Absolutely terrifying. Ridiculous. Clarifying the 14th Amendment (which not even one person in a hundred in this country can recite) is LIGHT YEARS distant from trying to further restrict gun ownership in this country for citizens. Slippery slope? Whatever. We're drowning. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
Former Trump national security official Michael Anton examines the history and misreading of the 14th Amendment on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight'. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
Nullus Anxietas |
You are wrong on both of those counts.
Are you insane? Here is a more thorough treatment of the history of the 14th Amendment:
Full article: Dismantling a Fake Argument Against Birthright Citizenship Many of you won't like the conclusion, but like it or not: It is what it is. There is a possibility SCOTUS could see its way clear to kill birthright citizenship, but I suspect that'd end up looking a lot like Roe v. Wade in its tortured reasoning. Or like those who insist "shall not be infringed" only applies to militias. "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower |
President Trump just indicated on Twitter that he knows that this will be challenged and that it will end up as a case heard by the US Supreme Court. ____________________________________________________ "I am your retribution." - Donald Trump, speech at CPAC, March 4, 2023 | |||
|
Legalize the Constitution |
I heard a phrase on Tucker last night that I was not familiar with, “birth tourism.” Two countries were highlighted for their birth tourism industries: China and Russia, both of which have businesses that offer package deals to fly to the United States, deliver their baby, and have it enjoy all the rights and benefits of citizenship. Maybe there should be some concern about conferring citizenship on the offspring of thousands of kids from two countries who pose a threat to the U.S. _______________________________________________________ despite them | |||
|
| Too old to run, too mean to quit! |
So, if I read this right, those born here are citizens. Naturalized people are also citizens, by virtue of the actual naturalization process. So, how do millions of ILLEGAL invaders fit either category? I understand why the democraPs want voting rights for non-citizens, because they will mostly vote for democraPs! Waiting to see what happens in the Trump "solution". Elk There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour) "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville FBHO!!! The Idaho Elk Hunter | |||
|
| Shit don't mean shit |
https://www.foxnews.com/opinio...ip-is-constitutional Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar. But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship. An executive order by President Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment. Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers. Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration. Most countries around the world do not provides birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed. Many Republicans, Democrats and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children. Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country. Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction – which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws – and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well. So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S. In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States. American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents. Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens. The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens. Those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants – only permanent, legal residents. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The federal government has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports and other benefits to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. As a result, the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
^^^^ The above was written by: Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. ********* Harry Reid In 1993: 'No Sane Country' Would Give Citizenship To People Born From Illegal Aliens President Donald Trump said on Monday that he would pursue an executive order to outlaw birthright citizenship just days before the November midterm elections, which, as expected, caused a meltdown from the political Left. "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment,” Trump said in an interview. "Guess what? You don’t. You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order…We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States…with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end." Democratic politicians and left-leaning organizations immediately jumped on Trump's comments, claiming that he was trying to "fan the flames of anti-immigrant" hate and that he was trying to "incite his base." "This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms," the ACLU tweeted. "The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order, @realDonaldTrump." As Democrats were quick to attack Trump over his comments, a 1993 video from former Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) made the rounds on social media. "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again," Reid said. "If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services that this society provides, and that’s a lot of services." WATCH: https://www.dailywire.com/news...d-give-ryan-saavedra "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
No, it doesn't. It means they may not have considered what this amendment would mean for immigrants kids in a regime where some were illegal immigrants and some are legal. In which case, the history of the amendment may not help us much, and we are stuck strictly with construing the words. Courts use the intentions of the times to interpret law all the time. Read Heller, for example. Scalia gave a lengthy history of the views of the founders on guns and militias. But I think I agree with those that think that the only aliens not subject to the jurisdiction are diplomats. In which case, the language seems clear - children born here are citizens, unless they are diplomats' kids. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
This makes a lot of sense. Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Executive order to curtail birthright citizenship of non-citizen children
Main Page The Lounge Executive order to curtail birthright citizenship of non-citizen children© SIGforum 2024