Ending Birthright citizenship
-
@the-gipper said:
But, this would require a Constitutional Amendment
I need to see the wording ...I believe I read an article about this and something in the wording you may not need that, I may be wrong will try to find the article.
Edit:
Why Trump Can End Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order
When it comes to the 14th Amendment, my good friend and fellow Justice Department veteran Andy McCarthy agrees that it does not require birthright citizenship. And we’re not alone: Other experts, such as noted constitutional law scholar John Eastman, law professor and former dean of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, take the same position on the citizenship clause (“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”).
But Andy and I differ on one very important point: whether the misinterpretation of the Amendment can be changed by executive order. He doesn’t think so; I say that it can.
Simply put, the president does have the ability through executive action to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the citizenship clause, and to direct those agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those individuals whose status as citizens meet the requirements of the law. This is especially true here where, contrary to Andy’s speculation, Congress actually did not clarify that its later statutory provision was somehow inconsistent with the original understanding of the Amendment.
Congress codified the citizenship clause in Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 301 of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)) simply repeats a portion of the language of the 14th Amendment, stating that an individual shall be a citizen of the U.S. if he is “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As Andy correctly says, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. was understood at the time this Reconstruction era amendment was adopted “to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.”
It seems rather obvious that children born to aliens who are in this country either legally or illegally are citizens of the native countries of their parents. Those children owe political allegiance to their parents’ native countries and thus are not within the political jurisdiction of the U.S. As Andy points out, if a “child is born in France to a married couple who are both American citizens, the child is an American citizen” and thus “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The fact that any alien in the U.S. is subject to our territorial jurisdiction, and can therefore be prosecuted for breaking our laws, does not make them subject to the complete, political jurisdiction of the U.S. They owe no allegiance to the U.S. government and can’t be drafted into the military (if we re-imposed a draft); can’t be forced to serve on a jury; don’t have all of the same obligations, responsibilities, and rights that citizens do.
But Andy doubts that the president can change this through an executive order. The “issue is not just what jurisdiction was understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but what it meant in 1952, when the statute defining U.S. citizenship was enacted,” he writes. That is a cogent observation.
But, in fact, the legislative history of the INA does not reflect that Congress had a different understanding of “jurisdiction” in 1952. There is almost no discussion of this provision in the congressional record. One of the only lengthy discussions (but not about the jurisdiction requirement) is by Joseph Rider Farrington, who was the Territory of Hawaii’s delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. He complained about the restrictive immigration measures at the time that didn’t allow permanent, resident aliens from Asian countries who were the parents of American citizens born in Hawaii to apply for citizenship.
This discussion by Farrington does not add any more to this debate than the 1898 holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which stands only for the very narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing about the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or aliens who are here temporarily like tourists.
There is nothing in the congressional record of the passage of what became 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) that indicates that members of Congress had any different understanding or intent with regard to the citizenship requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
In fact, at one point in the debate in the House of Representatives on April 23, 1952, Representative Thomas A. Jenkins (R., Ohio) asked Representative Louis E. Graham (R., Penn.) whether the bill changes any of the “legal definitions that have from practice become practically a part of the law” on immigration and naturalization. Graham’s answer? The Immigration and Nationality Act “restates the former definitions in accordance with existing law and the most recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.” So no change in the definition of “jurisdiction.”
Andy correctly says that a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.” But that assumes the “understanding” is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.
That is the key issue here — Section 301 of the INA and the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment have been incorrectly enforced in violation of their terms.
There is no question that if President Trump issues an executive order directing federal agencies to apply federal law according to what Andy, I, and others believe is the correct interpretation, that the government will be sued. This issue, whether the U.S.-born children of aliens who are only here temporarily as tourists or students or who are in this country illegally are citizens, has never been directly addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Perhaps it is time this question was answered.
Not saying this article is correct but an opinion.
-
Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but...
Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but...
I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa.
-
Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but...
I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa.
I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa.
exactly. This needs to get done now. freaking soon.
-
I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa.
exactly. This needs to get done now. freaking soon.
-
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
-
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
Uh didn't I already say it probably couldn't be done constitutionally?
Any executive order has to pass that muster.
But I think we've outlived the need for the 14th Amendment the same as some people think we have outlived the need for the Second Amendment and the first. And they've already been hacked to bits so...
But honestly if it was up to you should people in the United States illegally or on visas have the option of squirting out anchor babies?
WSS
-
I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens?
-
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.you are too ignorant of the facts to be so arrogantly wrong, Texsag.
***********************************************
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment
"The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, "
..."RECONSTRUCTION
Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865 left his successor, President Andrew Johnson, to preside over the complex process of incorporating former Confederate states back into the Union after the Civil War and establishing former slaves as free and equal citizens.
Johnson, a Democrat (and former slaveholder) from Tennessee, supported emancipation, but he differed greatly from the Republican-controlled Congress in his view of how Reconstruction should proceed. Johnson showed relative leniency toward the former Confederate states as they were reintroduced into the Union."
-
Therefore, the intent of the 14th Amendment was NOT global abuse - show up here and get citizenship in a few weeks. So, a legal clarification to prevent abuse of the law is in order. That IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
but don't take my opinion as established legit legal opinion.
But Texsag - Mark Levin disagrees with you on anything, you should just go take a nap and a sip of tea.
Mark Levin: 'Show Me the Evidence' Birthright Citizenship Was ...
Nov 1, 2018 - On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Wednesday, host and American lawyer Mark Levin challenged other lawyers and members of academia to show him evidence that “birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment.”. “I challenge you, all ...Aug 19, 2015 - Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin cleared up any ... the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... -
https://cdn.mrctv.org/videos/22810/22810-480p.mp
“The history of this amendment is not in dispute. It’s not in doubt. It's not up for debate. So, what changed? Nothing in the Constitution changed. Nothing legally changed, as a matter of statutory law.
“In the 1960s, the bureaucracy, under the great deal, decided to confer citizenship on babies born of illegal aliens in this country. And now we’re told, in order to reverse that, the president of the United States has to push for a constitutional amendment, or Congress has to pass a statute. But he’s not allowed to reverse what the bureaucracy did in the 1960s with an executive order. How insane is that?…
“I challenge you, all those who have a different view from me, in academia, practicing lawyers or former federal this or former that, I challenge you to show me the evidence in the 1860s that supports your position that birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Just give us one piece of evidence. I challenge you to show me any statutory authority where Congress intended and, in fact, affirmatively granted birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. And I challenge you to explain, in some kind of coherent way, how something that is done by the federal bureaucracy cannot be undone by the president directing the federal bureaucracy, which is what an executive order is.
“Now, if you’ll tell me he’d have a stronger case if it was a statute, he’s not going to get a statute, and I don’t understand why that’s a stronger case. If it’s your position that it’s enshrined in the Constitution, then nothing can change it but a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.”
-
I swear, if they make college free, I'm a'goin to go back to college and get a degree in law, and be a conservative civil rights attorney.
Let's see ...If all my classes would still transfer... I could have the first two years done already...then I could test out of a few American History classes....
probably been too many years now to still have those credits transfer.
crap. lol
-
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional.
And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist.
Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown.
You spew your ignorance, you don't put up legit points. "Trump is a dictator" is not a legitimate point...that right there puts YOU on the low road.
-
One post and knee jerks everywhere to defend the indefensible Liar King??. LOL!
You guys are so damn brainwashed by the "circus barker" (love the description cal-you should have stuck with it because he hasn't changed).?
-
One post and knee jerks everywhere to defend the indefensible Liar King??. LOL!
You guys are so damn brainwashed by the "circus barker" (love the description cal-you should have stuck with it because he hasn't changed).?
One post and knee jerks everywhere to defend the indefensible Liar King??. LOL!
You guys are so damn brainwashed by the "circus barker" (love the description cal-you should have stuck with it because he hasn't changed).?
And rather than answer a simple question about the issue you spew this nonsense again. So there's that.
WSS
-
He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like.
He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like.
Uh no Mr. Fair and Balanced, conservatives wont go running around wanting to change amendments just like the liberals. That is, and always has been exclusively a libtard thing. Good try but you know you weren't getting away with that one.
Fuck yeah I'd like it changed, but a Supreme Court ruling deeming it unconstitutional and you can call me disappointed. That's as far as it goes. The ruling must be accepted. Case closed.
-
He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like.
Uh no Mr. Fair and Balanced, conservatives wont go running around wanting to change amendments just like the liberals. That is, and always has been exclusively a libtard thing. Good try but you know you weren't getting away with that one.
Fuck yeah I'd like it changed, but a Supreme Court ruling deeming it unconstitutional and you can call me disappointed. That's as far as it goes. The ruling must be accepted. Case closed.
Uh no Mr. Fair and Balanced, conservatives wont go running around wanting to change amendments just like the liberals. That is, and always has been exclusively a libtard thing. Good try but you know you weren't getting away with that one.
Fuck yeah I'd like it changed, but a Supreme Court ruling deeming it unconstitutional and you can call me disappointed. That's as far as it goes. The ruling must be accepted. Case closed.
Not a peep of disagreement during the bumpstock saga from the NRA and mainstream conservatives. If anything they were making arguments for the ban. We know damn well there would hellfire and brimstone if Obama did the same thing. Zero principles when it comes to politics.
-
I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens?
I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens?
My sister born in Venezuela carried dual citizenship until age 21 when she had to make a choice (by the US anyway). Venezuela however would still recognize her birthright if she went back.
And rather than answer a simple question about the issue you spew this nonsense again. So there's that.
WSS
Sorry Steve with all the other garbage spewed out there I missed your question. My answer would be if they are illegally here, no. If they are legally here like with a Visa/passport for longer stays such as employees of a company, foreign government representatives, etc., then,like my sister in Venezuela, the answer is yes, just as it is in many other countries. I do not know if someone born here (or other countries) while the mother is on a vacation visit also gets that dual citizenship.
-
I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens?
My sister born in Venezuela carried dual citizenship until age 21 when she had to make a choice (by the US anyway). Venezuela however would still recognize her birthright if she went back.
And rather than answer a simple question about the issue you spew this nonsense again. So there's that.
WSS
Sorry Steve with all the other garbage spewed out there I missed your question. My answer would be if they are illegally here, no. If they are legally here like with a Visa/passport for longer stays such as employees of a company, foreign government representatives, etc., then,like my sister in Venezuela, the answer is yes, just as it is in many other countries. I do not know if someone born here (or other countries) while the mother is on a vacation visit also gets that dual citizenship.
Sorry Steve with all the other garbage spewed out there I missed your question. My answer would be if they are illegally here, no. If they are legally here like with a Visa/passport for longer stays such as employees of a company, foreign government representatives, etc., then,like my sister in Venezuela, the answer is yes, just as it is in many other countries. I do not know if someone born here (or other countries) while the mother is on a vacation visit also gets that dual citizenship.That's more garbage from Texsag, the leftwing manic hellraiser.
Birthright Citizenship Should End – It's a Magnet for Immigration Fraud ...
Feb 19, 2019 - Proponents of birthright citizenship often paint it as an issue involving ... Here's how the fraud worked: Chinese women were coached to apply ...Jan 31, 2019 - ... of aliens give birth in US to secure birthright citizenship for their children ... The indictments allege that many of the Chinese birth tourism customers failed ... All three are charged with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, ...Jan 31, 2019 - ... Chinese women to the U.S. in order to obtain birthright citizenship for ... immigration fraud, money laundering and identity theft, according to ...Jan 31, 2019 - ... Chinese women into the United States in order to secure birthright ... the schemes committed widespread immigration fraud and money ...Mar 6, 2019 - As part of a series on birthright citizenship, Marketplace's China ... deceiving U.S. immigration officials, which can be prosecuted as visa fraud.).Mar 7, 2019 - As part of a series on birthright citizenship, Marketplace's China ... visa fraud, defrauding landlords and other crimes stemming from the birth ...3 Arrested in Crackdown on Multimillion-Dollar 'Birth Tourism ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.htmlJan 31, 2019 - Some Chinese couples were charged as much as $100000 for a ... The indictments include an array of charges, including visa fraud, wire fraud and ... to propose repealing birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th ...Feb 7, 2019 - This phenomenon is hardly isolated to Chinese mothers coming to ... the facts on birthright citizenship and the birth tourism scam in particular, ...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login