Stopping birth right citizenship

Is it really possible?

I'm not sure if an executive order can really make this happen.

What do you think?

Anyone?

Comments (109)


Probably not enough,but with the Democrat-mania for suing,it would probably end up at SCOTUS,possibly fast-tracked!
I'm not quite sure it is even possible. The purpose is clearly in line with discouraging illegals to acquire citizenship by birth but it'd be interesting how it will get done.


don't the parents have to be citizens first for the child to be a citizen also?
"Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
By EDWARD J. ERLER"

Powerful arguments C.
Reading from the same article that we can't prosecute crimes committed by illegal immigrants is so wrong.

Then we can just kill them because they're illegal?

Or let them kill us, because it's right for them to do as they can't be accountable with our own laws?

What a mind boggling logic.
Its not possible. Trump cant change the 14th Amendment of the constitution with the stroke of a pen. and if he could, I'm sure the gun lovers would LOVE the thought of a future Democratic President nixing the 2nd Amendment by the same method. If you are willing to have that then make hay.

Also, the Supreme court case Wong Kim Ark is very clear that everyone born on the soil of the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of Diplomats and so forth. The principle goes back to 1612 and Calvin's Case in England. The Birthers tried to argue thats not what it ACTUALLY meant and failed, as the dissent talked about the consequences of the child of Chinese non citizen immigrants being eligible for the Presidency.

But really, this is just red meat for the base. Trump has lost control of the media Narritive, and the Caravan shit is playing out very badly. He has dropped 4 points in the last week, and the Stockmarket is falling very badly at the moment. This is really an attempt to get the attention back onto his face and to push his opponents back into bieng reactive to the most important thing in the universe, HIM!!!
I'm not looking from the same perspective as you. He's not making himself anymore important as those that affect our country. But hey your opinion is just as valid as anyone.

For me? And I'm sure most of us that support him know that he's doing anything he can to stand by his promise of MAGA. You and the rest of those that hate him, well, say anything to discredit his performance as a good president, that's your position and so be it.
AmpleCurves
This is the only country that grants birthright citizenship. That needs to stop NOW. scold
No, the USA is NOT the only country that grants Birthright citizenship. That is a bald faced lie by a bald faced liar. This link shows 12 other countries that have it.



Nor is it anywhere close to the only country that grants unrestricted Jus Soli or birth on soil citizenship.





See the dark blue? That's unrestricted Just Soli citizenship countries.

Anyway lets look at what Trump said

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

He does not even know what birthright citizenship is, so he obviously didnt discuss this with anyone, not even "they."

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

Bullshit, and alyy laywer that said that would be laughted out of court.. He cant change the constitution with an executive order. Unless you want the bill of rights yanked on the whim of any President. This is completly unconstitutional, but its a republican so you don't care.

When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

See the way he blames everyone else? No you cant amend the constitution with an act of congress either, despite Trump saying you can "definatly" do it. But he is doing the liars trap of putting in another lie as the baseline so people ahve to fight 2 lies at the same time.

Thats unconstitutional, but no-one cares becasue its not a Democrat.

"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," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

Lie upon lie upon lie upon lie.

"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order.

Lol. first he said that npo-one knew it but him and then he says the process is already underway. Its fractal lying at this point.
What amp said thumbs up
Yes. And Yes.

Must the 14th Amendment be repealed?
It hinges on the clause regarding jurisdiction.

If it's taken to mean that a citizen of another country is subject to that country's jurisdiction, the person may not be automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship simply by being born within the borders of the U.S.

As with many aspects of the Constitution, opinions may vary.
A ruling on the clause might settle the matter.

Given the conservative and textual leaning of SCOTUS, it might be anticipated that the clause would be ruled to limit 'Birthright Citizenship'.

The Roberts Court, however, has, at least until recently, been notably unpredictable.
The addition of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may change that.

cowboy
seaworthy
The problem is that it was originally meant to deal with slaves. The migrant issue has not been dealt with by the SCOTUS and an Executive Order can be implemented then followed with an injunction and then sent to the Republican (:)) SCOTUS to ultimately decide......this will circle around Congress and the States.....clever move......almost like when Obama sent 1.7 billion to Iran bypassing Congress....
Opinions may also change with political winds...

Ryan Saavedra
Twitter › RealSaavedra
Media posted by Ryan Saavedra
Democrat Senator Harry Reid in 1993: "No Sane Country" Would Permit Birthright Citizenship

cowboy
Mic, I concur.
miclee The issue is NOT whether the micrant is subject to the laws of another country. Otherwise Cuba could render everyone ineligible by declaring everyone in the US a citizen of Cuba, and subject to their laws. Or Iran could. There are people that right now have dual citizenship without even realising it. Spiro Agnew was a Dual citizen of Greece, but was eligible for the Presidency, for example.

The real point is whether the person is Subject to US Law. If he/she is, then his kids are US citizens. Thats it. As Calvins case said "The Frenchman in Amity with the King ows the Kind his alliegence, and that Allegence is enough to make his issie a Natural Born Subject." And before you say it, Subject and Citizen are the same thing.

seaworthy

Actrually SCOTUS Has dealt with this. Wonk Kim Ark was the son of Chinese migrants who were not US Citizens, as the Chinese Emporer regarded every Chinaman as a Subject of the Chinese Empire. SO they were citizens of another country and Migrants, but becasue they were subject to US law that mede their children full citizens of the USA. Wong Kim Ark was born in 1973, so it was after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

It is absolutely designed to deal with Migrants. Read about it yourself

"The problem is that it was originally meant to deal with slaves."

Right you are, sea.
Specifically, to address the status of former slaves and their descendants in the aftermath of the Civil War.

It should've had a a sunset clause, IMO... pertaining to those born prior to the adoption of the amendment, for instance.

cowboy
seaworthy
These are the words from the 14th amendment that will be litigated in the SCOTUS..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,".......SCOTUS has never ruled on this...
MicLee, if it was just to deal with slaves, why did the debates in the Senate about the 14th amendment talk about the status of Native Americans, for example?

How can people talk so confidently about something while knowing so little about it? I cant claim to be an expert on this but Jeez.

You can read the debates yourself here.

The birthright of citizenship is not the issue whether it's valid or not. Of course it is. It has always been enacted as provided for.

My blog is about, "can it really be stopped by an executive order?"
It may be presumed those arguments - and others - will be presented to SCOTUS at some point, T.

The opinions of five of the Justices will be the ones that count.

cowboy
It isn't a question as to how it got started or adopted.

It's whether it can be stopped.
With due respect, your arguments T are irrelevant.
"seaworthy•just now•Oranjestad, Aruba
These are the words from the 14th amendment that will be litigated in the SCOTUS..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,".......SCOTUS has never ruled on this..."

Seaworthy, I've given you the case where they did. Here's a part of what Wong says...

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

124 U.S. 478.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave's Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:

The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.


They did
no better way to get it back to SCOTUS than for Trump to sign an EO!laugh
If an executive order by the president can make it stopped, there's got to be a legal reason that will make it possible. Without a d.c. doubt, there'll be arguments on both sides and that's what I am interested to know.

What are those arguments that can change this law.
C, is there enough power if the president that can stop this?
"miclee The opinions of five of the Justices will be the ones that count."

If you think that Alito, "Mr Original Intent," will rule against what the founders said in black and white and 400 years of case law, then you are out of your mind. And he certainly will NOT vote to give the president the power to rewrite the US constitution.

Lindsayjones - Firstly, all my arguments are settled law of the United states. And I have backed up everything I said. If you want to allow people to argue that the laww says one thing becasue you like what they are saying, then you have to allow someone else with a bit of knowledge to point out they are talking BS.

Secondly, No, the President of the USA cannot change the US constitution with an executive Order. The fact that you are even thinking this is a valid question shows that the word "unconstitutional" means pretty much nothing to you now.

Its written in the constitution that it can only be changed by the amendment process.
T is all over the place with his Bull!
With a Suit against an EO,SCOTUS will have to re-visit the Case again!
There weren't any problems with Anchor-Babies in the 19th Century when they first adjudicated the Case,but,thanks to the Democrats,there are now,and it has to be settled once and for all!
400 years of Case-law?
WTF?
USofA isn't old enough for that!rolling on the floor laughing
"no better way to get it back to SCOTUS than for Trump to sign an EO! laugh "
Yeah. That would do it.

His EO has also spurred action in the Legislative Branch.
This from 7 hours ago...


cowboy
"Its written in the constitution that it can only be changed by the amendment process."
So when can an executive order over ride that?
C I already said, his arguments are irrelevant.
seaworthy
As I previously stated "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," will be the legal issue.

"the original intent of the phrase was to separate out those with "allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," which he reads as excluding the children of illegal aliens." this was stated by a Pennsylvania Senator

Trump will win this in the SCOTUS.....
"will rule against what the founders said in black and white and 400 years of case law, then you are out of your mind. And he certainly will NOT vote to give the president the power to rewrite the US constitution."

T, our country of The US of A, is not even close to your number. 1776.
confused
seaworthy
Ms lindsyjones, it's just a legal maneuver to get the SCOTUS to place a ruling on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,", which they never have....
"So when can an executive order over ride that?"

It cant



Contrary to certain internet rumors, President Donald Trump hasn't altered the U.S. Constitution. Yet. But could he if he wanted to?

Trump has proposed constitutional amendments in the past and it's no secret that there are provisions in our nation's founding documents with which our new president disagrees. So the question with President Trump is not so much whether he would like to change the Constitution, but whether he can.

By Himself

No president can unilaterally alter, rewrite, or amend the Constitution. What presidents, as the head of the executive branch, are able to do is direct how laws pertaining to constitutional rights are to be enforced, via executive orders. For example, former President Barack Obama couldn't rewrite the Second Amendment, but he could take executive action on firearm licensing requirements and background checks for gun purchases.

Yet even executive orders have constitutional limits, as President Trump has learned. Presidents, and the executive branch, must still comply with the Constitution, and therefore can't change it by themselves.

Through Congress

Right now Republicans control both the House and the Senate, so Trump could pressure Congress to propose and pass constitutional amendments. But even that isn't a slam dunk. Trump would need two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment. And even with the largest Republican majority since the 1930s (54 out of 100 Senators and 247 out of 435 Representatives), the GOP still probably lacks the numbers to push a constitutional amendment through.

Even if Congress approved an amendment, 75 percent of the states would need to ratify it. Trump won 30 of the 50 states in the 2016 election, or 60 percent.
"seaworthy•4 mins ago•Oranjestad, Aruba
As I previously stated "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," will be the legal issue.

"the original intent of the phrase was to separate out those with "allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," which he reads as excluding the children of illegal aliens." this was stated by a Pennsylvania Senator

Trump will win this in the SCOTUS....."

Ok> I'm glad you think that I, as a non US citicitizen, cancome over to your country, Murder you, steal everything you own, rape your wofe, and go home scot free.

What that, you think the police will arest me? But you just said that I'm not subject to US laws and Juristiction, so you think that all those laws dont apply to me.

Thast what subject to the Juristiction means, you nitwit.
"lindsyjonesOP•5 mins ago•unknown, California USA
T, our country of The US of A, is not even close to your number. 1776. "

Sigh

Because all English court cases are still in force in your country until overridden by new laws and new cases. It was the same in Ireland, its the same in Kenya, and it sure as hell is the same in the USA. That's why Wong Kim Ark reffered to ENGLISH CASES done before independance in the peice I quoted above.

So English Precedent still applies in the case of Jus Soli Citizenship That's0 400 years. Actually 500 but f*ck whose counting when you want to give a fat egomaniac total power to rewrite the constitution to his whim.
Poor T,talking through his Hat!laugh
I don't think its a question of originality T. Our constitution is unique and while its influenced by the English mentality, its conceived and thought of independently for the new world
"Ms lindsyjones, it's just a legal maneuver to get the SCOTUS to place a ruling on 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,', which they never have...."

That was my take on it when first heard about it, sea...
Do something that will get a SCOTUS ruling on it.

He's also got Legislative action started on it....


cowboy

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles?

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »

 
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here