Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order

[Blake]

Lol dmc rant

[spurraider21]

Lol dmc rant

he's doing a My Cousin Vinny thingy

i approve tbh

[Th'Pusher]

he's doing a My Cousin Vinny thingy

i approve tbh

He dissembles when you catch him being pedantic.

Anybody who spends as much time in the political forum who takes [something itt] bad now literally is an intractable pedant.

Stranger’s words matter on an obscure small market NBA team’s political forum counselor!

[Nathan89]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

[Isitjustme?]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

thats a pretty cool argument..where'd you copy and paste that from?

[Blake]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

Who's asking for universal basic income? You?

[Will Hunting]

Who's asking for universal basic income? You?

He was a Bernie supporter so maybe

[AaronY]

He was a Bernie supporter so maybe

Bernie to Trump never gets old

[AaronY]

He was gonna go for Bernie..


..then he decided to go for Trump instead

lololol

[Reck]

She would've known. they were best pals back in the day.

[Will Hunting]

He was gonna go for Bernie..


..then he decided to go for Trump instead

lololol

[TSA]

trump trying to discuss cons utional law...

subject to the jurisdiction thereof basically means they're subject to US law. the main exceptions would be native americans on reservations, or foreign nationals with diplomatic immunity. SCOTUS in that ruling also pointed out people in hostile occupation. none of these remotely apply to children of illegal immigrants.

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a cons utional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Cons ution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the cons utional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a cons utional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people en led to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Cons ution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Cons ution again. Then it can do its cons utional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cas...hip-1541025425

[Pavlov]

TSA also going full nativist as ordered.

[TSA]

TSA also going full nativist as ordered.

Just presenting a differing view from the meaning put forth in the Cons ution. Excellent rebuttal by the way.

[Pavlov]

Just presenting a differing view from the meaning put forth in the Cons ution. Excellent rebuttal by the way.

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign do ents stating their allegiances upon birth?

[Blake]

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a cons utional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Cons ution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the cons utional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a cons utional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people en led to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Cons ution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Cons ution again. Then it can do its cons utional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cas...hip-1541025425

Lol Matthew Spalding

He sounds like a southern Baptist preacher trying to justify the old testament

[TSA]

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign do ents stating their allegiances upon birth?

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

“Even when the justices expanded the cons utional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.”

Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

[Pavlov]

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

“Even when the justices expanded the cons utional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.”

Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

Just going by your op-ed

According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Questions pending:

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign do ents stating their allegiances upon birth?

This is the legal argument you have to make to have the courts rule on this.

[spurraider21]

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a cons utional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Cons ution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the cons utional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a cons utional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people en led to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Cons ution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Cons ution again. Then it can do its cons utional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cas...hip-1541025425

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used.

He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

[TSA]

Just going by your op-ed

According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Questions pending:

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign do ents stating their allegiances upon birth?

This is the legal argument you have to make to have the courts rule on this.

”This [citizenship guarantee] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” -Senator Jacob Howard

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” - Senator Jacob Howard

“Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States en led everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” - Senator Reverdy Johnson

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Cons ution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Cons ution itself, a natural born citizen.” - Representative John Bingham “the father of the 14th”



Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

[spurraider21]

those were debates held at the time. winehole even posted the link to transcripts on page 1. Jacob Howard was one one extreme. There was plenty of disagreement, and yet they didnt choose to amend the language to make those purported exclusions clear

[TSA]

those were debates held at the time. winehole even posted the link to transcripts on page 1. Jacob Howard was one one extreme. There was plenty of disagreement, and yet they didnt choose to amend the language to make those purported exclusions clear

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.

[spurraider21]

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.

no you cant change cons utional interpretation via statute. you can change statutory interpretation by amending or replacing a statute. that's different.

and see post 169 re: SCOTUS

[Pavlov]

”This [citizenship guarantee] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” -Senator Jacob Howard

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” - Senator Jacob Howard

“Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States en led everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” - Senator Reverdy Johnson

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Cons ution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Cons ution itself, a natural born citizen.” - Representative John Bingham “the father of the 14th”

Too bad they didn't put that actual language in the amendment.

Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?

Never said I was. I am fine with it.

You lie.

You always lie.

Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

they are free to introduce amendments at any time. I am not against that.

You always lie.

Always.

Why do you always lie, TSA?

Please answer for once.

[Pavlov]

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.

Because that's not how congress works.

Why you keep lying about SCOTUS is your problem.