Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order

[TSA]

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

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.

[TSA]

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



Never said I was. I am fine with it.

You lie.

You always lie.
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.

I don’t lie. I may have misunderstood your stance.

Do you want the SCOTUS to take up birthright citizenship? Yes or no.

[spurraider21]

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.

It has been clarified. See post 169.

the supreme court said "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"

I would say "no need for an executive order" but it would be completely improper/illegal to use an executive order to adjust cons utional interpretation to begin with.

[Pavlov]

I don’t lie. I may have misunderstood your stance.

Do you want the SCOTUS to take up birthright citizenship? Yes or no.

If it comes up in an actual case, sure. Not sure it even gets that far.

[Spurs Homer]

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

So much for the right wing "interpret the cons ution as written" part of their propaganda!

[boutons_deux]

So much for the right wing "interpret the cons ution as written" part of their propaganda!

the SCOTUS s are hard care originalists, textualists, Cons ution as dead do ent, only when it suits their extreme right-wing politics.

they abandon all that when necessary to rule for extreme right wing politics.

iow, they don't give a about the Cons ution, only care about ruling politically for hard right wing conservatism.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's going to be interesting. Trump does the executive order. Obviously it immediately gets challenged in court. Fast track to the supreme court. Hmmmm.

[Millennial_Messiah]

It's going to be interesting. Trump does the executive order. Obviously it immediately gets challenged in court. Fast track to the supreme court. Hmmmm.

That's one Kennedy would have quite possibly overturned but Kavanaugh won't.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reason and how the court interprets it will decide which way they go. Until the 60s it had always been interpreted to exclude illegal aliens.

[Pavlov]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reason

What reason was that?

They could've just said something more like "no illegal aliens."

It is great how all you folk who say you don't like Trump adopt every single position he ever takes.

[CosmicCowboy]

What reason was that?

They could've just said something more like "no illegal aliens."

It is great how all you folk who say you don't like Trump adopt every single position he ever takes.

Supporting legal immigration and reform of our dysfunctional immigration system is not just a Trump issue, wad.

[Pavlov]

Supporting legal immigration and reform of our immigration system is not just a Trump issue, wad.

Lots of people want those things, but you adopted Trump's 14th amendment opinion when he told you to.


" wad"

[FrostKing]

What a loser. Cares for his citizenship. Cares for his grandchildren. Terrible person

[FrostKing]

Lots of people want those things, but you adopted Trump's 14th amendment opinion when he told you to.


" wad"

[ElNono]

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

There really is not. Especially in light of SCOTUS precedent on the matter.

[ElNono]

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.

As Spursraider has mentioned, that point has been already clarified by the SCOTUS. What Executive is looking for is changing that clarification, IOW, the statute itself. That should require a Cons utional amendment.

[ElNono]

This is like re-litigating er in a loop until the outcome is 2nd Amendment bad. It's simply wishful thinking, barring a Cons utional Amendment.

But you do have to give Trump credit, he know how to play to the emotions of idiots and the ignorant.

[baseline bum]

What a loser. Cares for his citizenship. Cares for his grandchildren. Terrible person

Doesn't care his kids are also anchor babies

[boutons_deux]

We have already seen that the oligarchy's SCOTUS s respect no stare decisis (C-U), will not be bound by precedents, in ruling in favor of the oligarchy.

With K, the right-wing-politician-packed SCOTUS is now a total farce.

The entire Federal judiciary is being packed with extreme-right-wing-politicians-in-robes as the oligarchy intensifies its coup d'etat.

The oligarchy has realized that winning in court before its very own unelected judges for life is much more efficient, reliable than messy, unreliable legislation.

If Trash's 14th Amendment campaign stunt continues after the election and up to SCOTUS, I expect he'll win 5-4.

[Winehole23]

Doesn't care his kids are also anchor babies

doesn't count, they're white.

we call those native born citizens.

[spurraider21]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reason and how the court interprets it will decide which way they go. Until the 60s it had always been interpreted to exclude illegal aliens.

subject to the jurisdiction thereof means subject to the laws of the US. it excluded people like diplomats (diplomitic immunity), foreigners born under hostile occupation, and at the time, native americans born on reservations (as they were treated as quasi foreign countries)

[Chucho]

doesn't count, they're white.

we call those native born citizens.

Would be hilarious if Nathan was a filthy mick or a dirty Eastern Euro trash descendant- one of the inferior white nationalities that were second class white folk when they immigrated here. I'd bet dollars to pesos Nathan doesn't have a full, if any, handle on his ancestry.

[Winehole23]

claims some Hispanic ancestry, says he's "officially" non-white. perhaps he's a Sephardic Jew.

[Chucho]

claims some Hispanic ancestry, says he's "officially" non-white. perhaps he's a Sephardic Jew.

But is soooo pro-white. Makes no sense.

[Winehole23]

But is soooo pro-white. Makes no sense.

Reminds me of talking to the Objectivists on the West Mall at UT back in the 1980s. there was a non-white guy -- he was pretty much the main guy at the table, day after day -- who had had a big burr in his saddle about anti-racism. It offended his sense of individuality.

There are also a lot of people who think the declaration of the end of legal segregation effectively abolished racism and removed any grounds for complaining about racism. Nathan seems like one of these guys who thinks that anti-racism is the only extant form of racism.

Ergo, anyone who complains about racism besides white people, is a charlatan ipso facto.