Posted on Oct 30, 2018
Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
1.74K
40
58
0
0
0
Some issues here:
1. Can a President - any President - change the Constitution via Executive Order?
2. Should we continue to consider babies born in the US to be natural born citizens, regardless of their parentage?
3. Is this a distraction from something else?
1. Can a President - any President - change the Constitution via Executive Order?
2. Should we continue to consider babies born in the US to be natural born citizens, regardless of their parentage?
3. Is this a distraction from something else?
Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
Posted from axios.com
Immigration
Donald Trump
Constitution
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 11
2
2
0
2
2
0
I have good friends who believe the Constitution did not mean that just any child who happened to be born in the US is a citizen. I disagree, but it hasn't been tested in the courts (it will be). On the other hand, if Obama had signed an EO that said the Constitution didn't mean ALL guns or ALL people can arm themselves, they would have a fit. I think we justify what we think can be solved with an EO based on our political leanings, and I don't want to do that. So I'm going to do some research that one of my R friends gave me on this from a class he took. I do think it's all about fear, and it's going to ratchet up the anger and hate.
(2)
(0)
SGT Anna Kleinschmidt
It has Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark 1898 born to 2 Chinese nationals. The court upheld that the concept of citizenship based on birth excluding foreign ruler, dignitaries, those born on foreign public ships and occupying hostile forces. There were the only exceptions that were applied to the ruling. Trump was also incorrect in the statement about the US being the only country that allows birthright citizenship. Many countries allow it Canada and Mexico are 2 of them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
IMV, the answer to your fundamental question is "No but …"
As an example, eligibility to become a U.S. president hinges on, among other things, being a "natural born" citizen of the U.S.. The Constitution says so … but the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen." Congress has defined it in several different ways over the years. Similarly, there is no definition in the Constitution (or the 14th Amendment specifically) of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" … and were Trump to direct a more rigorous definition of that that, say, excluded illegal aliens and/or citizens of other countries here on a visa, as long as the SCOTUS upheld it, the Constitution would remain unchanged although the interpretation of it would be modified.
As an example, eligibility to become a U.S. president hinges on, among other things, being a "natural born" citizen of the U.S.. The Constitution says so … but the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen." Congress has defined it in several different ways over the years. Similarly, there is no definition in the Constitution (or the 14th Amendment specifically) of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" … and were Trump to direct a more rigorous definition of that that, say, excluded illegal aliens and/or citizens of other countries here on a visa, as long as the SCOTUS upheld it, the Constitution would remain unchanged although the interpretation of it would be modified.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
As Bill Clinton taught us, it all depends on the definition … in this case, of jurisdiction within the context of the 14th Amendment. Take the term "immigrant" … in the federal lexicon, there is no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant." Those and similar terms are inventions of the ignorant or willfully misleading media and others that attempt to conflate those here legally with those that are not. An immigrant, by federal definition, is present in our country … legally. My point being that if one defines those "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. as being a set of people that excludes those illegally in our country and their offspring and those visiting our country and their offspring … you eliminate birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens as well as pregnant Chinese women that come here to foal and return to China, among others. How that would stand up in court, particularly the SCOTUS, is something else again … but the odds of it surviving are better today than they were a couple of weeks ago.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) - I ran across this a few minutes ago … and it tends to support my previous response to you. Thanks for the exchange. I don't pretend to know what the outcome will be … but I can see one of the ways it will be argued.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional
Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional
The president has the authority to end birthright citizenship, as he says he wants to do.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) The article makes a compelling argument. I'd actually like to see it raises to the SCOTUS for resolution.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) - Likewise (raised to SCOTUS). IMV, the only ones the 14th is serving now are illegal aliens and women that come here pregnant to foal, establish birthright citizenship for the kid, and return to their country of origin.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google