Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Oct '18 18:36
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executive order that would nullify the long-accepted constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States, his latest attention-grabbing maneuver days before midterm congressional elections as he has sought to activate his base by vowing to clamp down on immigrants and immigration.

    “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 for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump told Axios during an interview that was released in part on Tuesday, making a false claim. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

    In fact, at least 30 other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html?module=inline

    Of course, the SCOTUS explicitly declared 120 years ago that a child born in the US of foreign parents was a citizen (except if the parents were employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the authority of a foreign government): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

    That decision was based on the statements of those who ratified the Amendment and numerous prior court decisions interpreting it (read the link above).

    But hey there's an election to be won and little things like the Constitution shouldn't get in the way of the Republicans' strategy of dog whistle white nationalism. Personally, I doubt the Donald is doing anything but blowing hot air, but who knows? I'm sure some "legal experts" will show up on Fox and Friends to explain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Oct '18 18:402 edits
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    It's about time this question is settled, don't you think, instead of ignoring it's Constitutionality, like they do laws on immigration.
  3. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23116
    30 Oct '18 18:43
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    Very little politically surprises me any more. With a conservative majority on the SCOTUS, maybe his edict will be supported. If both houses remain red, I would not be a bit surprised if there is some sort of event orchestrated by Trump that will give Congress an excuse to cancel the 2020 presidential election as it will be deemed too dangerous to have a new administration in the Oval Office. some might call it a coup.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Oct '18 18:45
    @whodey said
    It's about time this question is settled, don't you think, instead of ignoring it's Constitutionality, like they do laws on immigration.
    A) What about that express language is unclear to you?

    B) Even if there was some serious Constitutional doubt (which there is not), the appropriate way to test the provision is by legislation passed by Congress, not dictatorial proclamations.
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56281
    30 Oct '18 19:20
    @whodey said
    It's about time this question is settled, don't you think, instead of ignoring it's Constitutionality, like they do laws on immigration.
    What the hell is a nationality if it isn’t the bloody country you’re born in?
  6. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2415
    30 Oct '18 19:27
    @shavixmir said
    What the hell is a nationality if it isn’t the bloody country you’re born in?
    Not all countries grant citizenship to those born in a certain place. Some countries grant citizenship based on the nationality of one or more of the parents, no matter where the babe comes down the chute.
  7. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2415
    30 Oct '18 19:291 edit
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    Maybe the Donald should start by looking at the birthplace of the FLOTUS. The country where she was born doesn't even exist any more.
  8. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    30 Oct '18 19:32
    @no1marauder said
    “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.”

    14th Amendment , US Constitution

    Not good enough for King Donald the First; he plans an Executive Order to alter this Constitutional edict:

    President Trump said he was preparing an executiv ...[text shortened]... xplain to the whodeys and motts of the world that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
    How does that case resolve the dispute over the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Oct '18 19:361 edit
    @sleepyguy said
    How does that case resolve the dispute over the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
    What "dispute"? Is this unclear:

    The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

    The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]
  10. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    30 Oct '18 19:39
    @no1marauder said
    What "dispute"?
    https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/defining-citizens-congress-citizenship-and-the-meaning-the-fourteenth
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Oct '18 19:462 edits
    @sleepyguy said
    https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/defining-citizens-congress-citizenship-and-the-meaning-the-fourteenth
    Such arguments are inconsistent with the clear wording of the Constitution, the history of the Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. Here's conservative judge James C. Ho (nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by ................................. Donald Trump) rebuttal to such arguments written in 2006: https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

    And note even your cited article makes no claim that a President can alter the definition of citizenship by executive order:

    Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States.


    A long line of SCOTUS cases have taken birthright citizenship for granted based on Wong Kim Ark. Here's one:

    Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/
  12. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35841
    30 Oct '18 19:49
    @phranny said
    Very little politically surprises me any more. With a conservative majority on the SCOTUS, maybe his edict will be supported. If both houses remain red, I would not be a bit surprised if there is some sort of event orchestrated by Trump that will give Congress an excuse to cancel the 2020 presidential election as it will be deemed too dangerous to have a new administration in the Oval Office. some might call it a coup.
    The coup was in 2016.
  13. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Oct '18 19:51
    Cheeto Benito is clearly pandering to his racist voter base. It worked as a strategy in 2016 and will no doubt get the GOP a fair amount of votes again in the midterms.
  14. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    30 Oct '18 19:53
    @no1marauder said
    Such arguments are inconsistent with the clear wording of the Constitution, the history of the Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. Here's conservative judge James C. Ho (nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by ................................. Donald Trump) rebuttal to such arguments written in 2006: https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/public ...[text shortened]... to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States.
    It was really just a question. Asked and answered. Thanks.

    I made zero argument about whether Trump could do this by executive order. IMO he's trying to excite his base voters for the election, and perhaps trying to move the Overton Window on this issue for future use in getting the wall. Something like "fund the wall and I'll let you keep birth right citizenship, which I could evaporate with my fully functional conservative leaning SCOTUS death star."
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Oct '18 19:58
    @sleepyguy said
    It was really just a question. Asked and answered. Thanks.

    I made zero argument about whether Trump could do this by executive order. IMO he's trying to excite his base voters for the election, and perhaps trying to move the Overton Window on this issue for future use in getting the wall. Something like "fund the wall and I'll let you keep birth right citizenship, which I could evaporate with my fully functional conservative leaning SCOTUS death star."
    Trump could have already had funding for his wall if he and the House had agreed to DACA reform (which he previously said he favored); a bill making that compromise got a majority of votes in the Senate. But he decided to throw in a bunch of restrictions on legal immigration to pander to his white nationalist base killing the deal.
Back to Top