ADVERTISEMENT

Trump plans to end birthright citizenship with an Executive Order

So, are we good with POTUS ending Constitutional protections via executive order?

Just wondering how that will go when a Dem takes away guns the same way. (And for those that are less thoughtful, no it won't stand in either case, and yes, it's the exact same thing)
 
I don't think EO's should be used to essentially make law, or to ignore existing laws.

That said, Trump is right about birthright tourism and chain migration. It's very prevalent with Asians, especially from China and India.

I suspect Trump knows there will be an immediate lawsuit, and he's actually inviting a lawsuit so this can be pushed through to the current SCOTUS. Trump may be making a mistake if he thinks Roberts will support him on this. Roberts is probably going to become the next swing vote in the mold of Kennedy.
 
I wonder if Don knows that under the broad array of rules and laws he's tweeted out since he became President that his grandfather, and his third wife wouldn't make the cut? That his son would be ticketed for life in the Balkans or Germany?
 
Trumptards are strict constitutionalists....

"Under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship is awarded to children born in the U.S., or in U.S. territories, to parents of immigrants to the country".

Fred Trump's parents were immigrants. Does this mean Trump will be voiding his own citizenship?

BTW, I kind of agree with him here
 
Fred Trump's parents were immigrants. Does this mean Trump will be voiding his own citizenship?

BTW, I kind of agree with him here

Why? What "damage" does it do to our country to give them citizenship?

We're in a situation where Social Security and Medicare are due to go belly up in the next decade because we have an aging population....we need as many tax paying citizens that we can get....why reduce that amount further.

I just don't see the problem that is in dire need of correction here.....
 
“Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”


Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship
 
“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,”

Trump has the best words, of course we're the only country where if someone comes here and has a baby they're a citizen of the United States. Why would any other country have a law that makes domestic birthed children citizens of the United States?

Also, I wasn't aware that citizenship expired after 85 years.
 
Why? What "damage" does it do to our country to give them citizenship?

We're in a situation where Social Security and Medicare are due to go belly up in the next decade because we have an aging population....we need as many tax paying citizens that we can get....why reduce that amount further.

I just don't see the problem that is in dire need of correction here.....

How will babies help that situation? They won't work for the next 16 years at least. I don't have a problem with people becoming US citizens if going through the proper channels. I'm just not sure that coming here and giving birth to U.S citizens is something I agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MGOHAWK2
I don't think the issue is quite as simple and clear as some people make it seem. The jurisdiction clause in the 14th Amendment is somewhat vague.

Trump is completely wrong, though, when he says that we're the only country in the world that recognizes birthright citizenship. It's really more of a western hemisphere vs eastern hemisphere thing. Most of North and South America recognize jus solis. Most of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia do not, except for some restricted forms of it.
 
So anyone going to step up and say they are good with this?

Because this to me looks like a president taking the very wording of the constitution and trying to erase it.

I mean this isn't even something that isn't really covered so that the POTUS is going ahead and interpreting it in the way that gives him the most power (which presidents have been doing for a long time now.) This is outright saying the explicit text of the constitution has no effect of law in this country.
 
How will babies help that situation? They won't work for the next 16 years at least. I don't have a problem with people becoming US citizens if going through the proper channels. I'm just not sure that coming here and giving birth to U.S citizens is something I agree with.

Kind of hit one of our problems on the head here....we don't do long term planning. The disparity between folks over 65 and working age folks get's worse and worse as the years go by....this will still be a problem 16 years from now.

Another problem is that along with this type stuff this admin wants to reduce and make harder LEGAL immigration.

I just got my wife of 26 years a Green Card....it's a long and expensive process. She was a slam dunk....2 kids...1 grown, both American citizens. Married to a citizen for 26 years and it still cost us over $1200 and reams of paperwork.

Just sayin...I don't think folks really realize how what it takes to legally immigrate to the U.S. Basically have to apply through 3 Government agencies....DHS, State Department and USCIS.
 
How would a person left at a hospital, it happens I’ve seen two in my career, prove they are a United States citizen?
 
Kind of hit one of our problems on the head here....we don't do long term planning. The disparity between folks over 65 and working age folks get's worse and worse as the years go by....this will still be a problem 16 years from now.

Another problem is that along with this type stuff this admin wants to reduce and make harder LEGAL immigration.

I just got my wife of 26 years a Green Card....it's a long and expensive process. She was a slam dunk....2 kids...1 grown, both American citizens. Married to a citizen for 26 years and it still cost us over $1200 and reams of paperwork.

Just sayin...I don't think folks really realize how what it takes to legally immigrate to the U.S. Basically have to apply through 3 Government agencies....DHS, State Department and USCIS.

Pic of wife holding green card?
 
So anyone going to step up and say they are good with this?

Because this to me looks like a president taking the very wording of the constitution and trying to erase it.

I mean this isn't even something that isn't really covered so that the POTUS is going ahead and interpreting it in the way that gives him the most power (which presidents have been doing for a long time now.) This is outright saying the explicit text of the constitution has no effect of law in this country.
I'm good with it. Trump isn't erasing the very wording of the Constitution. I think the jurisdiction clause needs a closer look. I would not have expected that this would be the means by which it happened, but if this triggers a SCOTUS review to settle the matter then so be it.

I find it odd that children born to foreign diplomats on American soil do not qualify for US citizenship even though their parents are here legally, but children born to a mother who illegally enters the US specifically for the purpose of giving birth are automatically and unquestionably granted US citizenship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWolf74 and Quix0te
Pic of wife holding green card?
dcknp.gif
 
I find Trump despicable, but I like this move, and that “jurisdiction” clause allows this move.
Legal or illegal, they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States if they're on US soil. The only people I can think of off-hand who wouldn't be subject to US law while on US soil would be those with diplomatic immunity. If they have children here, those children are not automatic US citizens per the Constitution. Interestingly, this isn't enforced and many receive US birth certificates and SS numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI and naturalmwa
Seems to me that subject to the jurisdiction thereof would mean that it is someone who is residing in the US as they are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.

Now if they choose to reside elsewhere then they can lose their citizenship.

But someone who was born here and resides here is subject to the jurisdiction of our laws and therefore remains a citizen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
I wasn't aware of the full language of that 14th Amendment. I'm sure somebody will flip out their full language of the 2nd Amendment soon enough... but sigh, as to the subject at hand:

If you're not here legally then your kids that happen to be born here aren't US citizens. That seems fair to me. Not only that, it seems smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quix0te
“Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”


Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship

Leave it to Tucker Carlson to have a “national security adviser” doing a constitutional analysis.
 
I wasn't aware of the full language of that 14th Amendment. I'm sure somebody will flip out their full language of the 2nd Amendment soon enough... but sigh, as to the subject at hand:

If you're not here legally then your kids that happen to be born here aren't US citizens. That seems fair to me. Not only that, it seems smart.

What about people who aren't citizens but are here legally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: millah_22
So how does this play out if we change the law? If you are born here and grow up here, you could be deported when you are 40 years old to a country you have never been, potentially have no family, and may not speak the native language?
 
Is an illegal not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws while on US soil?
Lower level consular employees (eg, support staff) have functional immunity rather than full diplomatic immunity. This means they are subject to the jurisdiction of our government for crimes committed while not conducting official business. Yet their children are not guaranteed automatic birthright citizenship.

I think there needs to be a clear distinction that children born to a mother who is here legally for whatever reason - vacation, school, etc - are eligible for jus solis, while children born to a mother who is here illegally are not automatically eligible. I see no reason why we should incentivize illegal activity.
 
So how does this play out if we change the law? If you are born here and grow up here, you could be deported when you are 40 years old to a country you have never been, potentially have no family, and may not speak the native language?

That’s the goal.
 
Lower level consular employees (eg, support staff) have functional immunity rather than full diplomatic immunity. This means they are subject to the jurisdiction of our government for crimes committed while not conducting official business. Yet their children are not guaranteed automatic birthright citizenship.

I think there needs to be a clear distinction that children born to a mother who is here legally for whatever reason - vacation, school, etc - are eligible for jus solis, while children born to a mother who is here illegally are not automatically eligible. I see no reason why we should incentivize illegal activity.

This seems reasonable to me. We'll still get some birth place tourism but it'll be people who at least can afford it and what's wrong with a few more Americans?

Edit: every female migrant worker who comes on a temp visa will surely finely plan their pregnancies.
 
ADVERTISEMENT