Trump plans to end birthright citizenship with an Executive Order

[joelbc1]

According to CBS and Politifact, even though my President says the US is the “only country in the world” that offers birthright citizenship, there are in fact 33 nations in the world that do.
He plans to make this happen by Execurive Order.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

“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

trump owes allegiance to russia and saudi arabia and probably other places so let's get him out of here. Maybe his cultists will follow, which just might save democracy.

 

[pablow]

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.

If "subject to the jurisdiction" means merely being present on US soil, why would that language even be included in the amendment?

 

[TJ8869]

He plans to make this happen by Execurive Order.

There’s no need to mock the Japanese here.

 

[Pepperman]

What about people who aren't citizens but are here legally?

I don't know exactly where one draws that line. I suppose you could say that if a Chinese woman who is 9 months pregnant hops on a flight to SFO and legally enters the country on a tourist visa, and then gives birth while "touring" San Francisco's health care setups, she was in fact here legally. But to me, that's not how citizenship should be handed out - even though, that little Asian kid is probably going to be productive, accumulate wealth, and vote R someday.

 

[SoFla-Hawkeye]

The number of children born to unauthorized immigrants continues to decline while the number born to authorized immigrants in on the increase. Many of whom come, spit out a kid, and go home with an American kid. Illegal immigration isn't the only issue we need to be addressing. It is just easier to show a caravan of people on TV than it is to show a pregnant woman at JFK or LAX.

 

[TJ8869]

Wouldn't this mean Melania would have to go?

Yes, that’s exactly what it means to people who don’t understand there is more than one way to become a US citizen.

 

[Joes Place]

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.

No. It's not. Citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants are all under US "jurisdiction" when in the United States.

If illegals were not under US jurisdiction, we could not jail and deport them.

Unless that's what people are going for here...

 

[ThorneStockton]

I don't know exactly where one draws that line. I suppose you could say that if a Chinese woman who is 9 months pregnant hops on a flight to SFO and legally enters the country on a tourist visa, and then gives birth while "touring" San Francisco's health care setups, she was in fact here legally. But to me, that's not how citizenship should be handed out - even though, that little Asian kid is probably going to be productive, accumulate wealth, and vote R someday.

Legal seems like a decent compromise to me, although still subject to abuse. But certainly less than now and I'm not sure we're really over populated.

 

[naturalmwa]

This is just more racism. Hate is all the GOP has.

 

[Legend12]

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.

When did you start the process? How long did it take from start to finish? What country is she from?

Thanks for the answers, and if you don't want to answer them, I understand. It's always nice to get some first hand knowledge of the process being discussed.

 

[naturalmwa]

“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

Criminals are still subject to the laws.

 

[pablow]

No. It's not. Citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants are all under US "jurisdiction" when in the United States.

If illegals were not under US jurisdiction, we could not jail and deport them.

Unless that's what people are going for here...

If all persons present in the US were "subject to [US} jurisdiction" why was this language included in th 14th amendment as a further requirement to "born in the US." Makes no sense.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

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.

Do you need a good immigration lawyer? I know two in Omaha.

 

[Joes Place]

If all persons present in the US were "subject to [US} jurisdiction" why was this language included in th 14th amendment as a further requirement to "born in the US." Makes no sense.

Why do we have "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment, when we place almost no regulations on firearms owners? And any attempt to put "regulations" up, is met with unending attacks?

 

[pablow]

Criminals are still subject to the laws.

There is a lot of historical support that "subject to the jurisdiction" means not owing allegience to a foreign government.

 

[Joes Place]

If all persons present in the US were "subject to [US} jurisdiction" why was this language included in th 14th amendment as a further requirement to "born in the US." Makes no sense.

John McCain is the answer here.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Yes, I know that Obama used EO's.

It's troubling to me that a POTUS (any POTUS) has this much power. Immigration, tariffs - what do we need a Congress for anyway?

 

[naturalmwa]

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.

Those diplomats are the people that jurisdiction clause applies to.

 

[Quix0te]

I did. See near above.

Me too. It is long overdue.

 

[Quix0te]

Yes they are but they where not BORN on US soil.

The amendment requires both things. Being born on US soil and being subject to our laws.

Did you question Obama's EOs about the DREAMers?

 

[pablow]

Why do we have "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment, when we place almost no regulations on firearms owners? And any attempt to put "regulations" up, is met with unending attacks?

Here the proper wording of the amendment clause you're describing - Being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, all persons born in the United States are citizens.

 

[hawkifann]

In all seriousness, regardless of whether one thinks birthright citizenship is a good thing or not, doesn't it set really dangerous precedent if a POTUS can essentially change 150 years of accepted law?

I don't think SCOTUS would even be able to hear a challenge. Passing or repealing a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 approval vote in both chambers of Congress plus ratification by 3/4 of the states. I don't see how an executive order would have legal standing to undercut that. If the GOP was serious about challenging birthright citizenship, they'd pass a bill ending birthright citizenship in cases where parents are here illegally on the basis of the "jurisdiction" language. At that point, it would get challenged and then SCOTUS could weigh in on the merits.

 

[naturalmwa]

If all persons present in the US were "subject to [US} jurisdiction" why was this language included in th 14th amendment as a further requirement to "born in the US." Makes no sense.

Diplomats.

 

[Joes Place]

Here the proper wording of the amendment clause you're describing - Being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, all persons born in the United States are citizens.

I know.
And it's crystal clear.

 

[gusto79]

There is a lot of historical support that "subject to the jurisdiction" means not owing allegience to a foreign government.

Was it put in in case some foreign country invaded and occupied part of the US they couldn't have a bunch of babies here and make them citizens?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Did you question Obama's EOs about the DREAMers?

In all honesty I would consider that EO being one where it's not really covered so the POTUS went out there and decided that if it wasn't covered it was under his power. I don't see anything in the constitution itself that says no outright on it.

I think it's a good policy but it really should be backed up by congress through legislative action.

Of course quite frankly we have a congress that is incapable of making even the most basic of compromises.

 

[TJ8869]

John McCain is the answer here.

To what question? John McCain was a natural born US citizen through jus sanguinis.

 

[naturalmwa]

There is a lot of historical support that "subject to the jurisdiction" means not owing allegience to a foreign government.

Mind reading adventures don’t move me. Just follow the text.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes they are but they where not BORN on US soil.

The amendment requires both things. Being born on US soil and being subject to our laws.

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.

Let's edit that:

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.

So it's one or the other which means this is true:

All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I'm failing to see the wiggle room on this. It doesn't mention the parents' status at all. Is a child born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the US or not?

 

[Joes Place]

In all seriousness, regardless of whether one thinks birthright citizenship is a good thing or not, doesn't it set really dangerous precedent if a POTUS can essentially change 150 years of accepted law?

Not merely "accepted law"......an actual Constitutional Amendment.

It'd be like if HRC or Obama suddenly put out an EO requiring a shitload of gun safety and other "regulations" for any firearm ownership.

Cuz the 2A indeed states a "well regulated militia"....

And Conservatives would lose.their.minds

 

[naturalmwa]

Doesn’t this sound like an impeachable offense?

 

[TJ8869]

No. It's not. Citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants are all under US "jurisdiction" when in the United States.

If illegals were not under US jurisdiction, we could not jail and deport them.

Unless that's what people are going for here...

What about support staff working for foreign consulates? They are under US jurisdiction while not conducting official business. Why do we not grant their babies automatic citizenship?

 

[hawkifann]

John McCain is the answer here.

Yes, there have commonly been two interpretations to the "jurisdiction" language:

1. That children born to citizens living abroad are recognized as citizens of this country because while not on US soil, their parents are "subject to the jurisdiction of US laws" (think taxes, voting, etc.).

2. That children born to those foreign diplomats working here on US soil not on behalf of the US or private business, but rather working here on behalf of their home nation would not be generally granted birthright citizenship.

Both interpretations make perfect sense. There are obviously ways to abuse them, but I really don't see how an Executive Order could possibly legally undercut protections historically viewed as granted by a Constitutional amendment. (edited to actually resemble proper English)

 

[cigaretteman]

Would never survive a court challenge. Pure pandering showboating.

 

[Joes Place]

What about support staff working for foreign consulates? They are under US jurisdiction while not conducting official business. Why do we not grant their babies automatic citizenship?

Because many ARE NOT subject to our laws, and are deported if they commit crimes, and tried in their home countries.

 

[Joes Place]

There are obviously ways to abuse them, but I really don't see how an Executive Order undercutting protections historically viewed as granted by a Constitutional amendment could possibly be overturned by Executive Order.

It can't, but the Putin Playbook indicates you have to keep lighting fires all over the place to keep people distracted as to what you're actually doing.

Remember, Jared Kushner paid NO taxes for at least a decade, based on 'depreciation' laws that real estate moguls routinely abuse to devalue properties and eliminate tax liability.

And, while the new tax laws closed that loophole for every other industry, it left them wide open for the real estate biz.

Wanna wonder why?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Yes, I know that Obama used EO's.

It's troubling to me that a POTUS (any POTUS) has this much power. Immigration, tariffs - what do we need a Congress for anyway?

I agree with this.

To me the problem is that congress is unwilling to compromise and futhermore congress is unwilling to step up and assert itself over a president if the president is making the laws that they like anyways.

So presidents have been slowly grabbing more and more power and congress has been all too willing to roll over and let them do it if it its with the majority's desires anyways.

 

[SSG T]

Not merely "accepted law"......an actual Constitutional Amendment.

It'd be like if HRC or Obama suddenly put out an EO requiring a shitload of gun safety and other "regulations" for any firearm ownership.

Cuz the 2A indeed states a "well regulated militia"....

And Conservatives would lose.their.minds

That was the point of my 1st post. I absolutely think there needs to be some regulation involving firearms. However, POTUS writing an EO to do it would be the absolute worst way to try to implement it. Same applies here. Same applies to any limitation on any Constitutional Amendment.

Use the right process, pass a law that doesn't violate the applicable amendment or write a new amendment that supercedes the previous one (see 18th and 21st).

 

[Finance85]

'Subject to the jurisdiction' refers to territories, military bases, embassies, and such. It's that simple. Trump is wrong on his interpretation, and he's also wrong trying to use an EO to, in essence, change the law.