Birthright citizenship
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
The senator who wrote it said as much.
The misunderstanding is the kids being born here doesn't mean the parents are also allowed to stay. That's the cry that happens when a parent is deported of one of these kids. Just take the kid with you.
The SC needs to review the law to determine what it really meant and end all this breaking up family crying BS.
That's what I said - I fail to see the problem here. If you and I can come up with this solution surely the big brains in DC can.
Its the crying over breaking up the family people. Just take the kid with you.
In their motion for a temporary restraining order, state officials said that Trump went beyond his powers with the order, describing it as “flatly contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history, century-old Supreme Court precedent, longstanding Executive Branch interpretation, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
Without court intervention, the order would leave more than 150,000 babies born this year without citizenship because their parents are illegally in the country, according to the attorneys general.
Government officials said in response that the court should not issue a restraining order because the states have not suffered any injuries and because the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed.
“Ample historical evidence shows that the children of non-resident aliens are subject to foreign powers—and, thus, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship,” government lawyers said.
That included a Supreme Court justice writing in legal commentaries that birthright citizenship should not apply to babies whose parents were in the country “for temporary purposes.”
Coughenour sided with the states, telling the courtroom that he had signed the restraining order sought by the states.
The two-week order is in place while Coughenour weighs issuing a preliminary injunction, which would likely remain in place as the case proceeds in the courts.
Department of Justice attorney Brett Shumate argued during the Jan. 23 hearing that the executive order was constitutional and that any order blocking it would be “wildly inappropriate.”
www.theepochtimes.com
Without court intervention, the order would leave more than 150,000 babies born this year without citizenship because their parents are illegally in the country, according to the attorneys general.
Government officials said in response that the court should not issue a restraining order because the states have not suffered any injuries and because the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed.
“Ample historical evidence shows that the children of non-resident aliens are subject to foreign powers—and, thus, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship,” government lawyers said.
That included a Supreme Court justice writing in legal commentaries that birthright citizenship should not apply to babies whose parents were in the country “for temporary purposes.”
Coughenour sided with the states, telling the courtroom that he had signed the restraining order sought by the states.
The two-week order is in place while Coughenour weighs issuing a preliminary injunction, which would likely remain in place as the case proceeds in the courts.
Department of Justice attorney Brett Shumate argued during the Jan. 23 hearing that the executive order was constitutional and that any order blocking it would be “wildly inappropriate.”
Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The federal judge called the Jan. 20 executive order ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’
Trump does not need to end birthright citizenship. He simply needs to make everyone follow the law as written and no more.
Trump Is Right About Birthright Citizenship
Wong was born in California and lived his entire life in the United States, until he took two trips to China to visit family as an adult. The first time he returned to the United States, he was admitted through customs as a U.S. citizen. A few years later, after visiting China a second time, he was denied reentry after a customs official concluded that he was not a citizen, because his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born here.
SCOTUS sided with Wong, but for a very important reason the plaintiffs fail to mention: Wong’s parents were legal immigrants to the United States. The entire foundation of the plaintiffs’ argument — that SCOTUS has already upheld birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants by this decision — is therefore completely and obviously wrong.
In rendering its opinion, SCOTUS dove deep into the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What they found, tracing back hundreds of years through English common law, is that the phrase is rooted in a mutual relationship of “allegiance and protection” between the individual and the sovereign (historically a king, but the nation here). Children “born in the allegiance,” and therefore citizens entitled to “protection” at birth, included children born to subjects of the king, as well as children born to “aliens in amity” — that is, aliens lawfully “domiciled” there with the king’s consent. Notably, the court found that this did not extend to the children of aliens in “hostile occupation of part of our territory.”
Consent is the operative word. In ruling for Wong, the Supreme Court made clear that the United States has a say in who is subject to its jurisdiction, noting that noncitizens like Wong’s parents are “entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here” (emphasis added). In Wong’s case, this meant that the 14th Amendment granted him citizenship because he was: (1) born in the United States; and (2) subject to its jurisdiction, due to the fact that his parents were lawful immigrants permitted by the United States to reside here at the time he was born.
In clear and distinguishable contrast, children born to illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, for the simple reason that the United States has not permitted them to be here. In other words, the relationship is not mutual.
A harder question is whether the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to children born to aliens here lawfully but on a temporary basis, such as tourists or individuals on a work visa. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t explicitly address this, but it does note that Wong’s parents were “domiciled” in the United States, and it concludes that “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” (emphasis added). This repeated reference to “domicile,” meaning a state of permanent, legal residence, suggests that birthright citizenship at a minimum requires an intent to live lawfully and permanently in the United States, even if that intent later changes.
In their lawsuit, the 18 Democrat state AGs declare that the president “has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute.” (Where were they a week ago, when President Biden tried to ratify a new, 28th Amendment by personal fiat?) But Trump isn’t rewriting the 14th Amendment; he’s applying the law as it is, based on its plain language and the Supreme Court’s existing precedent. That, at least, shouldn’t be controversial.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Of course they could, after all they came up with the current let everyone come and live off the State solution. It's not a broken system if it's functioning as intended.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
At this point who knows the original intent. What we do know is that up until the 20th century immigration was very permissive, basically letting in everyone that wasn't a wanted criminal in another country. You didn't need a visa, you didn't need to wait. You showed up at a port of entry and got a quick inspection and might have been issued an "Americanized" name and done deal.
For a good while after the founding of our country they didn't even do that much, it was pretty much "if you're here, you're an American". So it's odd to think that people who didn't care to place any limits on immigration whatsoever would truly pick-nits about birthright citizenship. Of course citizenship had different meaning at the time and you didn't need to be a citizen to make a life in the US.
When the country was founded the federal government didn't provide a whole lot of services, and didn't directly tax people (excise taxes and tariffs mostly). No social security, no welfare. So it's not like you were gaming the system by being here. Citizenship was basically the right to vote (for the men).
And hell, in 1790 they just straight up said "if you're white, you're a citizen".
But times change, what was good for the country 250 years ago doesn't mean it's good today. Citizenship confers rights and responsibilities and should be considered a privilege.
I keep hearing arguments which - basically - make no damned sense - regarding - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
"Well, " the argument goes "they're subject to our laws, unlike ambassadors, so - there".
Effectively saying, it doesn't mean ANYTHING unless it's someone who's part of an embassy (because even on a visa, still subject to our laws).
But that's not what the man WHO PUT IT IN THERE meant, when he added those lines.
"Well, " the argument goes "they're subject to our laws, unlike ambassadors, so - there".
Effectively saying, it doesn't mean ANYTHING unless it's someone who's part of an embassy (because even on a visa, still subject to our laws).
But that's not what the man WHO PUT IT IN THERE meant, when he added those lines.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Mark Levin really dumbed it down tonight to the point that even I understood it. If it's replayed be sure and watch.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
That made me laugh. Like there are any real brains in DC. Not now, not ever. lol
He did a great explanation including the Wong Kim Ark case.
FNC does a "Life, Liberty, Levin" replay of the Saturday show today at 5PM.
