Ending birthright citizenship

[Ken King]

This just shows how little Trump understands the law and the Constitution. His proposed Executive Order would have as much meaning as a couple of pieces of toilet paper. Birthright citizenship is part of the Constitution (14th) and was codified by the 1898 Supreme Court decision. The sad thing is that there are some out there who erroneously believe that Trump would have that power just because Trump said so. Supposedly, Trump is arguing that children of foreign nationals born in the U.S. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. which is completely false. The only case where that would be true would be in the case of children born to foreign diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity and thus are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.


You are correct in that the newborn’s parents could be given a choice of leaving the U.S. citizen baby in the U.S. while they return to their home country or takin the baby with them.

Well, in US v Ark (1898) the question presented to the court was "Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" The key being "lawful permanent residents" and made no ruling for those that are here illegally. And it is and has been argued that that court disregarded the legislative intent with regard to the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when crafting their ruling. A key participant in the framing of the 14th amendment was Sen. Lyman Trumball and according to his accounting of that phrase as it was being debated, included "not owing allegiance to any other country" and not just being present on US soil when the child was born.

 

[vraiblonde]

This just shows how little Trump understands the law and the Constitution.

Why do you say that? <--- that's a real question because I haven't actually heard Trump say anything about it, all I've seen is the newsbot interpretation. Also Trump frequently speaks in general terms that the bots misinterpret and start throwing out all kinds of crap that never happened.

What exactly did Trump say?

 

[vraiblonde]

Off the rails yet again....

The OP is not debating the issue of babies born at all. The issue is with the illegal/non-naturalized/non-citizen PARENTS and how they are "assumed" to be citizens since their baby was born in the US.

Back on track???

Oh, good, I was worried my post got translated to Swahili or something.

Wait....unless you speak Swahili.....

 

[awpitt]

Well, in US v Ark (1898) the question presented to the court was "Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" The key being "lawful permanent residents" and made no ruling for those that are here illegally. And it is and has been argued that that court disregarded the legislative intent with regard to the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when crafting their ruling. A key participant in the framing of the 14th amendment was Sen. Lyman Trumball and according to his accounting of that phrase as it was being debated, included "not owing allegiance to any other country" and not just being present on US soil when the child was born.

Yet, the 14th Amendment, the text that counts, does not differentiate between children born to citizens vs children born to lawful permanent residents vs children born to illegals. All three groups being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of the respective birth of their U.S. citizen baby.

 

[vraiblonde]

President Trump can't do what he suggested he would do.

Maybe you'll answer me. What exactly did Trump *say* he would do? Burn the Constitution and start yanking babies out of incubators? Because that's what the newsbots are making it sound like.

Direct quote would be great. Video would be even better.

 

[awpitt]

Why do you say that? <--- that's a real question because I haven't actually heard Trump say anything about it, all I've seen is the newsbot interpretation. Also Trump frequently speaks in general terms that the bots misinterpret and start throwing out all kinds of crap that never happened.

What exactly did Trump say?

This is their rational which doesn't hold water.

“”According to the Trump campaign, the executive order “will explain the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment,” which it says is that the children of foreign nationals born in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in the Constitution.””

As was mentioned before, the only childeren born to foreign nationals that are not subject to the juristiction of the U.S. are those children born to diplomats who enjoy diplomatic imunity and thus are not suject to the juristiction of the U.S.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...irthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/

 

[PrchJrkr]

Thank God the "All Knowing" showed up the set us all straight.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is their rational which doesn't hold water.

“”According to the Trump campaign, the executive order “will explain the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment,” which it says is that the children of foreign nationals born in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in the Constitution.””

As was mentioned before, the only childeren born to foreign nationals that are not subject to the juristiction of the U.S. are those children born to diplomats who enjoy diplomatic imunity and thus are not suject to the juristiction of the U.S.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...irthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/

The Hill's headline doesn't match the actual story beneath it. In reading it Trump doesn't appear to be "ending birthright citizenship" so much as clarifying and tightening what that amendment means.

Where's the part where Trump says he's going to burn the Constitution and deport newborns?

 

[awpitt]

The Hill's headline doesn't match the actual story beneath it. In reading it Trump doesn't appear to be "ending birthright citizenship" so much as clarifying and tightening what that amendment means.

Where's the part where Trump says he's going to burn the Constitution and deport newborns?

I'm not going to nitpick about Headlines, claims of burning the Constitution etc.

My point is that Trump is misleading people by claiming he can stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order. That’s not possible. At the very least, legislation would be required in order to stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals. Even more likely, a Constitutional amendment would be required in order to clarify the 14th Amendment. Anyone who believes that Trump can stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order is going to be very disappointed.

 

[HemiHauler]

The Hill's headline doesn't match the actual story beneath it. In reading it Trump doesn't appear to be "ending birthright citizenship" so much as clarifying and tightening what that amendment means.

Sorry, Pookie. Your lord and savior doesn’t have that authority either.

Middle school civics.

Government schooling indoctrination, aye?

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm not going to nitpick about Headlines, claims of burning the Constitution etc.

My point is that Trump is misleading people by claiming he can stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order. That’s not possible. At the very least, legislation would be required in order to stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals. Even more likely, a Constitutional amendment would be required in order to clarify the 14th Amendment. Anyone who believes that Trump can stop birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order is going to be very disappointed.

Well, that is certainly what the newsbots are saying. Like, in lockstep using the exact same wording. But I haven't seen anything where Trump specifically said he was going to "end birthright citizenship" and so far it's been impossible to find a direct quote or video of him saying that. I saw this:

"I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.”

But that is not "ending" birthright citizenship, it's clarifying and opening it to interpretation - something Democrats are typically in favor of, especially when it comes to the 1A and 2A.

 

[awpitt]

Well, that is certainly what the newsbots are saying. Like, in lockstep using the exact same wording. But I haven't seen anything where Trump specifically said he was going to "end birthright citizenship" and so far it's been impossible to find a direct quote or video of him saying that. I saw this:

"I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.”

But that is not "ending" birthright citizenship, it's clarifying and opening it to interpretation - something Democrats are typically in favor of, especially when it comes to the 1A and 2A.

Since it was missed the first few times I said it….

Birthright citizenship for children born to illegals cannot be ended via executive order. Trump’s so called “correct interpretation of the law” is something that exists in his imagination and means nothing without legislation and/or a constitutional amendment. He can sign all the executive orders he wants but they will not survive constitutional muster.

If Trump was stating that he would push for legislation or would support a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegals, I would not have an issue with it.

 

[HemiHauler]

Well, that is certainly what the newsbots are saying. Like, in lockstep using the exact same wording. But I haven't seen anything where Trump specifically said he was going to "end birthright citizenship" and so far it's been impossible to find a direct quote or video of him saying that. I saw this:

"I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.”

But that is not "ending" birthright citizenship, it's clarifying and opening it to interpretation - something Democrats are typically in favor of, especially when it comes to the 1A and 2A.

Still doesn’t have that authority, Pookie. No matter the level of gymnastics you run through in what passes for your mind.

 

[SamSpade]

Birthright citizenship for children born to illegals cannot be ended via executive order. Trump’s so called “correct interpretation of the law” is something that exists in his imagination and means nothing without legislation and/or a constitutional amendment. He can sign all the executive orders he wants but they will not survive constitutional muster.

The answer may be more nuanced than you think - as I understand it, the concept of birthright citizenship granted to offspring of illegal citizens didn't exist at all until the 80's.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Court struck down a state law that prohibited public school funding to educate the children of illegal immigrants. In a footnote of that decision, Judge Brennan added that - "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

And bam - in that instance, over 100 years of NOT allowing children of illegal immigrants to automatically become citizens - was ended.

Effectively - the "anchor baby" concept was created out of nothing at all - a "re-interpretation" of the law as it were.

And I disagree. Trump is probably onto something.

 

[GURPS]

The answer may be more nuanced than you think - as I understand it, the concept of birthright citizenship granted to offspring of illegal citizens didn't exist at all until the 80's.

The Situation always is .......

 

[awpitt]

The answer may be more nuanced than you think - as I understand it, the concept of birthright citizenship granted to offspring of illegal citizens didn't exist at all until the 80's.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Court struck down a state law that prohibited public school funding to educate the children of illegal immigrants. In a footnote of that decision, Judge Brennan added that - "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

And bam - in that instance, over 100 years of NOT allowing children of illegal immigrants to automatically become citizens - was ended.

Effectively - the "anchor baby" concept was created out of nothing at all - a "re-interpretation" of the law as it were.

And I disagree. Trump is probably onto something.

Good points. So, before the 80's, was citizenship for children born to illegals explictly outlawed or had it just not been addressed until Plyler v. Doe. Is there any documentation or records of what happened to babies born to illegals prior to the 80's?

I agree with you that Trump is on to something. As I posted before, my issue is that the POTUS cannot end birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order. He can certainly try but it won't stand.

 

[SamSpade]

I agree with you that Trump is on to something. As I posted before, my issue is that the POTUS cannot end birthright citizenship for children born to illegals via executive order. He can certainly try but it won't stand.

Which I think DeeJay has addressed - that he didn't say he would change it with a wave of his hand but that he would, with executive order, make the concept clear the legal authorities.

Brennan claimed his authority for his footnote came from a Clement Lincoln Bouve, a lawyer in the Copyright Office. He wrote this treatise on what the proper procedures and rules regarding expelling people from the country (my guess was at the time he wrote it -just around the first World War - the concept of being in the nation illegally wasn't fully formed, even as citizenship - WAS). Since I've only ever read descriptions without reading its text, I can only surmise that birthright citizenship granted to illegal immigrants was NOT the primary purpose of his treatise.

In any case, he was not a judge, or an elected official. Just some lawyer with an opinion. And a SCOTUS judge decided, let's just insert HIS opinion into my footnote.

So to answer your question, I believe the practice prior to 1982 was to expel illegal immigrants ALONG with their progeny. With a wave of HIS hand, Brennan was able to declare them citizens without properly arguing the case.

You have to admit, it IS kind of weird that a nation that holds jus sanginus - that a child born to say, French or Italian citizens is automatically Italian or French - but that if they were here illegally, they'd be American, too.

 

[awpitt]

Which I think DeeJay has addressed - that he didn't say he would change it with a wave of his hand but that he would, with executive order, make the concept clear the legal authorities.

Yes. Trump’s statement was, "I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.” That is “the wave of his hand”.

Trump’s so called “correct interpretation of the law” is based on the false notion that children born to illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

”According to the Trump campaign, the executive order “will explain the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment,” which it says is that the children of foreign nationals born in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in the Constitution.”

Trump can explain all he wants but that doesn’t change the Constitution (14th), current law, nor existing court rulings.

The only group of children born to foreign nationals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are those children born to diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and thus are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. All other children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

 

[Ken King]

Trump can explain all he wants but that doesn’t change the Constitution (14th), current law, nor existing court rulings.

Of course he can explain his interpretation of it and it seems consistent with the intent of the amendment when it was ratified. As to existing court rulings, in Slaughter House the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Following that, in Elk vs. Wilkins, citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States, which confirmed Slaughter House's interpretation.

What needs to be clarified (by law) is exactly what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually means. Does it mean any partial or temporary jurisdiction is sufficient or must one not hold allegiance to any foreign government before it applies to the offspring that happen to be born in the US?

 

[SamSpade]

The only group of children born to foreign nationals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are those children born to diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and thus are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. All other children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

THAT tidbit has never been argued before the Court - it was just - waved with a hand, in a footnote. At the time of the 14th Amendment, the concept of "illegal alien" was only partially an idea. Hence, Bouve's treatise on why or what reasons should we give for expelling aliens and foreigners. You can't say that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship to children born to illegal aliens, as it does not address the idea nor was it argued in Congress when it was voted on, OTHER than Indians, slaves and children born to foreign ambassadors.

If the general idea is that a practice of law is precedent, prior to Brennan - they were not regarded as citizens. THIS was how the 14th Amendment was understood and interpreted prior to that, and it's absurd to think that in 100 years - the idea never crossed anyone's mind otherwise.

It cannot be that - SUDDENLY - they become otherwise, because of a footnote inserted into an opinion. You can SAY, well, what does it say? Seems clear to me - then - why did they do otherwise until 1982? Did the rest of the country's legal system make a mistake until then?

I do think - just as has been done many times before SCOTUS - it needs to be argued before the Court how it applies. I mean, we had a whole "right to privacy" created from the 14th Amendment - which almost certainly never occurred to its crafters - and that has opened up a whole world of legal interpretations of the law - abortion, gay marriage, medical end of life treatments - this is how it works.