Trump executive order re birthright citizenship

[ed.pearsall]

Reading my copy of the US constitution, it would seem that Trumps executive order eliminating citizenship birthright in some cases is clearly against Article 14, SEction1, first paragraph. am I not correct? If so,what will happen next? who enforces constitutionality of executive orders?

 

[CaptUSA]

Reading my copy of the US constitution, it would seem that Trumps executive order eliminating citizenship birthright in some cases is clearly against Article 14, SEction1, first paragraph. am I not correct? If so,what will happen next? who enforces constitutionality of executive orders?

They need to find someone with standing, bring it to the court and have the SCOTUS settle it. Biden did this continually. It's the new way of governing, dontcha know... Sign edicts that are clearly unconstitutional in the hopes that it doesn't get challenged.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8945vFSI0_8






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1IH0cjtU7Y

 

[Swordsmyth]

Reading my copy of the US constitution, it would seem that Trumps executive order eliminating citizenship birthright in some cases is clearly against Article 14, SEction1, first paragraph. am I not correct? If so,what will happen next? who enforces constitutionality of executive orders?

Trump is perfectly Constitutionally correct.

Invaders and tourists are not "Subject to our jurisdiction" they are subjects of their home countries.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States

erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled:

That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States:

“[The Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship.

Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/birthright-citizenship-isnt-real

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Trump is perfectly Constitutionally correct.

Invaders and tourists are not "Subject to our jurisdiction" they are subjects of their home countries.

If you invite a person into your home to spend the night and the next morning they won't leave, you can't throw them out.
Are they an invader if the welcome mat were laid out and or apps, or even transport into the country?
Imagine the confusion if on Jan 6, 2021, police officers open doors and encourage people to enter secure areas.

I think there is a difference between the illegal that managed to cross a closed border and what took place during Biden administration. I would guess the talk around the world was if you want to live in USA go there now. When your government endorsed and invited them here, somehow your government has to accept some responsibility for them being here.

I want them gone so don't construe what I said as me wanting them to be here. I am simply saying getting them out could be complicated.

 

[TheTexan]

If you invite a person into your home to spend the night and the next morning they won't leave, you can't throw them out.

I can throw anyone out of my home any time I wish tho

 

[Invisible Man]

How will this work in practice?

Will people born in the US from now on have to provide someone with paperwork proving their parents were citizens or permanent legal residents before they themselves can be citizens?

Edit: For the record I'm fine with taking the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause in a way that excludes temporary visitors to the USA and undocumented immigrants. And I'm fine with limiting citizenship more restrictively, as long as noncitizens are still free to live their lives here and exercise all their natural rights (e.g. speech, living and working here, keeping and bearing arms, speaking whatever language they want, observing whatever religion they want, etc., but not voting).

 

[RJB]

Are people seriously too dense to figure out how this will work or is this more sophistry? I can't tell these days.

Short answer. It will work as it does in every country except ours. Illegals aren't citizens.

 

[Invisible Man]

Are people seriously too dense to figure out how this will work or is this more sophistry? I can't tell these days.

Short answer. It will work as it does in every country except ours. Illegals aren't citizens.

The EO isn't just about so-called "illegals." It applies to people here legally too.

But yes, I am that dense. I'm not aware of how this works in other countries. Can you fill me in?

 

[RJB]

But yes, I am that dense.

That's what I thought.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's what I thought.

Can you explain it? I can't possibly be the only person here who isn't familiar with this.

 

[RJB]

Can you explain it? I can't possibly be the only person here who isn't familiar with this.

No. By your own admission, you are too dense to understand.

 

[Invisible Man]

No. By your own admission, you are too dense to understand.

I'm not sure why you bothered injecting yourself into this conversation then.

Maybe somebody else knows the answer.

 

[RJB]

I'm not sure why you bothered injecting yourself into this conversation then.

Maybe somebody else knows the answer.

I made my point above and stand by it. I will also gladly talk to someone who is not dense or playing sophomoric games. Life's too short.

 

[sparebulb]

I can throw anyone out of my home any time I wish tho

Not after MAGA and the zio/globalists get the SCOTUS to erode away the 3rd Amendment like they have done with the 4th and 1st.

 

[Invisible Man]

I can throw anyone out of my home any time I wish tho

Yes. And I have no right to interfere.

And for the same reason, you also can invite anyone into your home any time you wish, whether as your guest, employee, renter, or whatever else, or to sell your home to anyone you want, at which time it becomes their home. And in all those instances, I again have no right to interfere, or to demand that they meet some criteria I set for who should be allowed on property that isn't mine.

 

[TheTexan]

Yes. And I have no right to interfere.

And for the same reason, you also can invite anyone into your home any time you wish, whether as your guest, employee, renter, or whatever else, or to sell your home to anyone you want, at which time it becomes their home. And in all those instances, I again have no right to interfere, or to demand that they meet some criteria I set for who should be allowed on property that isn't mine.

If you want to house these illegal immigrants and make sure they never leave your premises onto public property

I am fine with that

And if you sell your home to one of these illegals that rule still maintains, if they get seen at Costco or some shit they are outta here

 

[RJB]

If you want to house these illegal immigrants and make sure they never leave your premises onto public property

I am fine with that

Have you noticed that the same academics who act like they don't know what a woman is are the same ones claiming not to know what a border is.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I can throw anyone out of my home any time I wish tho

Maybe. I don't know.

"In Texas, if you invite someone to stay overnight at your home and they refuse to leave the next day, the process of removing them isn't as straightforward as "throwing them out." Here's how the situation might unfold based on Texas law:


Initial Invitation: When you invite someone as a guest, you're implicitly giving them permission to be on your property for a limited time.
Revoking Permission: If the guest overstays, you can verbally ask them to leave. If they agree and leave, the issue is resolved without legal intervention.
If They Refuse to Leave:
Short-Term Stay: For very short-term guests (like someone who was just supposed to stay overnight), you might be able to call the police for assistance. If the person has no legal right to stay (i.e., they've overstayed the invitation and you've clearly communicated your desire for them to leave), law enforcement might treat this as trespassing. However, police are often cautious in these scenarios, not wanting to misjudge a tenant for a guest.
Potential Tenant Status: If the person has stayed long enough or has established residency (which could be as short as a few days if they've shown intent to live there by changing their mailing address, paying rent, or contributing to household expenses), they might be considered a tenant under Texas law.
No Formal Lease: Even without a written lease, if someone has been allowed to stay for an extended period, they might gain tenant rights. In Texas, the law doesn't specify a clear time frame for when a guest becomes a tenant, but actions like paying rent or receiving mail at your address can imply tenancy.
Eviction Process: If the individual is considered a tenant, even without a formal lease, you would need to initiate the formal eviction process:
Notice to Vacate: You must give them a written notice to leave, typically three days for a tenant at will (someone without a lease or with a month-to-month agreement), though this can vary if other conditions are met.
Filing for Eviction: If they don't leave after the notice period, you'd need to file an eviction lawsuit (forcible detainer) in the appropriate Justice of the Peace court.
Court Process: This includes serving the tenant with court papers, potentially going to court, and if you win, obtaining a writ of possession, which allows law enforcement to remove the person from your property.
Immediate Action: Without clear tenant status, if someone refuses to leave, you should not attempt to forcibly remove them yourself, as this could lead to legal issues like assault charges. Instead, document your attempts to communicate that they must leave, and if necessary, proceed with legal actions.
Legal Advice: Given the nuances of Texas law, especially regarding the transition from guest to tenant, consulting with a lawyer might be advisable to ensure you're following the correct legal procedures.


In summary, while you can ask someone who overstays their welcome to leave, if they refuse, you might need to navigate through legal processes to remove them, especially if they've begun to establish tenancy. Police might assist if it's clearly a case of trespassing, but for any ambiguity, the legal route through eviction might be necessary."