Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

[Brian4Liberty]

I swear, that guy got hit by lightening or something...

He seems kind of directionless without McCain.

Got himself a new man.

Trump?

 

[phill4paul]

Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

Legislation to end birthright citizenship has been circulating in Congress since the mid ’90s and such a bill is circulating in both houses today. It will, of course, not pass Congress, and if it did pass it would be vetoed. But if birthright citizenship becomes an election issue and a Republican is elected president, then who knows what the future might hold. It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States. Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation. No one is advocating that those who have been granted birthright citizenship be stripped of their citizenship. Equal protection considerations would counsel that citizenship once granted is vested and cannot be revoked; this, I believe, is eminently just. The proposal to end birthright citizenship is prospective only.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015...AVc4j6cQspumWE0aaVXfH4ggROLMKnCjvwGkfB8WkyLuA

 

[juleswin]

A lot of other countries offer birthright citizenship but in the not-the-third-world countries, only the US and Canada. The United Kingdom removed unconditional citizenship by birth in the British Nationality Act of 1981, because people were flooding into their country.

30 countries to be specific. No country in Asia, Africa or Europe. Its mainly Island countries, territories and a few big countries in North and South America.

 

[specsaregood]

That would cover it I would think.

A ruling clearly stating that the 14th does not apply to persons in the country illegally.

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

I agree but legal visitors might be considered to be under US jurisdiction during their stay so we might need a Constitutional amendment for that.

 

[angelatc]

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

I think we all know I'm a supporter of ending birthright citizenship. But just playing the Devil's Advocate...wouldn't passing it now be sort of ex post facto, which isn't legal either?

I can only assume the interpretation wouldn't apply to people who are already born? Like I said, when Graham is around I smell amnesty.

 

[phill4paul]

I think we all know I'm a supporter of ending birthright citizenship. But just playing the Devil's Advocate...wouldn't passing it now be sort of ex post facto, which isn't legal either?

I can only assume the interpretation wouldn't apply to people who are already born? Like I said, when Graham is around I smell amnesty.

You are correct in that it wouldn't affect anyone retroactively.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I think we all know I'm a supporter of ending birthright citizenship. But just playing the Devil's Advocate...wouldn't passing it now be sort of ex post facto, which isn't legal either?

I can only assume the interpretation wouldn't apply to people who are already born? Like I said, when Graham is around I smell amnesty.

I'm not sure if changing an interpretation of a law that existed long ago would be ex post facto but it is probably too close for comfort.

I don't think Trump intends to apply this retroactively but we will have to see.

Another option would be to apply it retroactively only to those who have not yet reached 18.

 

[Zippyjuan]

What other country in the world besides the United States where a person comes in and has a baby, is that baby essentially a citizen of the United States?

Only the US can make somebody a US Citizen. Other countries can't do that for us. However-

There are also quite a few European countries where they can be granted citizenship for being born in the county but must live there a certain amount of time before it becomes official.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

In Europe, 8 countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom) have strong jus soli dispositions, where children born from foreign parents can acquire nationality quite easily (for example, in France, with a 5 years residency condition),

 

[Zippyjuan]

Here is what the Constitution says:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key part is actually "and subject to the Jurisdiction of". Persons not subject to the jurisdiction are people not liable under US laws and that generally applies to diplomats and American Indians. If an illegal immigrant can be charged with a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats are not subject to US laws and neither were Native Americans.

If you want to declare illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so their children born in the US are not considered citizens, you cannot deport them for being in the country illegally or charge them with any crimes they may commit while in the US because you declared they are not subject to the laws of the United States.

If you want the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution to the letter and not "interpret" it, this will be their ruling- that it applies to illegal immigrants and that it can only be changed by changing the Amendment.

 

[Itsback]

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the birthright citizenship thing extends to children of diplomats as well who were born in the US, which is ridiculous.

MAGA = Make America Great Again.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Here is what the Constitution says:



The key part is actually "and subject to the Jurisdiction of". Persons not subject to the jurisdiction are people not liable under US laws and that generally applies to diplomats and American Indians. If an illegal immigrant can be charged with a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats are not subject to US laws and neither were Native Americans.

If you want to declare illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so their children born in the US are not considered citizens, you cannot deport them for being in the country illegally or charge them with any crimes they may commit while in the US because you declared they are not subject to the laws of the United States.

They aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US until we catch them, until then they are living in a state of outlawry, so you could argue that if children are born to them in custody they get citizenship but they should be expelled before they give birth.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Good discussion about the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship) by a constitutional scholar.

4-5 minutes starting at 7:37

 

[DamianTV]

How about this. Citizenship acquired by Illegal means, such as Illegally Immigrating is INVALID.

Its no different than money aquired by illegal means is immediately taken from the possessor. Stolen goods do not legitimately belong to the thief, so why should Citizenship?

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Again, this wont be removing the 14th amendment, it will be a matter of finally adjudicating what it means. As has already been done many times in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Right, the original intent (due to slaves at the time) was why it was written as it is. Now, the definition has been abused and manipulated to include anchor babies. Which for me at least distorts the original intent of the law.

 

[CCTelander]

They aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US until we catch them, until then they are living in a state of outlawry, so you could argue that if children are born to them in custody they get citizenship but they should be expelled before they give birth.

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

LOL

It makes them invaders that we have a right to expel.

 

[UWDude]

Congress would have to replace the Amendment which would then also have three fourths of the states agree before it came into effect. You can't alter the Constitution via Executive Order.

Thank god Kavenaugh hates the constitution. He can start by taking citizen's rights from non-citizens, like voting, and anchor baby auto-citizenship. Maybe even their right not to be shot when entering clearly defined border areas, marked as sniper sentried.

Americas border isn't going to be pushed over like Mexico's. We said you aren't allowed in, and we mean it.

 

[TheCount]

LOL

It makes them invaders that we have a right to expel.

Invaders that you cannot, legally, expel.

If it were possible, it would make being an illegal immigrant the best status for a resident of the country. It would elevate them above citizens.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.