Posted on 10/30/2018 2:48:25 AM PDT by be-baw
The courts will have the final say regardless. Any law or executive order will be challenged in the courts. We literally have tens of millions of US citizens who have received citizenship this way, jus solis, vice jus sanguinis.
We grant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil except for the children born to diplomats and other foreign government personnel assigned to the US.
It is part of US code. All you need to get a US passport is to show proof you were born in the US.
Can you site the legislation passed in the early 1900’s that granted birthright citizenship?
He also took away the “false” narrative that he is behind all these tragic events of late, the libs will be seething over losing all these welfare babies who will vote for them some day (or so they think).
He also took away the “false” narrative that he is behind all these tragic events of late, the libs will be seething over losing all these welfare babies who will vote for them some day (or so they think).
I wish he signed EO about this Jan2017, but better now then never. I guess he also had to wait til courts more favorable too.
Foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdictions of their own countries. Not ours.
Foreign nationals cannot be arrested if they violate our laws? Then how can we arrest and deport people here illegally?
From what I could find it looks to me that the US enters into treaties with other countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa.
“The courts will have the final say regardless”
Only if the executive and legislative branches let them. See how that works? No, you probably don’t.
“We grant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil”
Without any statutory authority. Isn’t lawlessness grand? /s
No it’s not. Jeeeez
There is only one Supreme Court decision on whether children born in the U.S. to alien parents are birthright citizens. That decision is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It concerned a child born in the U.S. to legal permanent residents. The Court ruled that it was long established in the English common law, and continued by the states and federal government, that birthright citizenship extended to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, with only a few exceptions. The exceptions concerned children of aliens who are diplomats and children of aliens born in territories occupied by foreign armies.
Regardless of its discussion of the English common law legacy of our country, the decision is silent with respect to children born to aliens here on temporary visa and to aliens who are here illegally.
Indeed, while the decision can be viewed as covering everybody born here except for two exceptions, it is clear that it is assumed that the person born here is body politic of the country, subject to the same rights and responsibilities of citizens, being protected by and owing allegiance to the state. Children of parents who are here illegally or who are here only for the short time that their parents are here, cannot be presumed to be part of the body politic.
In addition, the Supreme Court cites, without criticism, a case where a person born here, who married a British officer and relocated with her husband to England following the Revolutionary War. This person, though born here, was viewed as a British subject and not as a U.S. citizen.
In any case, it wasn’t until the 1960s that illegal immigration and anchor babies became an issue in this country. It never was a problem beforehand in this country or in England prior to our independence. This is truly a novel issue and it would be good for the Supreme Court to have an actual case so the controversy can be resolved.
Great tagline and I agree with you. I just want to primal scream about this anchor baby, permanent rat voter scheme introduced by Teddy Kennedy back, what? A million years ago? Only a freaking democrat would be stupid enough to think this would work forever. It’s like someone breaks into your home and steals your cash and valuables - then gets to keep them when caught because “possession is nine points of the law - or human rights - or something
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
It is beyond question that the United States Congress has the ability to pass a bill which, if signed into law by the President or if his veto is overridden, would become law, which law would specify who is and who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It should be noted that during the floor debate over passage of the 14th Amendment, the author of the amendment specifically indicated that children of foreign diplomats would not be citizens, because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was asked that question because many of his fellow congressmen believed that the language could be interpreted very broadly (and surprise, surprise, it has been), but at least no one has tried this with the children of foreign diplomats. A simple statement in the law that the child of two parents who were not both citizens, both permanent residence, or a combination thereof would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would end the entire anchor baby problem instantly.
As for those who are already citizens because they were born here to illegals or two those without permanent resident status, because the Congress did not act, I do not believe that a retroactive revocation of their citizenship will pass muster in the courts, including the Supreme Court. However, if you eliminate anchor babies when Trump signs a bill doing so into law, the problem ends immediately. The incentive to get into the United States, especially for women who are six or more months pregnant, is dramatically reduced, as will be the volume of cases being heard in our immigration court system.
With regard to the subject matter of this thread, the apparently impending Executive Order to be signed by the President, I am not sure that he can do this and have it be upheld in the courts. Certainly, the Ninth Circuit or some other Leftist Circuit will overrule it, so the real question is not that, but whether the Supreme Court will back him up. On the one hand, he is not actually introducing or rewriting the law, he is just interpreting it for employees of the executive branch. In that sense, there is a powerful argument to be made for the proposition that the order would be constitutional. On the other hand, since this is an action that would affect the rights of literally millions of people, there is a significant possibility that the courts will give a thumbs down on it. However, even if the latter situation occurs, in a way this would be good. Trump is accustomed to playing 3-D chess when it comes to putting together business deals, and he has learned well how to do the same in politics. If he loses in the courts, he first of all will have solidified his credibility with his base. He will have also restarted (or just plain started) the debate over birthright citizenship, which everybody else seems to want to sweep under the rug. He will then be able to hand-deliver legislation to the Congress on this issue. Such legislation will either be passed, in which case he and we are big winners, or it will not. If it does not pass in this upcoming session of Congress, then he has a phenomenal issue for the 2020 election. Further, from the very moment that he signs the Executive Order until the 2020 election, the entire Left will be running around screaming with their hair on fire (well, more than they already are, if you can imagine that). This will enable him to accomplish many more things in other areas without the other side paying much attention, because they will be hyper-focused on this issue like cat chasing a laser beam.
All things considered, I think that this is a masterstroke. He either gets what he wants pretty much right away, or has a phenomenal issue going into the 2020 election (which starts a week from tomorrow morning). Either way, the 20% were so of people in the middle on most political issues will get another taste of the utter insanity of the Left, and be able to compare and contrast that with the sensible, pro-American policies of the Republican Party. Whether it occurs in this two-year cycle, or when Congress is seated in 2021, I am firmly of the belief that we are on the verge of seeing the end of the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. We are nearly at the end of the era of uncontrolled immigration which started in 1965, and that is cause for immense celebration and gratitude.
And Wong got it WRONG and the courts don’t have the power of naturalization.
So, we may be stuck with any current anchor babaies before EO signed but not those born after EO signed.....could get sticky for illegals and foreingors here who have some anchor kids then have others thta won’t be anchor kids which will technically be living here illegal or like their parents, or have to issue them some foreign visa or whatever their parents came in by.
“Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president’s power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.”
But it will get this to the SC. A conservative Supreme Court :-)
It has needed to get there for decades. Trump is brilliant.
The children of diplomats from foreign countries can be arrested here. However, during the debate on the floor of Congress over the Fourteenth Amendment, the author of the Amendment specifically said that those children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was fully aware that such children could be arrested, and there is quite a bit of evidence that without that very firm statement the Amendment might never have passed in the first place.
“He has now introduced the topic into the news cycle which puts it on people’s radar. He is manipulating the narrative like a media jujitsu master.”
And the Enemy Media NEVER sees it coming. BAM! :)
“Whether or not the President has the power to change this is not the point. Because Trump said it the MSM will now have to report on it. He has now introduced the topic into the news cycle which puts it on people’s radar. He is manipulating the narrative like a media jujitsu master.”
I’m sure most people never thought it was even an option, because it has never been addressed at any level. Way to go Trump!
It is staggering. Add to that his chain migration and it’s a nation killer.
Ted Kennedy should be exhumed from Arlington and dumped in the mexican desert where he belongs.
This puzzles me too. I married an English woman while stationed in London. We had two children there and I know for a fact that they can claim British citizenship as well as American. I’m not sure if they can be considered natural born U.S. citizens though; I think not. Sure would be nice to have this mess cleared up once and for all. i.e., is Ted Cruz eligible to become President? Are my daughters?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.