Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

Axios ^ | October 30, 2018 | Jonathan Swan, Stef W. Kight

[familyop]

"Enlighten me, please. It does seem a bit off that he has the ability to do this through E.O.."

This statement, where Axios generalizes by saying "non-citizens," would include legal permanent residents.

"President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil,..."

The Trump Administration has no such intention. As for the rest, does "jurisdiction" mean what it has always meant in U.S. and local laws or something else entirely? The President could issue the executive order in regards to illegals and those with temporary visas. And as you might guess, we'd see an answer from the courts rather quickly.

I suspect that such an executive order would more likely be aimed much at "birth tourism" (often wealthier foreigners who come for the single purpose of giving birth in U.S. hospitals, and some, even for later gaining a strategic advantage in the even of an international conflict). Birth tourists intend to skirt the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, in my opinion.

It won't really matter to other undocumented people who don't stay long enough to have kids. That will depend on whether or not we build better security at the border.

[DoodleDawg]

it does not apply to children of non-citizens because they are not subject to our jurisdiction/laws simply due to the fact that they are not here legally.

If they are not subject to our laws then how can we arrest them and deport them?

[Electric Graffiti]

The law you cited does not say that children born to foreign nationals on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
Foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdictions of their own countries. Not ours.

[Eleutheria5]

Author’s intent? Plain language? Get with it, baby. Only another amendment will shut the leftards up. And they will squawk in opposition like angry crows. It might be that the debate will bring up the plain language and author’s intent, but that won’t shut them up. But if it passes, they will have to STFU.

[novemberslady]

I am looking for Ginsburg to retire the day after the midterms if the Dems don’t pull it off.
I think she is hanging on for that.

maybe two

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

He is not called the blue collar billionaire for nothing.:)

[Electric Graffiti]

It’s plain language now...Another amendment? Shirely, you jest.

[jurroppi1]

Insomuch as if they are in the USA and break a US law, they are subject to the jurisdictional law where they break it, but they are not originally subject to our jurisdiction, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country where they are a citizen. You must read the sentence as a whole - it states and are, that is very important.

There is history and clarification on the 14th regarding the citizenship clause by the very person that submitted it, look upthread.

[DoodleDawg]

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?

[jurroppi1]

2 posts above the one to which I replied has the answer (#42).

You also got a sound answer right below your post to which I am replying now.

[Flavious_Maximus]

“... AND subject to their jurisdiction”

The left always ignore that part.

[Electric Graffiti]

Why were indians not given citizenship under the 14th when it was first enacted?

Shirely, they were under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Right?

[Deplorable American1776]

Please, Mr. President, do it...Winning...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It could be fixed by inserting the words "Of parents legally in the United States" right after the word "born". Easy, peasy.

Would require 60 votes in the senate.

[jurroppi1]

The point is jurisdiction, not the ability to arrest and detain - those are different things. Simply breaking a law in another country does not make you subject to their jurisdiction and not that of your home country - you are first and foremost subject to the jurisdiction of the country where you are a citizen.

This would be jurisdiction over the subject matter, not necessarily personal jurisdiction.

[Electric Graffiti]

Howard continues...

the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.

IOW, owing no other allegiances and so indians were not born citizens under the 14th. Imagine that.

[BigEdLB]

Get stock in Orville Redenbacher

[Electric Graffiti]

“The point is jurisdiction, not the ability to arrest and detain - those are different things.”

Yes. Doodledork is well versed in the liberal talking points because he’s a troll.

[9YearLurker]

Any honest article would specify that Melmed was in the Obama administration.

[BigEdLB]

Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy makes this timely