Posted on 10/31/2018 1:34:56 AM PDT by ZeroToHero
For Trump to speak of eliminating the practice where illegal immigrants can arrange to have babies in this country, and they automatically become American citizens, is very much part of his eleventh-hour push on immigration. At a time when he has been pounding away at the Central American caravan — at least until that narrative was interrupted by terror attacks — birthright citizenship is shrewdly targeted to his base.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told Axios.
When pressed, he said that "you can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order ... It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Apparently Trump didn’t bring up the effort himself, it was a leak.
heard it briefly on news yesterday that other countries don’t allow it, then why do we have to be so compassionate......
Answer.... Politicians gaming the system to ensure their own survival....
some background from other countries
Source: https://meurrensonimmigration.com/canada-and-birthright-citizenship/
What is interesting about the current debate is that it seems to be occurring in a North American vacuum. Rarely do commentators ever address the immigration systems of non North-American nations. Indeed, if you read some American commentaries you would think that if America were to repeal birthright citizenship, then it would be the first nation in history to do so.
This is not the case.
Jus soli is currently observed by just 16% of the world’s nations. Major states that grant citizenship based on birth include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, and the United States. It is generally prevalent in Latin America.
It is not elsewhere. Furthermore, in the last twenty years, many countries that previously granted citizenship by birth have introduced restrictions and have imposed additional requirements. Indeed, Canada and the United States are the only two OECD countries that currently have birthright citizenship.
The United Kingdom abolished jus soli in 1983. A child born in the UK is only deemed to be a citizen of the UK if that child has a parent who is a British citizen or “settled” in the UK. “Settled” means that the parent is a resident of the United Kingdom and has the ride of abode. For children born before July 1, 2006, if only the father meets the citizen or “settled” requirement, then the parents must be married. In such cases, it is possible for the father to petition that the child become a citizen.
Australia, meanwhile, abolished jus soli in 1986. Section 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act currently provides that an individual born in Australia is only Australian if at least one parent is an Australian or a permanent resident. A child born in Australia to foreign nationals and who lives in Australia will acquire citizenship upon his/her 10th birthday (if the child has not already been granted citizenship for another reason). This rule appears to be to ensure that the child has developed connections to Australia. There are special provisions for stateless individuals.
As of 2005, an individual born in Ireland will be entitled citizenship if he/she would not be entitled to citizenship elsewhere. As well, he/she would be an Irish citizen if at least one of his/her parents is:
An Irish citizen;
A British citizen;
A resident of the island of Ireland without any time limit;
A legal resident of the island of Ireland for three out of the 4 years preceding the child’s birth – time spent as a student or an asylum seeker does not count.
France, meanwhile, awards citizenship on the basis of double jus soli. An individual born in France is only considered a citizen if at least one parent was also born there. For children born to parents who are both foreign nationals,
At age 18 the child will acquire citizenship if he/she had been resident in France for at least 5 years since the age of 11;
At age 16 upon request by the child and if resident in France;
At age 13 upon request by the child’s parents and if resident if France;
Germany previously never practiced jus soli. However, it had to modify this position due to the increasing number of descendants of Turkish workers. Now, a child born after January 1, 2000 to non-German parents will acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent had a permanent resident permit or had been residing in Germany for at least 8 years. Such children are required to apply to retain their German citizenship by the age of 23.
China, meanwhile, has never had birthright citizenship. The Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that when a person is born in China, that person is a Chinese national if he or she has at least one parent of Chinese nationality, or if both parents are settled in China and are stateless.
The point of these comparisons is not to argue for one system or another. Rather, it is to point out that there are alternatives, and that Canada and the United States are part of the exception, rather than the norm, in how it maintains a very broad birthright citizenship regime.
...
This is the post mid-term Trump. In a strong position of authority, leading from the front. Getting Congress to pass a comprehensive Immigration Reform Package.
Citizenship will be more tightly defined. The wall will be built. DACA will be a term of the past.
With a strong border and citizenship more tightly defined, POTUS, with ICE can concentrate on those that came here, not to become American, but to try to redefine the USA, Dearborn MI presented as evidence.
Thanks Hostage, that was very informative. I did not know that Jacob Howard wrote the amendment. His comments make it clear that the intent was never to allow anyone just born on our soil to be a citizen.
Let’s assume the drafters of that amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the second version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. President Trump is correct.
The second power play here is as stated in the article, setting up the courts to define the meaning articulated in the amendment.
Anything outside that actual written language of the amendment itself can only be referred to by the court in an effort to attempt to determine the original intent. Which of course any RAT judge will completely ignore and insert their own meaning to make it mean what they want it to.
Personally, I think this is a set up by Trump to in courage a court challenge by the RATS that will force a court decision to answer the question Congress has been unable or unwilling to solve. With Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS DJT is expecting them to agree with him. What Jacob Howard had to say about it should help.
> “... if it’s not specifically written into that amendment then the courts will rule to “clarify” its meaning.”
Thank God for President Trump and his refusal to surrender his selection of Supreme Court Justices that are strict constructionists that will interpret according to the full meaning and intent of history behind the Constitution.
Roberts, Thomas, Alito. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and their clerks will pour over the full meaning and intent of the history ad not parse words in writing a decision.
bump
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.