Posted on 10/30/2018 1:17:48 PM PDT by chief lee runamok
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) claimed on Tuesday that President Donald Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. The outgoing Republican leader made the remarks during a radio interview with Lexington, Kentucky area radio station WVLK.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I doubt it would do him any good. Any of us either.
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.
You have a link for John Bingham writing that? Thanks.
Ryan is pimping for a big payday when he retires.
He was supposed to be the conservative one on the Romney/Ryan ticket. That is why Trump won the primary in 2012.
And did they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US when they entered against our laws, subjecting themselves to immediate removal from the jurisdiction of the US?
Isn't there some sort of bilateral agreement, I agree to jurisdiction AND the U.S. agrees to jurisdiction. As an American abroad I am still subject to US jurisdiction. Can a Tierra del Fuegan suddenly up and say I am subject to US jurisdiction sans passport or immigration papers?
The plain language of the constitution, here, is not so plain and the intent of its authors is not self-evident from the text alone.
“Birthright citizemship” is NOT mandated, nor contemplated by the Constitution. The 14th amendment specifically excluded, avoided granting citizenship to babies born of citizens or subjects of foreign countries (whether in USA legally or not).
I am not clear at all that Congress has ever extended citizenship to such persons.
If Congress has done so, then Congress should repeal that provision/
If Congress has not done so, then I believe a President can (and should) correct this unauthorized practice, forthwith.
That verbiage was what came out of a committee. The 14th amendment didn't look like that when it began, but because some of the senators were confused by this concept known as "local allegiance", they diddled with the original verbiage which was much more clear on the subject, and they put forth this current confusing mess in which "jurisdiction" is not clearly defined in context.
Senator Johnson understood the meaning to be this:
Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.
By the way, that link above is to the debates on the 14th amendment. You can go forward or backward from there to read as much of it as you like.
I will also point out that Senator Jacob Howard explicitly said it will not apply to Indians because even if they are born within US Territory or a state, they are not subject to our jurisdiction.
Almost everyone coming up from South of the border is an "Indian" in the meaning used by Senator Jacob Howard.
You are dreaming. That isn't going to happen at all.
——————
That would be more of a nightmare than a dream, but it is a very realistic potential outcome if the Supreme Court interprets “under the jurisdiction of “ in the manner consistent with original intent of the 14 th Amendment and consistent with prior rulings
So legally it’s potentially logical outcome but politically it would be pretty explosive.
However, a Supreme Court ruling on the 14th Amendment potentially would not be governed by the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and the current generation of anchor babies would not automatically have their birth right citizenship grandfathered in if the Supreme Court made the determination
With a legislative solution, anchor babies would probably have their citizenship grandfathered in
This is called leverage
Last time I checked, President Trump is very good a manufacturing and applying leverage
. . [T]he word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so 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. . . The United States courts have no power to punish an Indian who is connected with a tribe for a crime committed by him upon another member of the same tribe.
And most of the people from Mexico, Central and South America are "Indians" as Senator Howard would define the term.
It may be unpopular to notice nowadays, but "Indians" are the class that was specifically mentioned as not being allowed to have birthright citizenship. How we are willing to just ignore the clear intent that Indians should not acquire citizenship, to the point of flipping the claim to "they have a right to citizenship"?
US Indians acquired citizenship under the Indian Citizenship act of 1924.
Don't know how people can argue foreign Indians are entitled to it too.
That is why it won't happen. It would be too disruptive. I think they would make some "Defacto Officer doctrine" to let the past aliens alone, and thereafter allow the executive branch to prohibit future birthright citizenship.
Exactly. You have to look at the debates on the 14th to understand what was the will of the House and Senate when they wrote it.
The original draft language makes their intent more clear, but some legal eagles confused the Senators with this concept known as "local allegiance", and they decided to change the words. In fact, they made them less clear.
The Kenyan would have just declared it so and thus it was.
I ddon’t agree. The shoe HAS been on the other foot and look what it cost us! The 14th amendment was to benefit the former slaves and their offspring, NOT to allow the whole world of intruders to become citizens.
Thanks.
Original intent is nice.
Thank you for posting this Statute, Oklahoma. After reading it, it seems like we are in a stronger position than what I’d originally thought.
This statute applies to children born within the United States who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
U. S. law has always considered aliens, including illegal aliens, to be subject to the jurisdictions of their countries of origin.
The rulings of rogue judges is another matter altogether. The Constitution, and laws made subject to it, are the supreme law of the land, not the rulings of rogue judges.
If POTUS issues an EO interpreting this law for the purpose of enforcing it, which POTUS must do to enforce any law, then it is up to the courts to decide if he interpreted it correctly.
Just so you understand that I am totally against anchor babies. I do not think that should be allowed. But executive orders should be limited to internal policies within the administration. And that is how I feel about it. I always have felt that way. When the cross over into to duties of the legislative branch then there is no separation of powers.
>
Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not subject to the 14th Ammendment!
So we now have to release every illegal alien convicted of a crime?
>
‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ != (say, when visiting the EU) having your spending $$ taxed out the wazoo as if you were living/working there.
I’d say, if you can seek ‘refuge’ in a foreign embassy, you fall into the being NOT subject to the jurisdiction
Once President Trump pulls the birth right citizenship wild card out from under his sleeve, we may be fairly amazed at what can get done and how quickly it can happen
Birth right citizenship for the anchor baby children of illegal aliens is absolutely unconstitutional and everyone knows it
If the feckless losers in Congress force President Trump to go all the way to the Supreme Court for a formal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, all hell going to break loose
Paul Ryno doesn’t work for us (GOP or Americans). He works for others.
I think the premise of your argument is faulty. The 14th Amendment was written by the Legislative branch and confirmed by the people. Therefor the legislative branch has done its job. It is the duty of the Executive branch to ENFORCE the laws the legislative branch passes. We do not need a NEW law as the 14th is quite clear. Somewhere along the line the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and used against we the people. The president is simply doing his job, enforcing the law.
It is more than a Constitutional question. We also have the statuary laws on the books concerning citizenship. Those laws also define legal terms and are subject to being changed. They have to pass the Congress and be signed by the President. The President can’t change them on his own and the Congress can only do it with an overwhelming vote to override a veto.
The wording of the current statutes need to be changed to make them more clear.
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.