Posted on 10/30/2018 1:53:21 PM PDT by Rummyfan
In today's installment of exploding heads, President Trump has proposed to overturn, via executive order, the constitutionally dubious "birthright citizenship" interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There's no question he has the authority to issue such an order in his capacity as president and commander-in-chief -- each of the three branches is equally responsible for fidelity to the Constitution, and each is free to interpret it as it sees fit.
That the 14th amendment -- the centerpiece of the Reconstruction Amendments passed and ratified under the Johnson and Grant administrations, but proposed and voted in by the Radical Republicans in Congress -- applies specifically and only to the newly freed slaves is clear not only from its historical context, but to its very language:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
What exactly is dubious?
I recommend 10 years of indentured servitude as eligibility for any claim of citizenship under the 14th amendment.
Republicans need to start pointing out the economic problems immigration causes, and the drain it creates on funds for SocSec and healthcare. Turn he Demonrat scare tactic right back against them.
the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” makes the constitutionality of birthright citizenship for the babies born to foreign nationals very dubious. Foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US but rather to their own countries. The children born to citizens of another country are citizens of that country and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of that country. This whole idea of birthright citizenship granted to children of illegal aliens or people visiting here because they happened to be born here was never a part of our tradition for the first 200+ years of our history, and was fabricated by a liberal S/C justice circa on some socialist screed written, as I recall, by some leftist in Sweden. I’m not sure of my dates, the justice, or the guy who came up with this idea except he was not an American and he was not a lawyer, just some European guy from some left-leaning think-tank. Nothing could be more dubious!
Not a damn thing.
Subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Done
By definition, illegal aliens are NOT.
Informative post. It is pretty clear from context of when the amendment was added and the wording, it was never intended that birth alone qualified a person as a citizen. Everyone points to “jurisdiction thereof”, but I think the words “born or naturalized” also indicates that being born is somehow the equivalent of naturalized. Naturalization is a legal process that requires the applicant to meet the state’s qualifications and on the terms the state allows for such an application. Obviously, a newborn cannot meet any of the requirements for naturalization. Why would the state insist on all these requirements for an adult, but concede them all on a foreign citizens child? Makes no sense unless it was about slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.
This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Were either of the parents naturalized? What if the child does not want to be a citizen? Say one of these default citizens grows up and goes back to his own country. Can the United States compel them to serve in its armed forces under a draft? Everybody always assumes that everybody always wants to be a citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
Both of the parents were naturalized.
But Plyler v. Doe extended protection to children of illegal aliens.
You can try to take it to court, but your chances aren’t good.
That determination was about the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Depressing. Sounds like you know your stuff. That last decision looks like it was in the 80’s. So as with most things, modern law has already corrupted the original intent.
You can try to take that to the Supreme Court, but unless they're going to throw out precedent, you're facing a 9-0 face slap.
Have to amend the 14th amendment.
Never said I liked it, but you'll have to amend the 14th amendment.
I have a hard time applying that to a pregnant illegal in Yuma for one day having a baby.
That is almost exactly what the case of Plyler v. Doe was about.
The best I get out of that is that illegal aliens are subject to the laws of the state they are in. There is no citizenship implied.
The IRS is currently (and has been for years) trying to collect US. income taxes from people who were born in the U.S. but have lived their whole lives in foreign countries, where they are also citizens.
I agree about his motivation. The issue has never been addressed by the Legislative Branch therefore the current practice is the result of an Executive Branch interpretation of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction of". Since the President has the authority to change previous Executive interpretation, he can issue an EO. Of course his EO can be appealed and the Supreme Court can do one of three things.
(1) Uphold his Executive Order
(2) Overturn his Executive Order and impose their own interpretation
(3) Stay his order and refer the matter to the Legislature for their interpretation
I would expect that the previous Court would have chosen option 2 but would expect the current court to go for option 3. In any event he can force a decision on an establishment averse to hard decisions. In any case, the results can not be any worse than the current state of affairs.
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.