Posted on 05/30/2023 10:56:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
The Court could overturn Wong Kim Ark.
I have nothing against the goal but I am getting a bit leery of governing by executive order by both parties. I’d rather something of more permanence like say actual legislation or amendment.
I think we are the only stupid country which allows birth citizenship from tourists.
You expect that from Uniparty in DC? Really????
“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
Not sure but I believe it is this clause that has been the subject of debate on the question of whether all those born in the U.S. being citizens.
Wouldn’t ending this require a Constitutional Amendment? Or getting control of the border . . .
While I definitely support this policy change, promising this again five years after he was supposed to already do it is too little too late.
Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order (2018)
https://www.axios.com/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order
No SCOTUS decision on point.
Lots of “judicial noticing” going on, though.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/507/
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
Overview Opinions Materials
Granted:
January 9, 2004
Argued:
April 28, 2004
Decided:
June 28, 2004
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
U.S. citizens may be designated as enemy combatants, but due process rights still apply to any U.S. citizens in detention. They also have the right to a hearing on enemy combatant status before a neutral tribunal.
While Trump’s critics will undoubtedly find something about this to complain about, it should be remembered that even talking about doing such a thing was taboo in American politics before Trump came on the scene.
Democrats and Republicans alike wouldn’t dare raise the subject. In pre-Trump politics, suggesting it would open you up to a barrage of attacks for being heartless, racist, etc., that would be tantamount to political suicide. Remember when Cruz talked about it being a dead issue because the Constitution simply didn’t allow it? But Trump knew it was BS. And he knew the public overwhelmingly agreed with him. He knew the emperor had no close and said so.
Now it’s an acceptable topic for discussion. Ted Cruz even supports it now, or at least says he does. Trump spent his first term focusing on stopping the flow of new illegals and deporting the worst of the worst who were already here. That he plans to finish the job in a second term is good news.
BS.
For starters, he can’t do that.
For seconds, that promise would disappear the night he got elected.
And finally, the GOP is probably trying to figure out a way to remove Trump for all ballots.
Just like he did in 2016!
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Wong Kim Ark is the precedent that makes the great replacement scheme work. This ruling from 1898 is the root of absolute birthright citizenship in the United States. Thanks to Wong Kim Ark, if a pregnant illegal alien walks five feet over the border and then gives birth, that child is a U.S. citizen for life. If a Chinese tourist flies to Saipan and has a baby there, again, U.S. citizen for life.
The justification for this is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
A detailed look at the 14th Amendment’s legislative history and the debates over similar laws at the time, though, makes it obvious that the authors of the law never intended it to cover the children of foreign nationals illegally in the United States:
The [1866] Civil Rights Act provided the first definition of citizenship after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, specifying “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Thus an overwhelming majority of Congress on the eve of the debate over the meaning of the citizenship clause of section 1 of the 14th Amendment were committed to the view that foreigners — and presumably aliens — were not subject to birthright citizenship. Most of those who voted in favor of the act were still serving in Congress when the 14th Amendment was under consideration. In fact, Senator Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act and chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was an ardent supporter of Howard’s version of the citizenship clause. “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ . . . What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Not owing allegiance to anybody else, subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and not subject to a foreign power.[5] During debate over the Civil Rights Act, Senator Trumbull remarked that purpose of its citizenship clause was “[t]o make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”
[National Review]
Today, the unspoken purpose of illegal immigration is to transform the country, inexorably, by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and have children who are instantly United States citizens.
A future Republican administration should directly challenge this travesty of the law, and the Supreme Court should correct it.
Some might not come if anchor babies aren’t allowed.
Constiturionlly, Automatic Citizenship of a baby requires parental citizenship. Absent that, it’s up to congress
Yes, someone would have to challenge Wong Kim Ark and the court would have to overturn the decision.
Until then, birthright citizenship will stand.
I’ve read somewhere that the Amendment framers assured the public that it excludes persons of foreign jurisdictions. Most likely the plan the whole time was to make language they can use for whatever purpose later.
BS. That opportunity came and went in the first two years of his administration when the GOP had control of the House, Senate and White House. If Trump were to win in 2024, he wouldn’t have such friendly turf.
You claim that the strategy’s not good enough, but does the underlying issue even matter to you? I doubt it.
Politically speaking, birthright citizenship was a sacred cow before Trump came on the scene. It wasn’t discussed and if suggested, politicians both left and right would respond with a patronizing explanation of how it was a dead issue, that we had to live with.
If you’re looking for a better solution, your focus should be on Congress.
You are right, but I give him some slack coz he was a newbie elected politician. He may have learned a lot how DC works, and it is entirely possible (but not guaranteed) Trump will be more pro-active in his 2nd term.
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.