“... This order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans...” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. ...
The Constitution’s 14th Amendment... states that “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.”... In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the United States to immigrant parents were entitled to U.S. citizenship....
“From the 1790 Naturalization Act to the infamous Dred Scott decision, U.S. citizenship has long been shaped to uphold racial hierarchy,” said Karla McKanders, director of LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute. “By sidestepping the constitutional amendment process, this executive order attempts to unilaterally rewrite the 14th Amendment — an essential Reconstruction-era measure that granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., including formerly enslaved people. This action seeks to resurrect a racialized notion of who is American in opposition to LDF’s commitment working towards to a multi-racial democracy.”
Yesterday, Donald Trump repeatedly expressed a desire to transcend race and become "colorblind" and "merit" based. But his opponents will characterize that desire as fully racist, the worst kind, the hidden kind.
Posts
122 comments:
Here we go! Not one day in, and the lawsuits and impeachments begin!
If the parents are here illegally are not the unborn fetuses here illegally also? No ?
Let the leftie side drain resources on a few of these long drawn out things. If the Good guys walk and chew gum at the same time the propaganda will have a tougher time forming narratives…plus, based on some of the comments yesterday, I’m not sure everyone on their side is willing to get on board with the hitler stuff anymore…
creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans...”
Ha, that's the thing, Trump doesn't want a subclass of people in the United States, he wants to establish the fact their parents shouldn't be here in the first place.
I actually think attempting to amend the constitution is the better play, but it's a good opening bid.
RICO: Target the conspiracy of a political party and individual lawbreakers to strategically violate residency laws and therefore violate citizenship laws. Make them pay financially if they are not ejected from the country.
Laws are always made up as a country goes along, just ask Joe about his pardons and his 28th Amendment.
I mean it’s still Washington protecting what’s rightfully theirs, already with a couple lawsuits if their own, Fox telling its viewers it’s time to move on from investigating corruption and Susan Collins with yet another crisis of conscience over approving a reformer…maybe if they overwhelm them with problems some of the good stuff sneaks through…
Birthright citizenship is one of the ways the United States distinguishes itself from the European ethnostates that have done such a poor job of integrating even the desirable immigrants. I also like that there are certain hard limits on the government’s ability to say who is and who is not a citizen.
The anchor baby problem, to the extent that it even is a problem, could be solved more simply by continuing the policy to keep families together, but ending the policy of letting them stay so long as one of them is a citizen.
Deport them all and let the citizen come back (alone) when they are 18, if that’s what they want
Problem solved, without all the hullabaloo.
1. The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction of….”
2. A statute had to be passed to give Native Americans citizenship. They were born on US soil, but they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They were members of their tribes.
3. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from; not the United States.
Slam dunk legal victory for Trump!
Trump should make an exception if you were here during the Civil War.
Yes Dave. We’re going to be invited to dismiss this as a waste of time because ‘It’s in the Constitution’ but let’s find out what those words mean, shall we? The left aren’t the only ones who are ‘ballsy’ when it comes to the meanings of words…
That's a common argument, but it's nonsense. The only people physically within the borders of the United States who are not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats.
Let's take a moment to celebrate the return of "Precedent" as something that suddenly matters to the Left and the Media (BIRM). Less than 24 hours! Pretty impressive reversal for the Establishment.
Heartless, no.
Regardless of the parent status, the baby is subject to the laws of the United States.
Arguably subject to the laws of anther country as well but definitely to the laws of the us.
What about the child of 2 Indian immigrants? Legal or not. That child has no right to Indian citizenship under Indian law. Not a citizen and not subject to Indian law.
So the rule fails for them.
John Henry
Would his EO revoke citizenship for anchor babies or just stop giving it from here?
Previously he talked about this in concert with chain migration policies as allowing a lot of unwelcome people into our country. So I think there’ll be something dealing with that (chain migration) too at some point.
The correct solution is…a border. Nations have borders and they defend them vigorously. It does mean fixing the dotted lines but more effective than a wall is the removal of the incentives to arrive and stay illegally. We did a bunch of that yesterday. A good start…but only a start…
Hey, if Biden can just declare the 28th Amendment exists with a tweet, why can't Trump do this? At least he's issuing an EO.
Nice summary, Dave. I agree with the slam dunkability. For skeptics, this is why foreign ambassadors who have children here do not claim US citizenship: they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from; not the United States."
That sounds like a legal and administrative nightmare, as well as requiring the deportation of citizens even if they would be minors. Better to simply establish what most people want, which is that only children born to legal residents of the United States (which would have included former slaves at the time of the Amendment) are granted US citizenship.
…aaaand there you go…early, not on time…
That seems like an Indian law problem. Generally babies carry the same citizenship of at least one of the parents, regardless of birthplace, no?
No no and no.
Born in the us, us citizen regardless of parental status. It makes a clear, bright, line with no ambiguity.
Idonald trump is wrong on this. I will be donating today to help fund the lawsuit.
I hoped this was just an opening position on getting rid of anchor babies. Now it looks like he meant it.
The baby's citizenship is not the issue for me. The problem is that the baby's citizenship allows the mother, and father, and siblings and aunts and uncles and... To stay.
Get rid of this chain migration by EO or statute and there is no problem.
The baby can stay, we will foster them if need be. Everybody else goes home.
John Henry
This is how America will be conquered by an alien adversary without a shot fired. This and domestic support for American Civil Liberties Unburdened.
serious question: were Wong Kim Ark's parents here illegally?
Of course, Trump's opponents will characterize Trump in the worse ways they can, but after 8 years of doing so; it no longer has the effect it once did. Throw in the 4 years of pretense that Biden was sharp as a tack, and Trump's opponents don't have any more credibility. All they have is a Presidential pardon.
It's the opposite of a slam dunk. It's a novel (and stupid) "reading" of the 14th Amendment that's never been accepted in the federal courts before. I mean, point to a case, any case, where this argument has won. If you're a born here, you're a citizen.
The only exception is foreign ambassadors. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which is why you can't arrest them and charge them with crimes. Illegal immigrants are not, and never have been, foreign ambassadors.
It's incredibly difficult to strip somebody of U.S. citizenship. You think that's a walk in the park? You think the president can, with the stroke of a pen, take a bunch of U.S. citizens and strip them of citizenship? It's ridiculous on its face.
Nor can you simply argue they were never citizens in the first place. Even if the courts were to accept the bogus arguments made today, you can't go back in time and change anybody's citizenship status retroactively. That's ex post facto law, clearly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution.
Why do we need a constitutional amendment? It seems like open border advocates are scared of the democratic process. Congress should pass a statute and then you take out your frustrations at the ballot box in 2 years.
…based on the quick comments I think this is an excellent one for the limbo of the courts for a few years. Three more, please…
I did not intend to sound like an Italian immigrant in 1922 ("If you're a born here"). Just a happy coincidence.
For those that don’t know, there is an industry of hotels/birthing centers for pregnant Chinese women. They fly into the US and give birth. They get the American birth certificate for the baby American citizen and then the two of them fly back to China.
With the open southern border, there is much potential for the United States vs. Sum Yung Guys. Be aware.
Map of countries wit unrestricy, restricted and no birthright citizenship
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship
John Henry
Yesterday, Donald Trump repeatedly expressed a desire to transcend race and become "colorblind" and "merit" based. But his opponents will characterize that desire as fully racist, the worst kind, the hidden kind.
His opponents cite the 1790 Naturalization Act and Dredd Scott (1857). Neither of which is the law Today, or has been for at least 150 years. As I recall there was a rather substantial war fought about the issue.
The opponents are disingenuously framing the argument as a racial issue, which it is not. It is a modern problem of unchecked and uncontrolled trespassing, essentially.
Let's frame the issue in good faith, and deal with it honestly. Waving the "racist" flag just signals that the opponents of common sense policies to deal with a very real problem are not acting in good faith.
His parents were here legally.
But nothing I've seen in the case or about the case addressed what would have been the result had they not been.
John Henry
I agree with this! No need to inject race into it.
This will be a problem for America Civil Liberties Unburdened, Progressive sects, and special, peculiar, liberal corporate empathetic interests who attach rights (e.g. life) to the mother.
The child is a US citizen and will be raised by US parents.
The biological parents still get deported, however. Problem solved.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - Children of legal immigrants, yes. Illegal immigrants, no. Simple.
Liberals and Democrats still trying to import votes. Even via births they don't encourage to abort.
Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism) politics.
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one.
Yes.
Another ‘shiny object’ destined to draw the attention and fire of Trump’s opponents while a myriad of other stuff gets done.
The first lawsuit and the first hoax (Elon Musk was not symbolically throwing his heart to the crowd, he was giving a Nazi salute) on the first day. Democrats have learned nothing from their drubbing. We have to drub them harder.
tim maguire
That's a common argument, but it's nonsense. The only people physically within the borders of the United States who are not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats.
I'm not sure why people think this is such a compelling argument for the idea that people born to parents not legally residing in the US can't be denied automatic citizenship.
Regardless of your "jurisdiction" argument, diplomats are *lawfully residing in the United States*. It makes sense that one would need to establish a category of lawful residents whose children are *not* automatically citizens (see also Native Americans). As GoSpace pointed out in his very bold comment on the cafe thread, Kim Wong Ark was born to Chinese citizens lawfully residing in the United States, not illegal aliens. We've already established there is a category of people who are not automatically citizens even though their parents are lawful residents. I don't see why that bars the government from creating a similar restriction on non-lawful residents.
Dave Begley said...
“For those that don’t know, there is an industry of hotels/birthing centers for pregnant Chinese women. They fly into the US and give birth. They get the American birth certificate for the baby American citizen and then the two of them fly back to China.”
They’re tourists. Should we be granting citizenship to tourists? I have a refrigerator magnet from when I visited the Ohio Caverns, but that doesn’t mean I have an ownership stake in them. (*)
Same applies to the illegals. They are not legal residents, so maybe they fall in the tourist bucket, too. At least some other status.
Back to Dave’s point: Closely related to the issue of birthright citizenship is the issue of dual citizenship. If these individuals are Chinese citizens *and* choose to live in China, should they be US citizens as well?
(*) The joke here is that ownership of the Caverns took decades to sort out because they run under multiple properties, with the owners buying up most of the competing claim. Ohio is not like parts of the West where land rights are separate from the mineral/oil/water rights underneath.
Yes. The first-day stuff will get a lot of attention and draw some lawsuits, but some actions are meant to be symbolic rather than expected to be enacted. If Trump actually being clever here, he'll move on to what he really wants to do as these keep the focus away.
The Fourteenth Amendment supercedes parental rights and jurisdiction, and opens communities to migratory and military invasion.
Obama gave the National Socialists' salute outside of Air Force One. People need to be better aware of their expressions and implications. Case in point, the albinophobic nature of Rainbow symbols and rhetoric in the human context. #HateLovesAbortion
Hypothetical: One million blue-eyed, blond Nazi solders cross our borders on September 1st. Among those soldiers are pregnant birthing persons who give birth on US soil. We then drive the Nazis out. Are the babies US citizens?
Like MJB Wolf I once believed that diplomats children born in the US did not receive citizenship. Then I hired a young man whose Russian father had long worked as a diplomat in the Russian mission to the United Nations in NYC. When I asked him for his I-9 he provided his US passport of his proof of eligibility to work. Asked when and how he became a citizen. His answer? “I was born in NYC.”
The 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are/?b> citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." I would argue that by using the present tense "are," the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment sought to grant citizenship to all persons then-living who were born or naturalized in the United States - had they wanted this to create birth-right citizenship over the long haul, they would have said "shall be" rather than "are." This interpretation also most closely comports with the stated intent of the 14th Amendment, which was to ensure that freed slaves were considered citizens, whether they had been born here or were brought here after birth.
"Advocates" advocating for purported extraordinary rights of illegal aliens who have no legitimate constitutional rights to subsidies paid by taxpayer-monies, nor legal protections afforded to citizens.
Trump was elected because too many American citizens were appalled to see recently-arriving illegal migrants receiving MORE cash benefits, EASIER access to free housing vouchers, food, medical-care and public education, and protected by local, state, and federal government policies from ICE and deportation. These migrants are a huge financial cost to Americans, a significant cause in crimes and misdemeanors.
Biden Administration's immigration policy was offense to both taxpayers and US citizens who could equally benefit from largesse spent on "migrants". Biden Administration, and its progressive-liberal state and local politicians, were/are more concerned for welfare of illegal 3rd-world residents, who have no legitimate legal standing, than their own citizens in poverty. The Black and Hispanic working-class and poor communities were outraged by what Biden Administration caused, as reflected in 2024 election voter-block trends proved.
I do think having babies born here not be citizens is an over-reach. The "problem" of separating families can be solved, as noted, by deporting the parents who are here as illegals. They can take their kids with them.
American Samoa is a US territory. Samoans are subject to US sovereignty but aren't birthright US citizens. That's a sign that Congress has the power to define how the 14th Amendment's provision is to be interpreted.
Once again we see the use of the word “immigrant” to conflate resident aliens and visa holders with illegal aliens. The case referred to only covered the former two classes, not the latter.
Democrats worry about "separating families" if deportations occur, but have no apparent concern for the missing 300,000+ migrant children "misplaced" after their entry. These unaccompanied migrant-children are probably permanently separated from their families, likely exploited by nefarious child-traffickers for illegal work and indentured labor.
Mechanics of establishing "anchor baby" citizenship has created a booming business for entrepreneurs - the travel, the temporary housing, the cost-free delivery at taxpayer cost (or hospital loss), the attorney fees, etc. And that baby (or university student) can then sponsor entire family, several generations, for legal visas and residency, for social-welfare program subsidies, free education, medical-care, day-care, subsidized housing, food programs --- all paid by US citizen taxpayers.
My granddaughter missed being born in the UK by less than two weeks. Would she be a British subject if she had been?
Just looked it up. The answer is no.
The Indian Consulate in San Francisco says:
Citizen of India by descent: You are Citizen of India by descent if you are born outside India and either of your parents is a citizen of India at the time of your birth.
In Gandhi's day, it was believed that Indians would lose caste if they left India, but apparently that's not the case today either.
You're probably aware that unborn babies are classified as non-persons by the federal government. Their humanity is recognized the same day their citizenship is recognized -- the day they are born. This is an insane state of affairs, of course. Conflating citizenship with humanity is an ancient evil.
This explains why the attorney for the Thurgood Marshall center sounds so hysterical, and why she's citing the Dred Scott case. To her, a denial of citizenship is a denial of humanity.
It's ridiculous. Non-citizens are still human beings. You can deny one without denying the other. And I will bet money she denies the humanity of unborn children.
Birth in the USA creates citizens, not people.
I used to live in Korea and was surprised to learn that it's a thing for wealthy Koreans to give birth in America so their children have dual citizenship. It helps with college and has the added advantage of allowing their male children to avoid the draft.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(1) seems defensible in light of the precedents discussed in Wong Kim Ark, but (2) will be harder. Aliens lawfully present in the US, even on a temporary basis, owe a "temporary allegiance" to the US, as discussed in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor:
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
Such "temporary allegiance" and acquiescence to the lawful jurisdiction of the USA is evidenced by their prior application for a visa or (for the visa waiver program) an ESTA. It signifies their acceptance of US sovereignty.
Some categories of illegal alien -- those who, for example, exploit the asylum provisions of US immigration law to obtain temporary parole into the US after being apprehended by the authorities -- could also make a legal argument that they have accepted the jurisdiction of the US. So also with illegal immigrants who entered lawfully, submitting to inspection by CBP, but overstayed their visas (although query whether this applies if they lied to deceive the government into granting entry). But those illegal immigrants who successfully infiltrate into the US and evade capture by law enforcement have, I would think, a much weaker case.
Unbolden
By the time of the 14th Amendment virtually every enslaved black American would have been born in the US because the importation of new slaves was stopped in 1808. I agree that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to ensure that Southerns and others didn't write laws that would have redefined freed slaves or their descendants as unlawful residents or otherwise not protected by the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It was not to declare that the US government could not establish the requirements for citizenship.
The Kim Wong Ark case was decided in 1898. The Snyder Act which granted citizenship to all Native Americans not previously covered by various citizenship grants wasn't passed until 1924. Pretty clearly the people alive when Ark was decided didn't believe that it automatically granted citizenship to anyone born on US soil, or the act would have been redundant.
I was going to weigh in on Wong Kim Ark, but I'm a bit late. Coulter has always been very good on this. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, there was no thought of "birthright" citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves. Even though it wasn't stated, everyone knew "Indians" were not included--their status was up to the Congress. In fact except for legal birth on U.S. soil, to parents who are in the country legally (the case of Wong Kim Ark, whose parents were permanent residents, not, for example, foreign diplomats) it is up to Congress to determine who becomes "naturalized"--a beautiful word. "Native born" for presidents has to do with whether there is some other sovereignty, other than that of the U.S., which you have recently acknowledged and submitted to, or are likely to do so.
"But his opponents will characterize that desire as fully racist, the worst kind, the hidden kind."
Darn! And on MLK Day, too. So much for judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
Trump's opponents are racists of an even worse kind: race baiters of the first order.
St Croix, it is not just incredibly difficult to strip someone of their citizenship, it is (or nearly is) constitutionally impossible. I htave, over the years, found 4-5 cases where it was attempted and rejected by the Supremes each time. Nishikawa was US born, served in the Japanese army in WWII and Supremes held his citizenship could not be removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishikawa_v._Dulles
In any event, that is a separate issue. President Trump is not revoking anyone's citizenship. He is not allowing them to acquire it, a completely different thing.
If fraud was committed in the naturalization process, citizenship can be revoked on that basis, though it is hard.
John Henry
In every case I've found, the govt did not try to remove the citizenship they argued that the person had renounced their citizenship by serving in Japanese army or taking Israeli citizenship and elective office (Afroyim)
"Get rid of this chain migration ...". Yes, this x 1,000. And deport the parents. Separate the family? Feh. When we incarcerate a father we are "separating" the family. Have them take their child with them. And, think of the disincentive to bring a pregnant woman across the border if you (and extended family) can not stay. The economics falls apart.
Samoans, along with Swain Islanders (pop currently about zero) are "Nationals but not citizens of the US" per UIS Code on citizenship
For purposes of citizenship PR, USVI, Washington DC, Guam, Marianas are legally defined as "states". A person born in PR is covered by the 14th Amendment. A person born in a military hospital in Panama is not. They are statutory ciitizens based on parents citizenship.
John Henry
Actually, it depends on when she was born. Before 83, almost definitely yes. Then there are a bunch of variations depending on the year they were born.
That is the nice thing abiout our system. It could not be dimpler to tell if one is a citizen or not.
John Henry
I like it.
Anybody in 2025 who cares about being a called "racist" or doing something "racist" let alone "Hidden racist" or "Unconscious Racist" is a moron. Its just a weapon used by the Left to destroy dissent or any change to the current status quo.
The 14th Admendment was used to make blacks citizens, hence the wording . There was no intention to create "anchor babies". And if anyone born in the USA was a citizen, there would've been no need to make Indians citizens in 1924.
But this is to be expected. The Democrats and the Left will find a leftwing judge who will issue an injuction against every Trump executive order they don't like. We're back to rule by Judges. Before we had rule by E/O because the Judges liked Biden.
"The lawsuit charges the Trump administration with flouting the Constitution’s dictates, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent."
That's an awesome claim on their part. Because I was in arguments with people over this on Volokh, and I asked them to provide a single example of a supporter of the provision saying during the Congressional arguments about it that yes, this would mean that babies of tourists born while mom was in America would indeed be US Citizens.
No one ever provided any cites.
Lacking those, there's no "congressional intent" for "birthright citizenship", and there's certainly no "original public understanding" support for it, either.
So, anyone got a quote and source that can be checked?
betcha can't find any arguments the other way either, can you?
John Henry
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality
I used to have a client in Antigua which is an independent country. Last time I was there, many years ago, I went to a sort of baby shower. It was actually a farewell to the expectant mother who was off to Canada to give birth. It is apparently a thing to do. My client's kids were all born in Canada though never lived there. He was born in Canada and went to McGill but never lived there. I think his father was born in Canada. All "Natural Born" Canadian citizens.
Also Antiguan citizens.
His great or perhaps great-great grandfather emigrated to Antigua from Portugal. His Portugese citizenship rolls down the ages and my client is also a Portugese citizen.
3 passports, 3 citizenships. I know his kids have 2, not sure if they are Portugese as well.
It does not seem right even if it is legal.
John Henry
A nation is a legal jurisdiction. The Constitution was written for and to the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity. Others are subject to statutory jurisdiction, rights, and privileges including naturalization.
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality = just abolish that process
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality & needs to be abolished
Kamala Harris is (or was?) a Jamaican citizen by birth. As well as US, born in Oakland. Her parents were here legally. But if she has not renounced here Jamaican citizenship doesn't that mean that she is still subject to Jamaican law?
If, as some are saying, this is the determining factor, is she NOT a citizen because she is not subject only to US law?
Nothing in 14A addresses parental status and all the folks I hear arguing about birthright citizenship stress that being subject only to US law is the controlling factor.
So how could Kamala run for office if she is not a citizen?
Dr Oz was born in Ohio but is also a Turkish citizen who travels on a Turkish passport. Subject to US and Turkish law. How can he be a US citizen?
(I think she is a citizen, before anyone accuses me of racism)
Nothing in 14A talks about parentage.
John Henry
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality
Kamala Harris was not an Indian citizen under Indian citizenship law. She could have applied to become one but apparently never did. You do not get indian citizenship through the mother or father, you have to be born there.
And there was Ted Cruz, Natural Born Canadian by place of birth. American by statute. Was he subject to Canadian law up till when he renounced in 2016? does that disqualify his citizenship?
John Henry
Of all things birthright citizenship is the most natural and logical
naturalization is cheating reality
This Executive order only applies to illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants. Many Democrats are upset because they think it means all immigrants. Republicans are excited for the same reason. At the end of it all the courts will have to decide whether a president can unilaterally redefine an Amendment. I am thinking no. Congress needs to do that. We’ll see.
Was Kamala or Ted here illegally? If not then this EO does not apply to them.
Not just Constitutional Amendment. Federal Statute in synch with the Amendment. Which will not be repealed with 53-47 split.
It's incredibly difficult to strip somebody of U.S. citizenship. You think that's a walk in the park? You think the president can, with the stroke of a pen, take a bunch of U.S. citizens and strip them of citizenship? It's ridiculous on its face.
You clearly did not read the EO. It clearly stays that the policy will take effect in the future (30 days as i recall, but I might be off... it was late when I was going through them), and that it only applies to births after that point. Any discussion of retroactive action with regards to this is simply a display of ignorance.
Overreaching is a strategery here. Trump knows he’s not going to get everything he wants. Ask for something he knows he’s not gonna get and in the process preserve something else that would have been rejected.
No revocation, applicable moving forward.
Welll here we go. The question of birthright citizenship is getting teed up, and I trust will eventually reach the Supreme Court. I think it worthwhile to get the issue sorted out. Historically the 14th amendment was intended to insure citizenship for those slaves who'd been emancipated by the Civil War.
I'd have to so some more looking, but I'm not aware of any other nation that confers citizenship on any and every child born within the nation's borders. Here in Southern California I've frequently seen groups of young Chinese women in their third trimester of pregnancy waiting for the child to be born. They are "birthright citizenship tourists". The Los Angeles area has a large Asian population with a lot of Chinese families doing business both in China and in the USA. It's not uncommon for those families to buy a house in San Marino or Arcadia and send their teenage children to live alone and go to high school.
3. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from; not the United States.
This statement is just wrong. For example, if you travel on a tourist visa, you are subject to the laws of the country you are visiting.
Under your extremely ignorant position, you could never charge an undocumented immigrant of a crime (even something as minor as illegal parking or speeding ticket). The only thing you could do is kick them out of the country. There have been instances where people with diplomatic immunity (including the children of diplomats) have killed someone, and all the U.S. could do was kick them out of the country or appeal to their home country to waive immunity.
I am not sure how I managed to get unbolden both right and wrong.
Trump was elected because too many American citizens were appalled to see recently-arriving illegal migrants receiving MORE cash benefits, EASIER access to free housing vouchers, food, medical-care and public education, and protected by local, state, and federal government policies from ICE and deportation. These migrants are a huge financial cost to Americans, a significant cause in crimes and misdemeanors.
This entire paragraph is a lie.
That is the nice thing abiout our system. It could not be dimpler to tell if one is a citizen or not.
Reading through the EO, it still sounds pretty straight forward:
For child born within these borders:
Is father a citizen?
Is mother here legally in a permanent status?
Yes to either question means the child is a citizen. So, slightly harder to determine than simply whether the child was born within the borders... but not much harder.
England changed their laws in the 1980s (under Thatcher). Those born before the rules were changed did indeed have birthright citizenship (even if your parents were there with the U.S. military).
Kamala's parents were here legally. Cruz' parents were US citizens, both were unquestionably US citizens (is Cruz "Natural Born" though?)
But 14A does not address parentage or legality. It addresses being subject to another country. Both were. Harris may still be.
John Henry
The Court in the Wong Kim Ark case noted that Ark's parents, while Chinese citizens, had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were in the U.S. carrying on business, so that case is factually distinguishable from tourists (or illegals).
That is what I was hoping when he originally proposed it last year. It is a typical negotiating tactic. I was hoping it was the opening position ending with elimination of chain migration. Now that he has made it an XO, I still hope but it seems like casting it in concrete like this makes it harder to move away.
John Henry
Well, at a minimum the "Trump was elected" part was correct.
And Alhambra and Monterey Park and ... But it includes Taiwan, Hong Kong and the diaspora. Xi has cracked down on PRC travel.
100% odds the Court tosses this EO in the garbage can. Might even be a 9-0 vote.
Hong Kong at one time had birthright citizenship but I think they ended it a few years ago.
That was a Schrodinger's comment!
I would hope. That would settle it once and for all.
Right now, nobody knows for sure. Certainty would be good.
And in the meantime focus on chain migration.
John Henry
Most crimes are punished by fines or incarceration, but breaking USA immigration law is rewarded by giving the violators' children USA citizenship.
This obviously needs to go to the SC for resolution.
In the meantime it's clear from recent activities that we should cut off Irish migration immediately. They appear to just be a bunch of crooks!
Apparently (and as discussed in the Ark case), the traditional categories of people that were understood under English common law as NOT being "subject to the jurisdiction" included the children of invading/occupying armies. I think a strong argument can be made that the U.S.-born children of illegals who never presented themselves to border officials are not guaranteed citizenship under the 14A. However, the children of those whom our government let in, or provisionally allowed to stay, under some kind of legal rubric (e.g., catch and release) probably should be considered "under the jurisdiction" within the meaning of the 14A and the corresponding statute -- and therefore we should probably be looking at a constitutional amendment as the needed fix.
Is this the same NAACP that will forever be remembered as a sexist, racist incorporation of back... black holes... whores?
Keep the Dream of American Civil Liberties Unburdened alive. Pun intended.
There needs to be emigration reform to mitigate the progress of separation of children, parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, etc.
I would counter that anyone who was released pending a court date who then did not show up for the court date has expressly demonstrated that they do not consider themselves subject to US jurisdiction.
I haven't read through the stream of comments, but "birthright citizenship" is the law of the land by means of an amendment to the Constitution. No executive order or mere law suits or judgements by any courts can revoke that right.
"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."
It can only be ended by the passage of a new amendment negating the prior amendment.
A short excerpt from Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 2005:
"Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed."
Truer (and more apt) words have seldom been written.
Trying to figure out how ACLU has standing and how the issue can be ripe if it's not in force yet. No one has yet been harmed so there's no basis for a suit. Or that's what all the lefties say when a conservative law firm sues over a Democrat EO.
"For example, if you travel on a tourist visa, you are subject to the laws of the country you are visiting."
In that case, the country you are visiting has explicitly granted the legitimacy of your presence in their country
This entire paragraph is a lie.
You're such an asshole. The entire paragraph is the truth. You disagreeing with it doesn't make it a lie. It makes you wrong. Again.
Most civilized and semi-civilized countries don’t do this. Why should we?
Yes just a shiny golden lure trump has no clue about Constitutional laws and amendments. People will go off on a tangent over this never gonna happen lure while he readys the tax reliefs for the oligarchy.Pay attention ,dont be a rube... .
Riiiiight.....Trump doesn't know anything, and neither do the phalanx of lawyers who advised him regarding the EO and how he will defend it when it is surely attacked.
And of course he doesn't know this issue will wind up in court and in the Congress and generate fierce public debate.
Riiiiight.
A brilliant analysis, one COMPLETELY ignoring the Amendment's legislative history, its exclusions , spotty practices and ambiguities.
And AS IF no constitutional amendments have ever been clarifed by subsequent legislation.
(but I grant you, an EO by itself isn't sufficient.)
I suspect there's been enough national pain, even in Blue States, to make it at least possible Congress will pass "clarifying" legislaton destined to wind up with the Supremes, who very well might agree that ilegal aka *criminal* aliens should not benefit from their criminal trespass by dropping anchor babies, as that was never the intention of the 14th.
Tina, both canada and Mexico have similar birthright citizenship to us. Born in either country, even on an airplane transiting Canada, you are a citizen. Mexico similar.
A few exclusions for diplomats.
Mexico is interesting because nobody is born a citizen. You are born a Mexican "national" and become a citizen at 18.
John Henry
Post a Comment