Trump and Birthright Citizenship

[RedcoatOf94]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

 

[DallasDawg225]

Agreed, I think he just wants to kickstart this thing. I’m sure he fully expects this to be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[Georgia Knight]

It will definitely need to be ratified either by SCOTUS or Congress, but only because of the progressive capture of courts at large because the history of the 14th Amendment should make it obvious.

Birthright Citizenship Isn't Real | Mises Institute

There is a common misconception that the Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United

mises.org

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Just like a lot of the things Trump announces, it is as much about driving behavior as anything.

When Joe Biden and his admin effectively announce to the world that they will gladly welcome illegal immigrants, it has a huge effect….maybe even more so than the actual legal policy or enforcement.

Trump’s new sheriff in town approach has a snowball effect that will exponentially change behavior rooted all the way back to even leaving the house in Mexico, Guatemala, etc. Why even make the effort?

You think these illegals have a working wonky knowledge of the immigration law details? No. But they absolutely hear the winds of change on who was in charge and who is now.

It is already happening. The deterrent factor of criminals now fearing if they commit a crime and get caught, they will get deported?

All of this makes so much sense.

The sad part is that the opposite policy made so much sense also…..but only to those seeking to increase democrat votes across generations. Get em here. And ultimately give them amnesty…..creating millions of grateful voters.

So obvious what the strategy has been beginning with Obama and then put on steroids by the committee holding Biden’s strings the last four years. Completely intentional.

 

[woofn]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

just me, but why waste time?

 

[55dawg]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

Of course that’s the plan.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

just me, but why waste time?

This^^^

We’ve been waiting for 60 years, we’d be waiting for eternity until the Republican Congress actually took the actions we elected them to take.

 

[washdog]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

We have abrused this lae so bad from what it was intenned for. as no place today

 

[TivoliDawg]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

Why do you think he won’t?

 

[dawgfood0612]

It needs to go to the Supreme Court first. The language in the Constitution is fairly direct so the Supreme Court needs to opine that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. Even if Congress were to pass a ban and Trump signed, the law can’t violate the Constitution.

It will be interesting to see if Trump can get five votes, the language is what it is.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

I want Congress to get a bill going that will help the President deal with this problem we need a lasting solution to this problem and it has to go through Congress.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

It needs to go to the Supreme Court first. The language in the Constitution is fairly direct so the Supreme Court needs to opine that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. Even if Congress were to pass a ban and Trump signed, the law can’t violate the Constitution.

It will be interesting to see if Trump can get five votes, the language is what it is.

This is where the pick of Coney Barrett is going to be devastating.

The 14th amendment was written so freed blacks and their progeny would have citizenship.

Now what’s going to be interesting is if Trump has the foresight to go Andrew Jackson on a disfavorsble ruling

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

His birthright citizenship decree won’t survive court challenges. I think he is wrong on that one.

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

I want Congress to get a bill going that will help the President deal with this problem we need a lasting solution to this problem and it has to go through Congress.

I’m not a legal scholar but I think it will likely require a constitutional amendment, not just a simple bill. I don’t think it is likely that a constitutional amendment will be ratified to end birthright citizenship.

 

[CoastalVADawg]

This is a good read on birthright citizenship. Trump was smart to pass an EO on this issue because it will now go to the Supreme Court, which will likely vote in favor of the original meaning.

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.

americanmind.org

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

This is a good read on birthright citizenship. Trump was smart to pass an EO on this issue because it will now go to the Supreme Court, which will likely vote in favor of the original meaning.

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.

americanmind.org

It’s complete nonsense that an amendment (illegally ratified) expressly written to ensure freed slaves and their progeny were citizens somehow means that any woman in the world can cross the border push a baby out and that baby becomes an American citizen.

I just don’t trust Roberts or Barrett on this one.

Trump is going to need to take the Andrew Jackson route.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

His birthright citizenship decree won’t survive court challenges. I think he is wrong on that one.

I wasn’t talking about the citizenship problem. I was referring to the immigration problem as a whole.

 

[55dawg]

His birthright citizenship decree won’t survive court challenges. I think he is wrong on that one.

There is no way the intent was for applying to illegal aliens. But yeah the wording for 14th amendment was poorly constructed

 

[dawgfood0612]

So if Trump takes the Andrew Jackson route, what happens with future decisions by the Court?

Are you saying that the President is a dictator subject to no jurisdiction by Congress or the Courts?

Not the America I want to live in.

 

[KidneyStoned]

Strict constructionists on 2A, now bleating about “intent” and “wording” of “illegally ratified” 14A.

Hypocrisy is unreal.

 

[DTwnDawg]

Anyone that believes this was written to give Illegal aliens the right to birth children in this country, making those children U.S. Citizens, shows their stupidity.

 

[Athens62]

So if Trump takes the Andrew Jackson route, what happens with future decisions by the Court?

Are you saying that the President is a dictator subject to no jurisdiction by Congress or the Courts?

Not the America I want to live in.

Biden’s Admin set the stage for the GOP. Just copy Biden tactic’s.

 

[KidneyStoned]

Anyone that believes this was written to give Illegal aliens the right to birth children in this country, making those children U.S. Citizens, shows their stupidity.

You rail against the gun control people because they want the Courts to “interpret” the plain language of 2A by guessing at the “intent” of the authors. But, you are making the exact same kind of argument about the 14A.

The 14A says what it says. It’s not the Courts’ place to twist the very plain language toward a result simply because it serves a political agenda.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

Anyone that believes this was written to give Illegal aliens the right to birth children in this country, making those children U.S. Citizens, shows their stupidity.

I’ll go a step further.

If our constitution does confer citizenship to children of foreigners our constitution is pointless.

 

[55dawg]

Anyone that believes this was written to give Illegal aliens the right to birth children in this country, making those children U.S. Citizens, shows their stupidity.

No one actually believes that.

 

[55dawg]

You rail against the gun control people because they want the Courts to “interpret” the plain language of 2A by guessing at the “intent” of the authors. But, you are making the exact same kind of argument about the 14A.

The 14A says what it says. It’s not the Courts’ place to twist the very plain language toward a result simply because it serves a political agenda.

It’s far from plain

 

[celticdawg]

It’s far from plain

You're talking about the 2nd Amendment right? The 14th Amendment is clear, regardless of the intent when it was written.

 

[Zonadog]

You're talking about the 2nd Amendment right? The 14th Amendment is clear, regardless of the intent when it was written.

Apparently, not as clear as you think. First, the 14th Amendment is long and more complex, with 5 sections addressing separate topics related to citizens' rights and representation. Section 1 is the topic of discussion here.

The first sentence says "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."

If being born here (or born to US citizen parents) were the only requirement, it would read "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The tricky part of the actual passage is the presence of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The word "and" simply means that this is an equal requirement to "born or naturalized in the United States."

The meaning of this phrase was the subject of the Supreme Court hearing the case US vs. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a US citizen with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. The difference in that case and the current situation is that Wong Kim Ark's parents were citizens of China, in the US legally under agreement between the two nations.

The law, on the basis of the 14th Amendment language, has always differentiated citizenship based on why the parents are in the US. Children of diplomats don't get US citizenship. If we were invaded/occupied by a foreign country, their children would not get US citizenship.

What Trump hopes to put before the Supreme Court is the current situation, which is farther from the intent of the 14th Amendment and the decision in US v. Wong. Can the children of people here illegally be deemed US citizens? Does the crime prevent the benefit of citizenship ("but-for" causation) as it does in other areas of law?

 

[MaconDawg67]

It’s complete nonsense that an amendment (illegally ratified) expressly written to ensure freed slaves and their progeny were citizens somehow means that any woman in the world can cross the border push a baby out and that baby becomes an American citizen.

I just don’t trust Roberts or Barrett on this one.

Trump is going to need to take the Andrew Jackson route.

Yes, Andrew the Great.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

Yes, Andrew the Great.

Old Hickory was also great at mass deportations

 

[celticdawg]

Apparently, not as clear as you think. First, the 14th Amendment is long and more complex, with 5 sections addressing separate topics related to citizens' rights and representation. Section 1 is the topic of discussion here.

The first sentence says "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."

If being born here (or born to US citizen parents) were the only requirement, it would read "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The tricky part of the actual passage is the presence of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The word "and" simply means that this is an equal requirement to "born or naturalized in the United States."

The meaning of this phrase was the subject of the Supreme Court hearing the case US vs. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a US citizen with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. The difference in that case and the current situation is that Wong Kim Ark's parents were citizens of China, in the US legally under agreement between the two nations.

The law, on the basis of the 14th Amendment language, has always differentiated citizenship based on why the parents are in the US. Children of diplomats don't get US citizenship. If we were invaded/occupied by a foreign country, their children would not get US citizenship.

What Trump hopes to put before the Supreme Court is the current situation, which is farther from the intent of the 14th Amendment and the decision in US v. Wong. Can the children of people here illegally be deemed US citizens? Does the crime prevent the benefit of citizenship ("but-for" causation) as it does in other areas of law?

A similar discussion occurred last year in the Chat and obviously nothing was resolved. You have stated the situation very well as usual (thanks for your many informative posts). I was having a little fun with the poster because like others he wants the law to be what he wants (2nd and 14th Amendments in this case). Actually that's exactly like Trump who he supports.

As he said, no one thinks the Amendment was written to give these "illegal aliens" the right to have a baby who is then a citizen. It certainly wasn't the reason for the 14th Amendment and probably not considered at all. But I think he means that one thinks that the Amendment give citizenship to those children and that is certainly far from the truth. The 2nd Amendment was written in a very different time and place and likewise I don't think it was intended for modern times, but it can be interpreted as the courts wish.

As you probably know, today a judge, appointed by Reagan, said the executive order was blatantly unconstitutional. He said it "boggled" his mind that a member of the bar would claim it was constitutional. Well, we're not surprised by Trump's lawyers (sarcasm alert). In any event, it's the first salvo in this latest battle.

 

[MaconDawg67]

Old Hickory was also great at mass deportations

Indeed, and the “trail of tears” was a hoax.

 

[DTwnDawg]

You're talking about the 2nd Amendment right? The 14th Amendment is clear, regardless of the intent when it was written.

Legal minds seen to differ …LOL

 

[DTwnDawg]

No one actually believes that.

Seems like there are a few on here that do

 

[celticdawg]

Legal minds seen to differ …LOL

The intent of both amendments were clear when they were written. I don't think there is difference in legal opinion on that.

The problem is how to apply it to today's world which is so different and wouldn't have been contemplated at the time.

I think you choose to make a mockery of this because you disagree, but it doesn't make you right.

 

[The Original SLC Dawg]

Strict constructionists on 2A, now bleating about “intent” and “wording” of “illegally ratified” 14A.

Hypocrisy is unreal.

Except the 2A doesn’t apply to aliens either. Now if it did, you’d have an argument.

The Second Amendment and Citizenship: Why “The People” Does Not Include Noncitizens - The George Mason Law Review

The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” But who are “the people” included in this right? One definition of “the people” could include anyone present in the United States. Another definition could distinguish between lawful permanent residents and temporary...

lawreview.gmu.edu

 

[CoastalVADawg]

Original intent is important here. Senator Jacob Howard, who authored the 14th Amendment in 1866, obviously never intended birthright citizenship to apply to foreigners or aliens.

 

[Booneville Dawg]

I've been pleased with Trump so far into term 2.0, but I think the birthright citizenship thing really needs to go through Congress. It would respect the separation of powers and the law would be stickier than an Executive Order.

I understand the problem we've got and the perverse incentive to land here, download a kid, and think that it will make one immune to immigration laws. I just think he could go through Congress with Speaker Johnson to get this going.

I would think it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it, which is not likely to happen. IMHO this was a needed amendment in 1868 to run with the 1866 Civil Rights Act to take care of the children of slaves who were brought here against their will, but it has outlived its use when it is used for the children of illegals.
It appears Americans are confused as well as the Pew Research Institute shows 55% of Americans disapprove of Trump's Birthright Executive Order , but %80 of Americans want the illegal parents deported.

 

[The Original SLC Dawg]

if the kid is born here, kick him and the parents out anyway. So the kid is a citizen. It doesn’t mean you get to live here. Just the kid wants to live in Guatemala.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

if the kid is born here, kick him and the parents out anyway. So the kid is a citizen. It doesn’t mean you get to live here. Just the kid wants to live in Guatemala.

A lot of these people would fly here just to have the baby born in the USA. That is crazy.