Is Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, constitutional?

johnwk

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
2,443
Points
930
.
Essentially, President’s Trump’s Executive Order sets a new federal public policy under which the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, will no longer be recognized as a United States citizen upon birth.

Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Current public policy, and only current public policy, presently recognizes a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national as a United States citizen upon birth.

Why is this so? According to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a qualifier exists, “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ”, which must be meet for citizenship to be granted. When examining the Congressional Debates during the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, sufficient evidence is found that the qualifier was intended to exclude from its operation children of “. . . . ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States . . . ” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

Considering that the 14th Amendment gives Congress, and only Congress, the exclusive power to adopt “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment, it would be an encroachment upon Congress’s exclusive legislative authority for our Supreme Court members to attach their personal meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier, by which United States Citizenship is granted.

Let us recall that in 1924 Congress did exercised its exclusive power to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation and adopted the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

At this point in time let us deal with the much touted case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been asserted by those who reference it, that it confirms a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American Soil, is granted United States citizenship upon birth. That certainly is not true because Wong’s parents were, at the time of his birth, what we define today as lawful permanent residents , (LPRs), and not illegal entrant foreign nationals which is what Trump’s Executive Order deals with.

Moving on, it is important to note that under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President. Not only did President Biden’s Administration allow, but effectively invited, millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals to flood across our border and settle in various communities where they began to inflict, and to this very day are inflicting, pain and suffering on American citizens and their children.

The policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate for change of existing public policy.

It seems quite clear from the above, that President Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is not only constitutional, but is specifically designed to effectuate public policy change which an overwhelming number of American citizens voted for when electing President Trump. And thus, our S.C. members should not get involved in this policy making change, except to educate the public how our system works, and that elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is the setting new federal public policy which no longer recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
 
.
Essentially, President’s Trump’s Executive Order sets a new federal public policy under which the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, will no longer be recognized as a United States citizen upon birth.

Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Current public policy, and only current public policy, presently recognizes a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national as a United States citizen upon birth.

Why is this so? According to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a qualifier exists, “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ”, which must be meet for citizenship to be granted. When examining the Congressional Debates during the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, sufficient evidence is found that the qualifier was intended to exclude from its operation children of “. . . . ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States . . . ” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

Considering that the 14th Amendment gives Congress, and only Congress, the exclusive power to adopt “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment, it would be an encroachment upon Congress’s exclusive legislative authority for our Supreme Court members to attach their personal meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier, by which United States Citizenship is granted.

Let us recall that in 1924 Congress did exercised its exclusive power to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation and adopted the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

At this point in time let us deal with the much touted case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been asserted by those who reference it, that it confirms a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American Soil, is granted United States citizenship upon birth. That certainly is not true because Wong’s parents were, at the time of his birth, what we define today as lawful permanent residents , (LPRs), and not illegal entrant foreign nationals which is what Trump’s Executive Order deals with.

Moving on, it is important to note that under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President. Not only did President Biden’s Administration allow, but effectively invited, millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals to flood across our border and settle in various communities where they began to inflict, and to this very day are inflicting, pain and suffering on American citizens and their children.

The policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate for change of existing public policy.

It seems quite clear from the above, that President Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is not only constitutional, but is specifically designed to effectuate public policy change which an overwhelming number of American citizens voted for when electing President Trump. And thus, our S.C. members should not get involved in this policy making change, except to educate the public how our system works, and that elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is the setting new federal public policy which no longer recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
Well, 127 years of precedent says you're wrong. I suspect SCOTUS will go with the precedent.

On a brighter note..very cool copy and paste~
 
Well, 127 years of precedent says you're wrong. I suspect SCOTUS will go with the precedent.

On a brighter note..very cool copy and paste~


There is no precedent, all you have is a case, Wong Kim Ark, where the court said a child born of LEGAL resident aliens was a citizen.

In 1924, Congress had to pass an Act to give citizenship to American Indians, even though many had served in the U.S. Military after the 14th was ratified.

Born in the USA, served in the miliary, needed an Act of Congress.
 
What "precedent" are you referring to?
It's not my job to educate you--and I'm pretty sure that all you want is some sort of long-winded argument.

You think Wong does not apply--cool beans--now all you have to do is convince the Supreme Court that all the ensuing precedent..the two bills passed by Congress and common usage have been wrong for the last 127 years.

Good luck with that.
 
There is no precedent, all you have is a case, Wong Kim Ark, where the court said a child born of LEGAL resident aliens was a citizen.

In 1924, Congress had to pass an Act to give citizenship to American Indians, even though many had served in the U.S. Military after the 14th was ratified.

Born in the USA, served in the miliary, needed an Act of Congress.
Native Americans were seen as a different class..assuming you don't know that.

Precedent...is how things have been..and for 127 years it has been axiomatic that Birthright citizenship applies to all born here unless you are a diplomat or enemy.

BTW..the legal resident thing you keep touting..is a difference that makes no difference.
 
Well, 127 years of precedent says you're wrong. I suspect SCOTUS will go with the precedent.

On a brighter note..very cool copy and paste~
Plessy v Ferguson was precedent for 75 years. Should it not have been overruled?
 
Native Americans were seen as a different class..assuming you don't know that.

Precedent...is how things have been..and for 127 years it has been axiomatic that Birthright citizenship applies to all born here unless you are a diplomat or enemy.

BTW..the legal resident thing you keep touting..is a difference that makes no difference.


The only precedence you have is Wong Kim Ark, a case that dealt with a child born of LEGAL resident aliens. Nothing to do with a child born of an illegal alien.

And as if illegal aliens are not a different class.
 
It's not my job to educate you--and I'm pretty sure that all you want is some sort of long-winded argument.

You think Wong does not apply--cool beans--now all you have to do is convince the Supreme Court that all the ensuing precedent..the two bills passed by Congress and common usage have been wrong for the last 127 years.

Good luck with that.

You didn't answer my question.

What "precedent" are you referring to?

JWK

When the facts prove you are wrong, argue the law. If the law shows your ignorance, argue the facts. And when the law and facts prove you are wrong, simply make stuff up!
 
I've said for years that you need to place value in your citizenship.

Do you know how many people have been damned by being born in a country outside of America? If you born poor in England, Canada or Cuba, you're dying poor. In America you can apply yourself and achieve success.

If you are an American citizen and have trouble overseas, you have a far better chance of being flown home or avoiding the abuses of foreign governments. Trump truly believes in the American dream and in getting Americans home from difficult situations.

No other citizenship has as much value, so why would you just hand it out to anyone?
 
Last edited:
You keep chanting "precedent" like it's a holy grail. Roe was "precedent" for five decades. Bad law is bad law and should be overturned.
Except..Plessy was not specifically enshrined as an amendment in the constitution.
So there's that.
This seems simple..pass an amendment ending birthright citizenship...that's the proper way to amend the Constitution.

What, too hard? What..most people SUPPORT Birthright Citizenship?



Well..sucks to be you then, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I've said for years that you need to place value in your citizenship.

Do you know how many people have been damned by being born in a country outside of America? If you born poor in England, America or Cuba, you're dying poor. In America you can apply yourself and achieve success.

If you are an American citizen and have trouble overseas, you have a far better chance of being flown home or avoiding the abuses of foreign governments. Trump truly believes in the American dream and in getting Americans home from difficult situations.

No other citizenship has as much value, so why would you just hand it out to anyone?
We don't hand it out to anyone...we hand it out to innocent children born here.
 
Except..Plessy was not specifically enshrined as an amendment in the constitution.
Actually it was, the 14th Amendment. Didn't you know that?
So there's that.
This seems simple..pass an amendment ending birthright citizenship...that's the proper way to amend the Constitution.

What, too hard? What..most people SUPPORT Birthright Citizenship.
No amendment needed. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have meaning. In your interpretation they do not.
Well..sucks to be you then, I guess.
Well, how about you go fuck yourself if you can't make a civil argument to support your interpretation.
 
Native Americans were seen as a different class..assuming you don't know that.

Precedent...is how things have been..and for 127 years it has been axiomatic that Birthright citizenship applies to all born here unless you are a diplomat or enemy.

BTW..the legal resident thing you keep touting..is a difference that makes no difference.
the US government did recognize and treat Native American nations as independent entities
 
No amendment needed. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have meaning. In your interpretation they do not.

Well, how about you go fuck yourself if you can't make a civil argument to support your interpretation.
Learn more

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in legal terms, particularly in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, means that a person is under the authority and control of the U.S. government, including the ability to be subject to U.S. laws and have their rights protected by U.S. courts. This phrase is crucial in determining birthright citizenship and other legal matters
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom