Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[wamose]

It's 50 years too late but better late than never. Thank you Trumpy.

 

[JoeMoma]

I would bet 50 cents that SCOTUS will rule against it due to the precedent of "birthright" citizenship has been granted to the children of illegal immigrants for over 100 years.

 

[the watcher]

The assumption of citizenship is based on the Constitution not custom.

It is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, at a time when it was to our dubious advantage to import people to expand our greed west. Not only has it been interpreted incorrectly, it has been applied wrong, and had been abused for a long time. We have to close the barn door and quit putting out freebies in order to gain more congressional seats before we can even think about becoming a nation again. He is right to challenge the status quo, something we need very badly here.

 

[luiza]

It will be great to hear that IQ-2.0 is shipped back to Bolivia .

 

[Curried Goats]

It will stand, but after all the lawsuits and the smoke clears, it will stand as it was originally intended to stand >>>

Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing (and the court should have carefully noted it) >> "[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.[9]

Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. Are any illegals related to any ambassadors that you know?

 

[johnwk]

Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. Are any illegals related to any ambassadors that you know?

Trump has administrative power to set new public policy

There is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case which took on the question and found that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth ___ it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

Our president, under Article 2 of our Constitution, has administrative power, allowing him to set public policy ___ remember Biden's open border policy?

President Trump exercised his administrative policy-making-power so the offspring of an illegal entrant born on American soil will no longer be recognized as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences, and part of those consequences allows the setting new public policy . . . this is a fundamental hallmark of our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by our Constitution.

BTW, here is a LINK to President Trump's E.O. TITLED: PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

 

[Curried Goats]

Trump has administrative power to set new public policy

There is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case which took on the question and found that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth ___ it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

Our president, under Article 2 of our Constitution, has administrative power, allowing him to set public policy ___ remember Biden's open border policy?

President Trump exercised his administrative policy-making-power so the offspring of an illegal entrant born on American soil will no longer be recognized as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences, and part of those consequences allows the setting new public policy . . . this is a fundamental hallmark of our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by our Constitution.

If one of those consequences turns out to be the Supreme Court affirming white cuckolding I'm going to laugh at you forever.

 

[Auld Phart]

I would bet 50 cents that SCOTUS will rule against it due to the precedent of "birthright" citizenship has been granted to the children of illegal immigrants for over 100 years.

I hazard to guess that children born prior to 19XX or 20XX would be grandfathered.

 

[JoeB131]

But it doesn't apply to those of the diplomatic Corp. Or those committing immigration fraud.

"Fruit of the poison vine" doctrine cuts both ways...
Meaning you, or others (including your family) cannot benefit from criminal activity.
It's what governs illegal search and seizure laws.

I think you misunderstand what that phrase means.

we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents.

The constitution CLEARLY spells out birthright citizenship.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. In fact, most Americans still favor a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens despite all Trump's fearmongering about pets being eaten.



You see, the thing was, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there was no distinction on immigrants. You basically got here, you were in. They only started trying to restrict immigration when a bunch of Chinese people started showing up, with first the Page Amendment (which excluded bringing Chinese women over) and then the Chinese exclusion Act. That's the whole reason why this issue was tested under US v. Wong.

Obviously they wanted to restrict it in some ways, otherwise, that part of the 14th amendment would have never been written. They wouldn't have placed a premium on citizenship, and would have just said "anyone who arrives on our shores is a citizen". The fact that we have a citizenship clause means they obviously wanted to limit it in some way

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then get an amendment ratified.

We don't need an amendment, we need to determine what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means once and for all.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump has administrative power to set new public policy

There is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case which took on the question and found that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth ___ it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

Nope, it's clearly spelled out in the 14th Amendment.

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.

 

[JoeMoma]

I hazard to guess that children born prior to 19XX or 20XX would be grandfathered.

I would expect that also. That said, I'm still willing to bet 50 cents that SCOTUS will not overturn the current precedent.

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously they wanted to restrict it in some ways, otherwise, that part of the 14th amendment would have never been written. They wouldn't have placed a premium on citizenship, and would have just said "anyone who arrives on our shores is a citizen". The fact that we have a citizenship clause means they obviously wanted to limit it in some way

Yes , they wanted to limit it to born or naturalized citizens.

The constitution says what it says, and there's 126 years of precedents to back up that position.

You lose.

 

[JoeB131]

It will stand, but after all the lawsuits and the smoke clears, it will stand as it was originally intended to stand >>>

Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing (and the court should have carefully noted it) >> "[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.[9]

Well, then, he should have written that into the amendment. He didn't.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

President Trump just signed an EO to put a stop to birthright citizenship. Some states have filed legal challenges. My guess is they will all fail.

Only in your delusional mind.

SCOTUS isn't going to overturn 126 years of established precedent and a clearly written clause in the Constitution because Cheeto Hitler said so.

 

[JoeB131]

I would expect that also. That said, I'm still willing to bet 50 cents that SCOTUS will not overturn the current precedent.

Why wouldn't they?

They've turned down Trump before when his ask was too crazy.

 

[johnwk]

Well, then, he should have written that into the amendment. He didn't.

Let us establish fundamental rules of constitutional law from an accepted voice of authority.

Intent of constitution

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.

Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )

Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings“

Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.”(numerous citations omitted )

Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.

Take a constitutional law class

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court notes:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

 

[Curried Goats]

Obviously they wanted to restrict it in some ways, otherwise, that part of the 14th amendment would have never been written. They wouldn't have placed a premium on citizenship, and would have just said "anyone who arrives on our shores is a citizen". The fact that we have a citizenship clause means they obviously wanted to limit it in some way

This is about birthright citizenship. Anyone arriving on our shores would have already of been born. This was still a growing country however who needed all the immigrants it could get and at the time of the ratifying of the 14th there were no immigration laws. Anyone who wanted to come here could just show up. Becoming a citizen in that case required living here over certain period of time.

 

[the watcher]

There is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case which took on the question and found that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth ___ it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

Actually there are, based on conditions at the time. two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Wong Kim Ark of 1898 and Plyler v. Doe of 1982. It's very telling that the progressives always say that the Constitution is a "living document" when it suits them to ignore it but written in stone when it doesn't. This SCOTUS can revisit it if they choose and use their ' Well, this outweighs that' magic power to decide, but I will bet they don't take it on. The best we can reasonably hope for is to remove incentives for abuse and be honest with ourselves, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.