DGS49
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 16,448
- 14,426
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the 14th Amendment (Confession: I am a retired lawyer), and Trump's position is easily defensible.
There is no law supporting "birthright citizenship," and the language of the 14th Amendment is insufficient to justify the position taken by the U.S. government over the past several decades. Furthermore, the position is counter-intuitive and non-existent in the civilized world. No European country follows this practice, although there are 30 countries that do.
Since it is not supported by law and only arguably supported by the Constitution, Trump can direct his underlings in the Executive Branch to take the position, wherever relevant, that such people are henceforth "illegal," just like their parents. One of them could sue (presumably supported by the ACLU), but that lawsuit could rise to the USSC fairly quickly, and most of us are aware of the recent changes to that body. One cannot be 100% certain how Roberts would feel about this; he tends to want to keep established points established, but there would be a very good chance of the Court just saying that the words in question have been misinterpreted and Trump is right.
"All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
The language was inserted for three reasons, none of which is relevant now:
(1). The U.S.- born children of foreign diplomats and foreign military officers were not to be granted citizenship;
(2) The children of slaves born in the U.S. WERE to be full citizens, and no state could say otherwise; and
(3). The citizens of the Indian Nations who happened to be born "off the reservation" would still be citizens of the Indian nation, and not of the United States.
None of the authors or those who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment had any inkling that these words would be used a hundred years later to legalize the children of people who were in the country illegally.
A. It's bad and stupid policy.
B. It is not Constitutional.
C. The only reason why the practice is perpetuated is political.
There is no law supporting "birthright citizenship," and the language of the 14th Amendment is insufficient to justify the position taken by the U.S. government over the past several decades. Furthermore, the position is counter-intuitive and non-existent in the civilized world. No European country follows this practice, although there are 30 countries that do.
Since it is not supported by law and only arguably supported by the Constitution, Trump can direct his underlings in the Executive Branch to take the position, wherever relevant, that such people are henceforth "illegal," just like their parents. One of them could sue (presumably supported by the ACLU), but that lawsuit could rise to the USSC fairly quickly, and most of us are aware of the recent changes to that body. One cannot be 100% certain how Roberts would feel about this; he tends to want to keep established points established, but there would be a very good chance of the Court just saying that the words in question have been misinterpreted and Trump is right.
"All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
The language was inserted for three reasons, none of which is relevant now:
(1). The U.S.- born children of foreign diplomats and foreign military officers were not to be granted citizenship;
(2) The children of slaves born in the U.S. WERE to be full citizens, and no state could say otherwise; and
(3). The citizens of the Indian Nations who happened to be born "off the reservation" would still be citizens of the Indian nation, and not of the United States.
None of the authors or those who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment had any inkling that these words would be used a hundred years later to legalize the children of people who were in the country illegally.
A. It's bad and stupid policy.
B. It is not Constitutional.
C. The only reason why the practice is perpetuated is political.
