President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

[Jaskalas]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

It would be interesting to see the actual legal argument that it only takes an executive order besides "they're saying". Which right wing tweet did he read this time?

Only the bestest presidenting.

1: I wonder if this is just an election day dog whistle?
2: If he actually goes through with it, it's probably meant to be a SCOTUS challenge.

The 14th was meant to simply state that the freed slaves and their children were legally protected and full citizens. To establish their rights with unwavering conviction behind that intent. However, travel and safety had not been revolutionized like it has been today.

So the question is... does current use / practice of the 14th meet the original intent? Regardless of how wrong we feel it is, I'd lean towards the camp that says the challenge to our status quo fails. Not because I stand by the abuse of the 14th, but because I believe its original intent is being honored. Because very few people simply "traveled" thousands of miles back in those days. It was meant to be a "catch-all" and it simply is, even today.

 

[K1052]

Got a link or a name? I'd like to read the final ruling.

Wong Kim Ark

 

[dank69]

TIL that illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the United States.

 

[K1052]

1: I wonder if this is just an election day dog whistle?

If you mean election day ship horn, yes.

 

[fskimospy]

Wong Kim Ark

Plyler v. Doe is more apt as it explicitly states there is no difference between legal and illegal immigrants as to 'jurisdiction' under the 14th amendment and this interpretation was unanimous. (the decision itself was 5-4 but the dissent expressly noted it agreed with the 14th amendment interpretation.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

 

[VRAMdemon]

The real story here is that the president of the United States, a week before the election, wants to defy the Constitution while his party, which is filled with supposed strict Constitutionalists who believe in firm adherence to said Constitution, cheer him on.

My first question for Sarah Huckabee Sanders at her next briefing would be: which one of the presidents advisers told him he could amend the constitution by executive order? Just to watch her squint and squirm.

This is no more real than his pretend 10% middle class tax cut. He will forget this in, roughly, one week.

Also, would this affect both Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley's ability to run for president? Aren't they both citizens by birthright?

Also...Lying liar that lies:

Trump : "We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,”

There are at least 30 other countries with Jus soli

 

[Viper1j]

TIL that illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the United States.

Gee you should tell that to all the illegal immigrants in prison for committing crimes on US soil.
Open up the prison gates, and just tell them "we just found out that you're not subject to the laws of the United States, we made a mistake, you're free to go."

Good luck with that.

 

[K1052]

Plyler v. Doe is more apt as it explicitly states there is no difference between legal and illegal immigrants as to 'jurisdiction' under the 14th amendment and this interpretation was unanimous. (the decision itself was 5-4 but the dissent expressly noted it agreed with the 14th amendment interpretation.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

I thought I was forgetting something more specific. It's been a looong time since I had to think about this in a history or politics class.

 

[kitkat22]

More midterm rhetoric vs bluster. Let's look at it from a perspective of what will happen if what trump says comes to pass;
1) First, that would almost give trump unlimited power. If he doesn't like you then he can revoke you as a citizen of the US. Where does the generation stop that you have to "be here" to qualify? Unless, you are a native american then you could theoretically have your citizenship removed. As a matter of point, he theoretically would be subject to the same problem. We all have some history in us of "illegal immigrants."
2) Second, if they lose their citizenship, to whom do they belong? Now you have a large group of people who are now subject to no country whatsoever. the next claim would be to send them to "their" country of origin. This would be hard to do and prove. We all are now more or less mixtures from numerous nationalities and even a DNA test would muddy the decision about that. The attempt to send these people to other countries would only result in the person or persons coming right back.

I could see an argument going forward about birthright citizenship, but the current interpretation of the 14th amendment will likely still stand. That would be a horrible court battle and unless trump can continue to stack the courts... oh wait.

 

[dank69]

The real story here is that the president of the United States, a week before the election, wants to defy the Constitution while his party, which is filled with supposed strict Constitutionalists who believe in firm adherence to said Constitution, cheer him on.

My first question for Sarah Huckabee Sanders at her next briefing would be: which one of the presidents advisers told him he could amend the constitution by executive order? Just to watch her squint and squirm.

This is no more real than his pretend 10% middle class tax cut. He will forget this in, roughly, one week.

Also, would this affect both Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley's ability to run for president? Aren't they both citizens by birthright?

Also...Lying liar that lies:

Trump : "We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,”

There are at least 30 other countries with Jus soli

Only the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights are subject to strict interpretation because they were written by the founding fathers who knew everything. Maybe the 11th and 12th as well, (but definitely not the 13th!) Everything else has to be interpreted through my own lens of how I imagine a founding father would view it.

 

[soundforbjt]

Last ditch effort by the whiny little bitch to turn the midterms in his favor by playing on the fears placed in the minds of conservatives for decades, nothing else. What's he worried about, he already said if Republicans win, it's because of him, if they lose, he had nothing to do with it. Solid logic by a very, very, big abrain.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let's start by deporting your great g


The original purpose of the 14th amendment, was to guarantee citizenship to all the freed slaves, those that chose to stay. There have been many instances of people vacationing, or even working, and their children were citizens when they were born here. A prominent example, as martial arts legend Bruce Lee, whose parents were traveling with a Chinese theater group in San Francisco when his mother gave birth. He returned with his family to Hong Kong, and came back to the United States as an adult, with full citizenship rights.

If Donny thinks he can just wipe out a constitutional amendment because he doesn't like it, then no one is safe. It wouldn't surprise me to see him try to reinstitute slavery, and his cult (base) better be extremely careful about what they wish for. It's only a matter of time before there WILL be another Democratic president. I can't wait to see what they can do with the Second Amendment following the precedent set by Donny and the 14th amendment.

Yeah i can get behind the original intent for sure, but maybe a revamp could be in order lol. It is kind of silly to let someone have full citizenship rights just because they happened to be plopped out here and maybe were in country a whole week or so before their parents took them back home to their actual country.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's remarkable that Trumpsters can find truth in something that begins from a lie. Jus Soli citizenship is basically universal in the New World, not unique to the US at all. But Trump said it & it feels good so it must be true.

 

[brycejones]

I don’t think I’ve ever made that claim, please correct me if I’m wrong the search feature works wonderfully
I know I’ve said “we’re better than that” regarding some stuff.

You haven't I was really commenting on a standard GOP trope about American "exceptionalism" when it suited their beliefs and now suddenly they don't want to be exceptional.

 

[brycejones]

Republicans have no issue with legal immigrants.

Well that's a load of BS. The GOP is actively pushing to reduce ways to legally immigrate and the numbers of people allowed to do so in the legal paths that remain. This would indicate they have a major issue with legal immigration.

 

[BoomerD]

Nope, anchor babies need to be stopped.

On that, we agree. At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there really was no such thing as "illegal immigration." The USA welcomed all comers. Nowadays, however........
BUT, as much as I think the 14th Amendment should be...amended to eliminate the "baby anchor provision," Executive Order certainly ain't the way to do it.

If presidents can change the Constitution via EO, what's next? 2nd Amendment? 1st Amendment? Right to Vote? Right to Peaceful Assembly?

The US Constitution has a mechanism for making changes to it. It's not an easy process...nor should it be.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well that's a load of BS. The GOP is actively pushing to reduce ways to legally immigrate and the numbers of people allowed to do so in the legal paths that remain. This would indicate they have a major issue with legal immigration.

If only all immigrants were Norwegian...

 

[allisolm]

I found this the best article so far. It wasn't always interpreted as it has been since the 60's and the piece goes into that. I'm not sure how courts will decide this.

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

Yes. I started reading about the interpretation after seeing this thread and I agree with "I'm not sure how courts will decide this."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

1: I wonder if this is just an election day dog whistle?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. I started reading about the interpretation after seeing this thread and I agree with "I'm not sure how courts will decide this."

I mean SCOTUS already previously unanimously decided that interpretation was wrong. Are you saying we are in for another activist ruling that rewrites the plain meaning of the 14th amendment?

 

[Jhhnn]

I mean SCOTUS already previously unanimously decided that interpretation was wrong. Are you saying we are in for another activist ruling that rewrites the plain meaning of the 14th amendment?

The current right wing majority on the Court could do double back flips into their own rectums & the Trumpsters would cheer the performance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I mean SCOTUS already previously unanimously decided that interpretation was wrong. Are you saying we are in for another activist ruling that rewrites the plain meaning of the 14th amendment?

Speaking for myself I've heard a good deal about what Trump can't do. Trump couldn't control those who come into this nation but ultimately the courts gave him most of what he wanted.

Whether anyone here agrees with any legal argument doesn't matter in the least. It all ultimately depends on what the SCOTUS determines which may not be what you or I argue for or against based on what legal arguments are presented.

I suspect that the current interpretation of the 14th will stand, but that's all. I'm not going to bet the farm on anything these days and looking at possible points that might be brought up is not approval in any way.

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking for myself I've heard a good deal about what Trump can't do. Trump couldn't control those who come into this nation but ultimately the courts gave him most of what he wanted.

Whether anyone here agrees with any legal argument doesn't matter in the least. It all ultimately depends on what the SCOTUS determines which may not be what you or I argue for or against based on what legal arguments are presented.

I suspect that the current interpretation of the 14th will stand, but that's all. I'm not going to bet the farm on anything these days and looking at possible points that might be brought up is not approval in any way.

I wasn't saying you approved of it, I'm just saying it demonstrably lacks legal merit.

1) The people who wrote the amendment are on the record explicitly stating their intention was to guarantee citizenship to all children of aliens in the US.
2) Whether or not these children are under US jurisdiction is obvious - if they commit a crime we send them to prison. If you can enforce your laws against someone they are by definition under your jurisdiction.
3) The interpretation that immigrant children are not under US jurisdiction was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1980s. The idea that they are not was treated as manifestly absurd.

Now I'm not saying that it's impossible that the conservative majority will be unprincipled enough and contemptuous enough of settled law to conjure up some other decision. That's certainly possible. That will have nothing to do with how legally meritorious the 'jurisdiction' argument is though as again, it has no merit. It will simply have to do with the conservatives conjuring up a legal argument to justify their preferred policy position.

As I said before this is just another lie along with his imagined 10% tax cuts and pre-existing condition protections. I'm sure his lawyers have told him he would be slapped down in court but he doesn't care about that. The purpose of this is not to actually enact the policy, it's to rile up anti-immigrant voters.

 

[dainthomas]

Wait, so now conservatives want us to go by the intent of ammendments rather than the text? Surprised they want to open that can of worms.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wasn't saying you approved of it, I'm just saying it demonstrably lacks legal merit.

1) The people who wrote the amendment are on the record explicitly stating their intention was to guarantee citizenship to all children of aliens in the US.
2) Whether or not these children are under US jurisdiction is obvious - if they commit a crime we send them to prison. If you can enforce your laws against someone they are by definition under your jurisdiction.
3) The interpretation that immigrant children are not under US jurisdiction was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1980s. The idea that they are not was treated as manifestly absurd.

Now I'm not saying that it's impossible that the conservative majority will be unprincipled enough and contemptuous enough of settled law to conjure up some other decision. That's certainly possible. That will have nothing to do with how legally meritorious the 'jurisdiction' argument is though as again, it has no merit. It will simply have to do with the conservatives conjuring up a legal argument to justify their preferred policy position.

As I said before this is just another lie along with his imagined 10% tax cuts and pre-existing condition protections. I'm sure his lawyers have told him he would be slapped down in court but he doesn't care about that. The purpose of this is not to actually enact the policy, it's to rile up anti-immigrant voters.

Of course it's bullshit just like sending the 5000 waterboys AKA troops to the border to stand against the "Hordes of the Hun", aka the persecuted sick and destitute. But arguing bullshit will be done and I like to keep my enemies close, so to speak.