This is another dog whistle to his white supremacist base. Saying, in essence: “Don’t worry, I’ll make sure we reduce the number of brown people that speak a funny language from infesting our country”.
He won’t be able to do it, but the fact that he’s proposing it says it all.
And the point is actually much simpler, it means the parents need to be here legally. What a completely radical idea!
Or that Melania wasn’t a citizen when Barron was born.
He’d have to change the Constitution.
But let’s go with it:
Would he deport children of non citizens? I would be included of course. Would it be retroactive? How far back?
This white nationalist, trump is attacking the Constitution. What would actual “constitutional conservatives” say about it?
Like Obama, he can do whatever he wants. It will be up to the court to decide if it is legal or not.
No birthright citizenship=less democrats=more winning.
Well, hot Damn!
In that case, let's do it!
By definition, illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are subjects of wherever they or their parents came from until their parents have been naturalized.
There is no need to remove the amendment, but there sure is a need to clarify it to those who hope to misinterpret it to their advantage.
That is not what the EO means. At all.
That said, when I read the 14th amendment stuff above... I was strongly struck by the parallel's between this discussion and others about amendments. In particular, I've seen what are essentially VERBATIM comments in various places for why the second amendment should be changed. It doesnt apply any more, it's being abused, etc.
I'd be REALLY careful with trying to change amendments. If it's done, it needs to be absolutely a million percent bullet proof and something a large portion of the population supports (not just a liberal or conservative portion).
Otherwise lining up and saying: X amendment can never, ever, ever be touched... Is just clear biased goo.
I need to read a lot more on this proposal to understand what is being suggested.
Will
In later years, we established a legal process for immigration, thereby establishing a new category of "illegal" immigrants who didn't follow the process. IMO, the 14th Amendment should have been amended to clarify whether the birthright clause applied to this new category of immigrants. Perhaps Trump can make that happen.
Matt
The Rock
The fact that YOU say he "won't be able to do it" tells me there's a damn good chance he will. HERE! HERE!
My question is, since the 14th Amendment is actually being looked at and pretty clearly states that just because your baby is born here, that doesn't automatically make them a US citizen if you are NOT HERE LEGALLY, what is going to happen to all the people that have been born here over the last 40+ years that have been assumed to be US citizens and have gotten US citizen benefits their entire lives? Could any new action be retroactive? Because, according to the Constitution, they are not US citizens and really have no rights here, it doesn't matter how long they have lived here. I think that the best thing they could do at this point, is put a retroactive date, be it 5 years or 40 years, it really doesn't matter, then give those families something like 2 years to go through the process to become legal US citizens. If they don't complete that task, kick them out!
Once again, he’s trying to con people.
He wants you to stay off: how he's going to eradicate people's healthcare, the tax cuts were only for the Uber rich , his Saudi pals are dismembering US residents alive,Russia supports him, he's been committing tax fraud for years, his businesses are benefitting from his being Pot-us
The 14th Amendment's writers never intended it to provide citizenship to anyone who just crossed the borders. In fact, there is little evidence of the 14th being used to provide citizenship until the noted swimmer Ted Kennedy pushed this meme.
Trump can issue an executive order denying any and all illegals who have entered this country (which would include any anchors dropped) the right of citizenship. Of course, the no-border-register-all-illegals-as-party-member Democrats will find a liberal judge somewhere who will attempt to stay the EO. However, by doing so, this will be addressed by the SCOTUS and finally settled. Unfortunately for the zedian nation, the balance has shifted on the court due to Trump's nominations with judges who hold the Constitution as the foundation...not what the sentiment of the liberals who believe that it is malleable and rights can be found by pulling them out of their asses. Hold your breath that RBG can stay awake.
Trump is a lot smarter than the left gives him credit and he has Trumped them again.
Annony Mouse's Link
Earlier this month, Anton penned an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he argued that birthright citizenship was not a constitutional requirement.
In his op-ed, Anton wrote, Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright:
The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.
. . . . Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857’s disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.
A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.
That definition is the amendment’s very first sentence: “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.”
The amendment clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart. No state has the power to deny citizenship, hence none may dispossess freed slaves.
Anton went on to make a distinction between “subject to the jurisdiction” and “subject to American law.”
Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We know what the framers of the amendment meant by the latter because they told us. Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, a principal figure in drafting the amendment, defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — that is, to no other country or tribe.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a sponsor of the clause, further clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Yet for decades, U.S. officials — led by immigration enthusiasts in and out of government — have acted as though “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means “subject to American law.” That is true of any tourist who comes here.
The framers of the 14th Amendment added the jurisdiction clause precisely to distinguish between people to whom the United States owes citizenship and those to whom it does not. Freed slaves definitely qualified. The children of immigrants who came here illegally clearly don’t.
And...
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
References available at link.
Note: It was recognized that native American Indians were excluded from coverage under the 14th amendment but subsequently included by following legislation. The Supreme Court basically reaffirmed that to claim citizenship, one must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US government...something that an illegal cannot claim being a citizen of another government. To be covered under US jurisdiction, one must have legal status within the country.
An administrative decision in the Kennedy/Johnson era ignored that many years of precedent - falsely interpreting the amendment to further their political agenda.
Which is why their claim to sovereignty is nothing but smoke and mirrors to get ahead in the political realm of things for special favors, considerations, and benefits.
slade's Link
The intent of the 14th A is historically clear...provide full citizenship rights to the freed slaves. And when the courts decided that the 14th did not apply to the Native American population, Congress rectified that lapse. Those "not subject" were clearly described by Senator Jacob Howard as not being able to obtain citizenship by birth.
Trump, making an Executive Order to use original intent of the 14th Amendment, will have accomplished what the empty words of politicians have spouted about by forcing the judicial system to address it (ending up in the SCOTUS) or Congress to pass legislation.
The putzian proREgressive Democrats only hope is for the SCOTUS to decide in their favor...which is why if RGB either dies or retires, will make the next SCOTUS nomination even dirtier and less civil than Kavenaugh's. Of course, the focus from them will be the protection of illegal immigration anchors...something that has little support from the general populace.
Elections have consequences.
Putzie et. al. have sadly come to believe what the proRegressives and media have pushed as news: Trump is dumb.
I think that the coming EO will prove them wrong yet again. Simply, Trump is forcing the other branches to finally address this issue. Hopefully, we will see the concept of a "living" Constitution be dealt a death blow and that our government need to heed and obey the document created by our founders.
Paul Ryan should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about! Our new Republican Majority will work on this, Closing the Immigration Loopholes and Securing our Border!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2018
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
He can't help it, he's just an educator...Oy Vay!
It would appear that the amendment has been being used incorrectly for almost my entire life. It will be interesting to see what the courts have to say about all this after Trump does his EO...because you know it is going to the courts...
First to the plate is obfuscation followed closely by the obligatory charge of one of the "isms" or "obes" (pick any it really doesn't make any difference).
It's amazing the literary contortions one can deploy when one simply lacks the integrity to admit their emperor has no clothes....
I'd say the entertainment value can make up for the insult to the intelligence of the rationale but in this case I'd put 1st grade finger-painting a few notches above this collection of dim bulbs.....
Be careful what you wish for , that slippery slope is a doozy
If you can't see that, then your reading comprehension falls well below the threshold to be a teacher. Ah, but again, stating the obvious.
His talking points are sent to him every day from the central proREgressive committee.
Putzie received one, too...and ran screaming out of his house.
You're upset because you KNOW what it says and what it means. You just WISH it weren't so. Rules. Laws. Applied equally, across the board.
WRT the NRA they have gone to court many many times, all the way to SCOTUS as they are constitutional issues. They win in nearly every case. To say what they have won is "unconstitutional" and not to the letter of the law is idiocy of the highest level. Or just plain lies. Or both.
This matter will go face the same constitutional tests. To the letter of the law.
It is cute though to see the inevitable tantrum that follows the dawning of that realization.....
"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."
Clarifying a meaning of an amendment by executive order is a great move for reasons people mentioned above. Wish Trump would do it for the 2nd but we know how he FEELS about that one......;^) Whoa pony.
o say that “illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is just drivel. Were that true, then the government wouldn’t be able to arrest them. Surely that’s not the President’s position. Clearly he has no comprehension of the words he’s using
Should be interesting breakfast conversation this morning in the Conway house.
Can’t say it any better than that.
Territorial and Political jurisdiction are two different things....
Harry Reid, when he was sane, agreed with us on Birthright Citizenship! pic.twitter.com/ypiE1QWKag
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2018
The enforcement of laws, that you can be caught breaking the law and jailed has nothing to do with being in its jurisdiction.
Arresting them is just better than killing them for the illegal invasion.
If you EVER call me white supremacist to my face, you will regret it until the day you die.
Our new ad starts tonight. Take a look at this ad running nationally for a 1.5MM dollar buy. BUT, @CNN will not let us buy on their network. Do they not want to show REAL news? @donlemon pic.twitter.com/QyeiMDQG1R
— Brad Parscale (@parscale) November 2, 2018
If they can get to her before she can get out, they will kill her. And now, they just agreed to stop her from getting out.
Via Fox News:
The Christian woman in Pakistan who was on death row for nearly a decade before being acquitted by the country’s top court last week is now seeking asylum elsewhere, after widespread violent protests throughout the country.
Asia Bibi was convicted in 2010 after she allegedly contaminated a water jug — an offense viewed as blasphemy in the Muslim country.
Pakistan’s top court acquitted the 47-year-old on Wednesday and ordered her release in a move that infuriated the country’s hard-line Islamists, who have held nationwide protests demanding her execution.
Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, released a video in Punjabi on Saturday asking the U.K. to grant his family asylum amid fears for their safety, Sky News reported.
“I am requesting the prime minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” he said in a message directly to British Prime Minister Theresa May.
Masih also called for asylum from President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the clip, according to Sky News. France and Spain have offered Bibi asylum, but her path out of the country may have grown more complicated.
After three days of nationwide protests demanding her execution, the Islamists ended the violent clashes after the government agreed to impose a travel ban on Bibi and to allow her case to be reviewed.
My youngest son was murdered by a group of white supremacists. I don't have to worry about you having the cojones to say anything to my face or anyone else's, but if you did, you would not fare well.
