Trump Executive Order ends birthright citizenship
(twitter.com)
Comments (62)
sorted by:
The offspring of invaders don't get to claim citizenship? Great. How on earth did it take us this long to address this?
It's in the constitution so this might not stick.
But if it holds then Canada will be the only country with birthright citizenship, a stupid concept.
The 14th amendment made all former slaves into citizens.
Since there are no more slaves, it doesn't apply.
There's no time limit on the amendment or any wording suggesting it only applies to slaves.
Because it's obvious? It's purpose was to stop confederate states from denying citizenship to freed slaves. That's it.
Yes, but also no. The authors of the 14th amendment were very clear with the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part that it didn't apply to the children of citizens of other countries. Later activist judges chose to ignore the explanations the authors gave when ratification was being debated and simply aggressively misinterpret it instead. The inevitable SC case on this EO will be interesting.
i have some confidence with the current SCOTUS having revoked Roe v Wade, they might rule in Trump's favor.
Should have done in back in 1492!
More seriously, won't stand, Jus Solis is at the very foundation of our nation, and it is embedded in the US Constitution (14th, Birthright Clause).
How is an amendment made under the suspension of the Constitution “at the very foundation of our nation”? Remember the south was FORCED to ratify the 14th to regain congressional representation, that blatantly violated the 9th and 10th amendments. In reality the post war amendments were done in blatant disregard of the constitution, just as Lincoln had no problem waiving the constitution and suspending habeus corpus to get his way.
The 14th codifies in the US Constitution what was the Common Law consensus. Born in US soil -> Natural born US citizen.
You can't define a nation if you have no legal definition of who your citizens are.
Congress can of course change what that definition is, but it can't be done by royal decree.
Completely false. The 1790 naturalization act completely obliterates that argument
Consider the case where:
M1 and F1 are US citizens abroad
They have a child, M2. M2 is a considered a "natural born citizen."
M2 never leaves that foreign nation.
M2 has a child with F2 (a US citizen abroad): M3.
M3 is not a US citizen as his M2 was never resident in the United States.
In the context of the Act, it seems like that clause is to prevent a chain of "natural born citizens" who never stepped foot in the US. It doesn't block citizenship by other avenues, it limits the naturalization act itself.
The act also limited citizenship to race and moral character. The entire point is no where is Jus Soli the metric, even the 14th avoids it and that amendment was ratified under a suspended constitution which makes it invalid.
This act defined citizenship by naturalization.
It said nothing about birthright and Jus Solis.
Did you really just spew that stupid when it literally word for word says that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"? Show me anywhere in the constitution where it says jus solis, even the 14th explicitly avoids the term. I’ll wait!
US Constitution:
This is verbatim what JS means ('right of soil"). Regardless of parentage.
Spelled out by the US Dept of State:
How handy it is then that we have a President to use Executive Authority and not a King. No King, no Royal Decree.
Wrong, jus sanguinis is at the foundation. Jus soli was added much later, and written specifically to only apply to people without citizenship in other countries, like slaves and injuns.
Now do one for hard revoking every single instance of birthright citizenship that has happened in the last 100 years. Rip that rug out from under them. Do like the Democrats have done and ram through so much of it so quickly that they can't injunction it with fake partisan and activist judges, and by the time they try, it's too late to undo it.
If the originalists on the SC all do their job, that's what will happen after this EO gets challenged and makes it's way through the courts.
I admire Trump for the effort, but I don't expect it to withstand court scrutiny.
the only bet is how many so called republican judges will be on the other side
Probably won't stick due to our founders underestimating the cynicism and scale with which women would flood into the country and immediately drop anchor babies, but at least this shatters the Overton Window and gets people talking about the "legal" immigration problem.
Americans can't fly into Switzerland at nine months pregnant, drop a baby on the sidewalk outside the airport, and be Swiss citizens six months later.
Unfortunately this won't hold up because birthright citizenship is in the constitution under the 14th amendment.
You would need another amendment to fix it.
My understanding is birthright citizenship is not clearly defined in the 14th amendment
You should improve your understanding by reading the first sentence of the 14th amendment.
I would love for this to not be the case, but it is the way it is.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
How exactly are they subject to our laws if they're criminal aliens unknown to the government? The only way to read that as supporting birthright citizenship is if jurisdiction is entirely geographical.
In the past they might have said it's lines on a map, but with today's court and environment I bet they find that illegals are not under our jurisdiction, but they'll split the baby and say any child of parents that filed for asylum or had a court date has birthright citizenship (so all the CBP One aliens and ones that pretended to need asylum).
>how are they subject to our laws if they're criminal
Criminals are not subject to our laws. We have right to free movement, free speech, and free assembly. They have right to a cell, quiet hours, and not grouping up too densely in the yard.
The laws don't grant us rights, we have natural rights that are defended by laws.
You seem to be unclear on what "subject to" means in this case. When someone is "subject to" a law that means they will suffer the consequences if they violate the law. By calling someone a criminal, you are implicitly declaring that they are subject to the law. If you say "I am not subject to your laws" you are declaring that the law does not apply to you and you can go about your business.
You're conflating crime and jurisdiction.
A Thai citizen can have sex with a minor and he's neither a criminal nor under our jurisdiction. An American can go to Thailand and do the same and he's a criminal, but not under our jurisdiction (he'd have to voluntarily return or be extradited). A foreign diplomat can be under our jurisdiction but not a criminal for doing the same as an American.
So an alien having committed a crime doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
For example, what's the difference between a criminal alien unknown to the government who is still in the country vs one who has since returned home? From the government's perspective nothing is different - until the former is discovered and so becomes under our jurisdiction - which is effective just like if the one who returned was extradited back to face prosecution here.
Also, in America only "certain unalienable Rights" come from God/nature, not all rights. Citizenship is not inalienable; in fact naturalization is delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
"Jurisdiction" means "what nationality are you i.e. who do I have to holler at to come get their boy?". A Brazilian illegally in the US is subject to the Laws of the US because of location but subject to the Jurisdiction of Brazil by home origin. A German illegally living in the US isn't an American because he is contributing to the economy even if he has a whole established life.
That sounds like a really interesting legal theory you could argue before the supreme court and lose.
Pro tip: if your legal theory supports the conclusion "the freed slaves are not citizens and neither are their children", it ain't gonna fly. It would have been nice if they were more specific on the amendment or had a time limit, but they didn't do that so here we are.
the people in question were under the jurisdiction of the US, dummy. Plenty of freed slaves chose to leave as was a popular sentiment at the time, they founded Liberia and that whole situation happened...
keep flyin' bucko
US WAS the last 1st world country that allowed birth right citizenship. Nice.
Canada does too. With the same disastrous consequences.
Yeah, but he said first world country.
I don't care if it gets reversed it makes the ground shaky.
It's literally that easy, it could have been done just literally anytime by anyone.
what'll happen is the court will either uphold it or strike it down, but if they do they'll have to give reasons why it's struck which means another EO can be made that takes that into account.
If the Congress wants to do something about it they can go ahead and issue the orders and go through the whole legal process taking up months to years of time all while forcing the issue into public discussion.
Plus another benefit is that with the sheer amount of orders, there's only 1 supreme court to hear all these cases.
can't wait for two republican Supreme Court justices to strike it down
I really REALLY hope this stands up in court, but I don't think it will. It would be an enormous improvement to America's immigration problem.
Huge "W" for passport bros: Now the anchor-babies need anchor-sugar-daddies.
WHY GIVE THEM A 30-DAY HEAD START!?
There you go again, Don. Always keeping us reading the fine print. 🙄
BRC has NEVER existed for foreign visitors be them here legally or illegally. Trump just royally fked us again AND he knows it.
Of course it has. Many women travel to the US to give birth. Its happened for decades.
on tourist visas
ALL of it illegally. A very simple question. If you think it exists for visitors then explain why it doesn't exist for diplomats.
true, if a foreigner can raise a child with only the barest of legal ties to a country in an entirely different society but still get the child into positions of political power that's a potential compromised politician at best.
Then why did he do it?
Because at the end of the day he is still a metropolitan egalitarian.
It'll get enjoined and tossed by the end of the week. The 14th is pretty clear.
I'd like to get rid of it, but it isn't happening this way, or probably at all.
The 14th does not say that anybody and everybody born on US soil is automatically a US citizen. That is a court interpretation and can be reinterpreted just as easily.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Wow, it literally does. I know you guys are dumbfucks, but this is 5th grade level reading. Come on.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
you are a fucking retard.
This is like the 2a thing. That's an addition, not the main clause of the amendment. The main clause in this case is prior to the first comma.
You guys are also short bus material. Wastes of God damn oxygen because you can't comprehend things a child can.