Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[flechero]

I am a bit perplexed by the timing of the birthright citizenship talk... it seems like it would fire up the left more than the right. I'm all for eliminating the BRC of those born to illegals, but see it as something that would motivate more left voters then right voters.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this? I'd be pushing the [additional 10%] middle class tax cuts loud and proud, and holding the 14th amendment talk until 11/7.

[bblhd672]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child. Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

TxHawk you will quickly realize that facts don’t make any difference to certain posters here. You’ve engaged one of them.

[WTR]

Curious timeing.

[bblhd672]

What I find funny, is that Trump announced his Executive Order plans, and it barely got a ripple in the MSM. They are still working on blaming him for the Pittsburgh shooting, and the mail bomber. He really makes them work for their outrage. By the time they get heated up about the EO, he will be on to something else.

[TXHawk]

In either the most arrogant display of ignorance concerning the US Constitution, or the newest in a long line of absurd pronouncements to distract the populace just days before the mid-term elections, tRump proposes to end birthright citizenship protected in the 14th Amendment with an executive order... Yep, winning as only tRump knows how.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N41MD

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child. Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes. The citation if the 14th has been a fairly recent construct and frankly a misuse of the amendment. Much like the 2nd Amendment a quick reading of the historical background and writings of the authors can clearly establish intent and meaning. The 14th is no different and I offer you below the words of its' author. I hope that you will agree by both authors intent and SCOTUS ruling birthright citizenship has been a graceful concession but not Constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it should be that is an entirely different topic and would require an additional amendment or a revision of the 14th.

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

TxHawk you will quickly realize that facts don’t make any difference to certain posters here. You’ve engaged one of them.

I know. Facts matter little to those on the left but they remain important.

[03Lightningrocks]

What I find funny, is that Trump announced his Executive Order plans, and it barely got a ripple in the MSM. They are still working on blaming him for the Pittsburgh shooting, and the mail bomber. He really makes them work for their outrage. By the time they get heated up about the EO, he will be on to something else.

This explains it all.

[Jusme]

I think what really bothers the Clinton News Network, and Make Senseless Noise By Committee, is that Trump has totally ignored their assertions of being responsible for the criminals. They want to get a rise out of him, to justify, their ranting, and he simply goes a different direction, with no notice of them , which makes, them so much angrier, and unhinged. They just don't get how easily he plays them. They can't even relish the fact that Kanye has now stepped away from his statements about Trump, because, they called him every name in the book, and claimed he was mentally ill. Hard to backtrack now. They are the best reason for people to vote Republican, since Reagan.

[philbo]

I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child.

Elk v. Wilkens is not the only case dealing with this issue, nor is your case as on point as your conclusion states.

The Elk case dealt specifically with native americans present within the US borders in the 19th century. Elk brought suit stating that he should be granted the privilege of citizenship based on the 14th amendment and his being born within the US. The holding in this case did not rest on who Elks parents were, but rather the fact that he had been born into a tribe that was recognized as an alien nation by the US. Congress that previously concluded that the "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 Thus, the members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. The ruling in Elk supported the previous Civil Rights Act of 1866 which specifically stated "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." Again, the ruling in Elk relied on the earlier Civil Rights Act to uphold it finding, not the status of Elks parents. Elk remained law in it's application to Native Americans until it was overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes.

I agree that it did not exist as a legal term in the 19th century, but all the hall marks of racism, prejudice, nationalism and xenophobia directed against present day illegal immigrants were being levied against the immigrants of their times and justified to deny them the right to vote. Political Parties thrived on fear of immigrants, especially those from Ireland and China. This is best reserved for a separate discussion, but fear and paranoia of immigrants did play a part in 19th century law, as much as it does today.

The cases directly related to the concept of jus soli grew out a series of appellate cases that was eventually decided by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1889. These cases directly commented on the status of parents as related to birthright citizenship, not Elk. as you previously concluded.

The anti-immigrant attitude towards Chinese immigrants in the 19th and 20th century can not be understated. This hostility towards immigrants of Asian descent was codified in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which severely restricted the rights of Chinese immigrants to enter the country, and made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from obtaining US citizenship.

The question of whether the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to persons born in the United States to Chinese immigrants first came before the courts in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Sing. Mr. Sing was born in California in 1870 to Chinese immigrants who were not US citizens. As an adult Look Tin Sing was barred from rentry to the US in California because he did not have the documentation required for immigrants. Look's case was taken to the appeals court in 1884. After inviting comment from all lawyers, the judges focused on the meaning of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase of the Citizenship Clause, and subsequently held that Look was indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth despite the alien status of his parents, and on this basis ordered U.S. officials to recognize Look as a citizen and allow him to enter the United States. This case was not appealed. A similar conclusion was reached by the federal circuit court for Oregon in the 1888 cases of Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee. In an 1892 case, Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., the federal appeals court in California (relying on the above cases) concluded that a Chinese man would have been recognized as a United States citizen if he could have presented satisfactory evidence that he had in fact been born in the U.S. None of these cases were appealed to SCOTUS, but each directly dealt with Birthright Citizenship under the 14th amendment.

The case that is directly on point, and of which you presume to be ignorant of, followed the fact patterns of the above cases and was heard by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898. In a 6–2 decision the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."

While Howard did state the above it has been hashed to pieces by proponents on both sides without fully answering the question. "Is that a list of three different categories (foreigners, aliens, and people from the families of ambassadors and ministers), in which case all kids of foreigners and aliens would be excluded from birthright citizenship? Or is “aliens” used simply as a synonym for “foreigners” and meant to be read in apposition, in which case the exclusion is limited to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers? (“Foreigners—that is, aliens—who belong to the families . . .” For a very good discussion of BOTH sides of this issue, read here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... quirement/

But back to the original point.... if tRump believes he can legally upend the 14th amendment, federal law, and the previous holdings of SCOTUS with an executive order, he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A law passed by congress, and all the appeals that would necessarily follow, may lead to an opinion different from the holding in Wong, but not an executive order by itself.

[philip964]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018 ... d-him.html

Rabbi surprised by the warm and personal side that Trump displayed at his synagogue.

Regarding the 14 th Amendment, according to one constitutionalist who is much more knowledgeable than me, it was enacted to make former slaves citizens. An executive order in the ‘60’s changed the policy to allow foreigners who had a baby in the US, for the baby to be a citizen at birth. Thus an executive order could reverse that policy to the way it was before. Trump was as surprised as anyone that he could do that. The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow travel agents to set up citizenship vacations for pregnant foreign clients. One friend mentioned that he knew 3 friends who used the cheap travel insurance you can buy to pay for the delivery costs.

The US only allows one country citizenship. Many countries don’t care, so you can be a US citizen, yet retain your other passport, while renouncing your foreign citizenship in the US.

There is apparently also a lot of contemporary written statements by the drafters of what it was for and what it was not for.

[mojo84]

Regarding the 14 th Amendment, according to one constitutionalist who is much more knowledgeable than me, it was enacted to make former slaves citizens. An executive order in the ‘60’s changed the policy to allow foreigners who had a baby in the US, for the baby to be a citizen at birth. Thus an executive order could reverse that policy to the way it was before. Trump was as surprised as anyone that he could do that. The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow travel agents to set up citizenship vacations for pregnant foreign clients. One friend mentioned that he knew 3 friends who used the cheap travel insurance you can buy to pay for the delivery costs.

The US only allows one country citizenship. Many countries don’t care, so you can be a US citizen, yet retain your other passport, while renouncing your foreign citizenship in the US.

There is apparently also a lot of contemporary written statements by the drafters of what it was for and what it was not for.

I have been trying to explain this to some progressive leftists on Twitter but they refuse to listen and consider that it may actually be the case. Do you have a good source that lays it out in plain English using small words that I can share?

[bigtek]

Even if the newborn has birthright US citizenship, that doesn't confer any rights or privileges on her parents, nor does it preclude the government requiring the parents to return to their home country when their tourist visas expire.

[philip964]

Regarding the 14 th Amendment, according to one constitutionalist who is much more knowledgeable than me, it was enacted to make former slaves citizens. An executive order in the ‘60’s changed the policy to allow foreigners who had a baby in the US, for the baby to be a citizen at birth. Thus an executive order could reverse that policy to the way it was before. Trump was as surprised as anyone that he could do that. The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow travel agents to set up citizenship vacations for pregnant foreign clients. One friend mentioned that he knew 3 friends who used the cheap travel insurance you can buy to pay for the delivery costs.

The US only allows one country citizenship. Many countries don’t care, so you can be a US citizen, yet retain your other passport, while renouncing your foreign citizenship in the US.

There is apparently also a lot of contemporary written statements by the drafters of what it was for and what it was not for.

I have been trying to explain this to some progressive leftists on Twitter but they refuse to listen and consider that it may actually be the case. Do you have a good source that lays it out in plain English using small words that I can share?

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... ive-order/

It was not an executive order in the ‘60’s, it was then that the lax inforcement of the immigration laws started by the executive branch. Thus if the executive branch can not follow the law the executive branch can begin refollowing the law by executive action. Thus Trump’s power.

[mojo84]

This should provide some insight.

www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/de ... itizenship

The Question of Birthright Citizenship
Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith

[Rubicon]

The solution is to cut entitlements. Slash them to the bone. While we're talking about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, let's take the opportunity to stop every government entitlement, every federal program or agency, that's not explicitly authorized by the constitution.

Immigrants who come here to work, and stand on their own two feet, benefit themselves and the nation. Adults who are too lazy and too stupid to earn an honest living can move to a socialist paradise in Europe or wherever. Or they can starve. At this point, I really don't care which.

[mojo84]

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... itizenship

Trump has precedent, common sense on his side in birthright citizenship fight