Trump eyeing executive order to end citizenship for children born in U.S. to non-citizens

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,103
15,624
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#3
Gonna be tough for him to get an EO upheld that is in direct conflict of the 14th Amendment Anyone who supports a POTUS thinking they can over ride the Constitution via EO is a moron regardless of who the POTUS is.....Trump is developing a severe case of the Obamaitis

Article 14 section 1 of he US Constitution
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship and nothing less
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,725
1,161
743
Left field
#5
Gonna be tough for him to get an EO upheld that is in direct conflict of the 14th Amendment Anyone who supports a POTUS thinking they can over ride the Constitution via EO is a moron regardless of who the POTUS is.....Trump is developing a severe case of the Obamaitis

Article 14 section 1 of he US Constitution
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship and nothing less
With this padded Supreme Court ? Hope any Potus can't override Constitution or even try without impeachment coming up.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
7,267
5,645
743
Gondor
#7
Gonna be tough for him to get an EO upheld that is in direct conflict of the 14th Amendment Anyone who supports a POTUS thinking they can over ride the Constitution via EO is a moron regardless of who the POTUS is.....Trump is developing a severe case of the Obamaitis

Article 14 section 1 of he US Constitution
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship and nothing less
What about the morons who think they can wave a magic wand and get rid of the electoral college?
 

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,059
1,796
743
63
#9
This isn't quite as clear cut as you may think. For example, "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.'"​
Also, this,
"The Amendment's key 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. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.
The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
In the decision, the Court firmly stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. The decision stated that the American Indian claimant was considered not to be 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 had not been citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States.)
Based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction in order to qualify children for birthright citizenship. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Another ruling in 1889 "Wong Kim Ark" was based strictly on the 14th Amendment. In this decision, the Supreme Court case again affirmed the status of the parents to be crucial in determining the citizenship of the child."

Now, I seriously doubt that Trump can use an EO to stop the current practice of foreign parents scheduling their holiday trips to the US in order that their children can be born here and automatically be granted citizenship. But the SC could.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,103
15,624
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#12
This isn't quite as clear cut as you may think. For example, "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.'"​

.
You have to remember the climate when this amendment was written as well. It was after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as Reconstruction was starting and it was put forward by Congress to grant citizenship and protection to all newly freed slaves who were mostly Africans

The debate was very hot over this as you can imagine and states who didn't want to give equal status to freedmen and wanted the definition of who is a citizen and who is not to remain at a state level.


In his appeal to Congress John Bingham "the father of the 14th amendment" (one of the federal prosecutors for the Lincoln Assassination trial and Republican Congressman of Ohio) before the vote to ratify the 14th amendment said

Representatives, to you I appeal, that hereafter, by your act and the approval of the loyal people of this country, every man in every State of the Union, in accordance with the written words of your Constitution, may, by the national law, be secured in the equal protection of his personal rights. Your Constitution provides that no man, no matter what his color, no matter beneath what sky he may have been born, no matter in what disastrous conflict or by what tyrannical hand his liberty may have been cloven down, no matter how poor, no matter how friendless, no matter how ignorant, shall be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law—law in its highest sense, that law which is the perfection of human reason, and which is impartial, equal, exact justice; that justice which requires that every man shall have his right: that justice which is the highest duty of nations as it is the imperishable attribute of the God of nations.

Bingham's words regarding the 14th Amendment would then be used by the SC as their legal basis for desegregating public schools, providing votes and equality for women, and were used to create the right to sexual privacy. Removing or changing the 14th amendment would also remove the legal basis the Supreme Court has made these additional decisions upon.
 
Last edited:

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,059
1,796
743
63
#13
You have to remember the climate when this amendment was written as well. It was after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as Reconstruction was starting and it was put forward by Congress to grant citizenship and protection to all newly freed slaves who were mostly Africans

The debate was very hot over this as you can imagine and states who didn't want to give equal status to freedmen and wanted the definition of who is a citizen and who is not to remain at a state level.


In his appeal to Congress John Bingham "the father of the 14th amendment" (one of the federal prosecutors for the Lincoln Assassination trial and Republican Congressman of Ohio) before the vote to ratify the 14th amendment said

Representatives, to you I appeal, that hereafter, by your act and the approval of the loyal people of this country, every man in every State of the Union, in accordance with the written words of your Constitution, may, by the national law, be secured in the equal protection of his personal rights. Your Constitution provides that no man, no matter what his color, no matter beneath what sky he may have been born, no matter in what disastrous conflict or by what tyrannical hand his liberty may have been cloven down, no matter how poor, no matter how friendless, no matter how ignorant, shall be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law—law in its highest sense, that law which is the perfection of human reason, and which is impartial, equal, exact justice; that justice which requires that every man shall have his right: that justice which is the highest duty of nations as it is the imperishable attribute of the God of nations.

Bingham's words regarding the 14th Amendment would then be used by the SC as their legal basis for desegregating public schools, providing votes and equality for women, and were used to create the right to sexual privacy. Removing or changing the 14th amendment would also remove the legal basis the Supreme Court has made these additional decisions upon.
The counter is that it is often argued that the 14th Amendment was truly meant to only give citizenship to former slaves and other blacks who were born in the U.S. and living in the U.S. at that time--so that individual states could not deny citizenship and the other rights associated with citizenship to these persons. That would mean that the real intent ended a long time ago as all of those persons are now dead.

In addition, we also have to remember that when the 14th was passed, there was still the frontier and the U.S. did not have a formal immigration policy, which means we didn't limit immigration, which meant there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, and the authors of the Amendment didn't address immigration or anything of the sort.

As for the quote about the 14th being used to give women the right to vote--that was the 19th, so closing the birthright loophole wouldn't affect this.


If this ever makes it to the SC, and I have my doubts, I could see it going 5 to 4 either way. Roberts might decide to weigh public opinion before he decides. He's done it twice already.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Jun 18, 2008
42,334
45,902
1,743
Dallas, TX
#14
What about the morons who think they can wave a magic wand and get rid of the electoral college?
What did he say?

He said ANYBODY who thinks ANY president can sign an EO overturning a constitutional amendment is an idiot.

That wasn't an inclusive statement meaning only republicans or only democrats.

And he's right. If this goes what's next? You can bet your ass that Trump would try to get something in place restricting the freedom of press... "the enemy of the people" as he has labeled them. You can also bet that the next left leaning president would try to do something to take out the second amendment.
 
Feb 13, 2010
2,695
2,007
743
Back in God's country!
#15
This isn't quite as clear cut as you may think. For example, "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.'"​
Also, this,
"The Amendment's key 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. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.
The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
In the decision, the Court firmly stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. The decision stated that the American Indian claimant was considered not to be 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 had not been citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States.)
Based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction in order to qualify children for birthright citizenship. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Another ruling in 1889 "Wong Kim Ark" was based strictly on the 14th Amendment. In this decision, the Supreme Court case again affirmed the status of the parents to be crucial in determining the citizenship of the child."

Now, I seriously doubt that Trump can use an EO to stop the current practice of foreign parents scheduling their holiday trips to the US in order that their children can be born here and automatically be granted citizenship. But the SC could.
I agree, and that's the same interpretations I found. I think stopping the practice is definitely needed, but I'm not a fan AT ALL of EOs no matter which side issues them. Thinking that Trump just might issue the EO to force SCOTUS to review and determine exactly what the 14th covers. Will be interesting to see!
 
Dec 29, 2008
1,992
779
1,743
Stillwater
#16
If a foreign person is not subject to our jurisdictions, does that mean they are not subject to obeying our laws? If they are, how are they not, then, subject to US jurisdiction?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,103
15,624
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#17
If a foreign person is not subject to our jurisdictions, does that mean they are not subject to obeying our laws? If they are, how are they not, then, subject to US jurisdiction?
In order for them to be deemed "illegal" I think that would mean they would have to be subject to our laws, which would make them subject to US Jurisdiction by definition I believe.
 
Nov 16, 2013
2,612
1,890
243
32
tractor
#18
In order for them to be deemed "illegal" I think that would mean they would have to be subject to our laws, which would make them subject to US Jurisdiction by definition I believe.
WTH? If they immigrated illegally or have over stayed a visa they are illegal immigrants. No citizenship for their spawn. It's not fair to the rule followers.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,691
23,439
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#19
The president cannot change the Constitution nor should anybody want him to. There is a way to do that. I guarantee you if Trump "tweaks" the 14th amendment, the next Dem president will tweak the 2nd.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,103
15,624
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#20
WTH? If they immigrated illegally or have over stayed a visa they are illegal immigrants. No citizenship for their spawn. It's not fair to the rule followers.
Umm this is already how it works right now ..and it is something currently protected by the Constitution..call your Congress rep and tell them to change the 14th amendment