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.
May 22, 2005
2,853
2,481
1,743
Behind Enemy Lines
#61
Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution

Birthright citizenship is mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore can only be “changed” by constitutional amendment, not by mere executive order or act of Congress, or so the argument goes.
That view depends on reading the 14th Amendment as actually mandating automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on US soil, no matter the circumstances. Temporary visitors, such as tourists, students and guest workers, can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children merely by giving birth while here, is the claim. That view has given rise to the cottage industry known as “birth tourism.” Worse, under this view, citizenship is automatic even if the parents overstay their visas and become illegally present in the United States. Worse still, such citizenship is automatic for children born of parents who were never lawfully present in the United States in the first place.
In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.
It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,542
2,228
1,743
So Cal
#62
Do you have any supporting authorities for your interpretation over his? I would enjoy reading them.
This is a rather lengthy "debate" between two scholars on the subject.... you may find it interesting.
(Eastman is a renown constitutional scholar and former Dean of Chapman University of Law)

Birthright Citizenship
By: John C. Eastman, Linda Chavez
February 10, 2016

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity. Ms. Chavez held several positions during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, including staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and is the author of three books.

Dr. John C. Eastman is Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and currently serves as the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University's Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute.

http://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship/
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,137
596
743
#63
This is a rather lengthy "debate" between two scholars on the subject.... you may find it interesting.
(Eastman is a renown constitutional scholar and former Dean of Chapman University of Law)

Birthright Citizenship
By: John C. Eastman, Linda Chavez
February 10, 2016

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity. Ms. Chavez held several positions during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, including staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and is the author of three books.

Dr. John C. Eastman is Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and currently serves as the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University's Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute.

http://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship/
Lengthy is right! I'll take a look. Thanks.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,514
8,360
1,743
Earth
#65
Presidents and Congress attempt to "tweak" the Constitution all the time...that is the process we live under and why we have a court system of checks and balances. It's a demonstration of Government in action when things are done and challenges are made to it. It's actually how its suppose to work. Nothing is suppose to be easy and everything that is controversially needs a challenge to see if it holds water. Our Government is not meant to process smoothly as that is a protection for the people. As far as Birthright Citizenship is concerned, why not streamline the Citizenship process for those who enter legally and are deserving and that way we don't have this issue at all? I'm glad this is finally in public debate...we get to find out just how moronic we are as a nation.

Half of our nation seems to prefer this as a weapon of choice..Good intentions without knowledge can be dangerous.
1541076502455.png
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,542
2,228
1,743
So Cal
#68
IMHO, there is no better authority on Constitutional matters than Mark Levin. He served as 2nd in command in the Reagan DOJ under Ed Meese, has written numerous books on constitutionality and the supreme court (fully researched and notated), and is a practicing Constitutional attorney as head of the Landmark Legal Foundation (a conservative ACLU, if you will) that frequently presents briefs to the Supreme Court, most recently regarding ObamaCare, and is the one who filed a complaint with the Treasury Department on behalf of his clients that were being denied 403B Charity status by the IRS (the whole Lois Learner IRS scandal).

Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order
October 31, 2018

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”

“Let’s put this in plain English here,” Horowitz said. “Basically they’re saying, Mark, I could break into your home, kick down the door, drop a kid there, and he has the right to live there for the remainder of his life and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.”

“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.

“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,886
2,103
743
Where else but Stillwater
#72

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,696
3,413
743
48
#73
Then why didn't Bush Jr. ever issue an executive order making that clear? Because he was one of the worst presidents ever? Maybe Trump knows he better hurry up and get on the ball before he ends up considered as one of the worst presidents ever.
Ha ha ha ha ha... Oh... Stop it.... You're hilarious. Got me rolling on the floor.

Sent from my stang5litre Edition 5.0 using Tapatalk
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,886
2,103
743
Where else but Stillwater
#74
For the hypocrisy lovers such as RX:

Ted Cruz in 2011: "The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it...those arguments are not very good”.

Ted Cruz today in 2018: "I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet."
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/1...0bv6FzOlEPNPt1wNnBtMH8gqoXUf02n__sOUUMo3ilGSE
"Birthright citizenship is a thorny political issue. But from a legal perspective, experts say, it’s mostly cut and dried. The widely held legal consensus is that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen. If birthright citizenship were ended through an executive order, then, a legal challenge would be all but guaranteed.

As recently as 2011, Cruz — a former Texas solicitor general who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times — seemed solidly on board with that consensus.

“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good,” Cruz said in an interview during his first bid for U.S. Senate. “As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”

But on Tuesday, Cruz dodged the legal question, telling a Dallas Morning News reporter, “I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet.”

Legal experts have said, in a near-unanimous chorus, that Trump cannot merely end a long-recognized right with the stroke of a pen.

For his part, O'Rourke has never called for ending birthright citizenship. On the contrary, he has said he supports a path to citizenship for children brought to the U.S. illegally."
 
Jul 20, 2018
659
93
28
58
77539
#76
For the hypocrisy lovers such as RX:

Ted Cruz in 2011: "The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it...those arguments are not very good”.

Ted Cruz today in 2018: "I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet."


https://www.texastribune.org/2018/1...0bv6FzOlEPNPt1wNnBtMH8gqoXUf02n__sOUUMo3ilGSE
"Birthright citizenship is a thorny political issue. But from a legal perspective, experts say, it’s mostly cut and dried. The widely held legal consensus is that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen. If birthright citizenship were ended through an executive order, then, a legal challenge would be all but guaranteed.

As recently as 2011, Cruz — a former Texas solicitor general who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times — seemed solidly on board with that consensus.

“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good,” Cruz said in an interview during his first bid for U.S. Senate. “As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”

But on Tuesday, Cruz dodged the legal question, telling a Dallas Morning News reporter, “I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet.”

Legal experts have said, in a near-unanimous chorus, that Trump cannot merely end a long-recognized right with the stroke of a pen.

For his part, O'Rourke has never called for ending birthright citizenship. On the contrary, he has said he supports a path to citizenship for children brought to the U.S. illegally."
Cruz's comments are both correct and have nothing to do with each other. One is the legality of the 14th amendment and the other is the legality of an executive order.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,542
2,228
1,743
So Cal
#77
For the hypocrisy lovers such as RX:

Ted Cruz in 2011: "The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it...those arguments are not very good”.

Ted Cruz today in 2018: "I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet."


https://www.texastribune.org/2018/1...0bv6FzOlEPNPt1wNnBtMH8gqoXUf02n__sOUUMo3ilGSE
"Birthright citizenship is a thorny political issue. But from a legal perspective, experts say, it’s mostly cut and dried. The widely held legal consensus is that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen. If birthright citizenship were ended through an executive order, then, a legal challenge would be all but guaranteed.

As recently as 2011, Cruz — a former Texas solicitor general who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times — seemed solidly on board with that consensus.

“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good,” Cruz said in an interview during his first bid for U.S. Senate. “As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”

But on Tuesday, Cruz dodged the legal question, telling a Dallas Morning News reporter, “I would need to examine the legal arguments behind an executive order, and I haven’t seen those yet.”

Legal experts have said, in a near-unanimous chorus, that Trump cannot merely end a long-recognized right with the stroke of a pen.

For his part, O'Rourke has never called for ending birthright citizenship. On the contrary, he has said he supports a path to citizenship for children brought to the U.S. illegally."
we've already debunked all of this nonsense.... why are you posting it now?