this makes me nervous

[Thief]

I do my best to avoid political discussions like one would avoid the plague. I also suspect this thread will degrade into political arguing based on party affiliation and if you are or are not a Trump supporter.

I am not taking a political side here and as for Trump, that is not the issue that is making me nervous.

It is this that has me concerned. And it is not because it is Trump and it is not that Trump is going to try and do it nor what he is trying to do as it applies to immigrants and birthrights

Trump eyeing executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution

Think about this for a second, with you politically shaded glasses off.

If a sitting president, regardless of party affiliation, can get rid of an amendment to the constitution with an executive order then which one of the Amendments is next on the chopping block simply because the President does not think it is right or his political party wants him to eliminate that amendment.....Guns become illegal, slavery is back, unreasonable search and seizure, right to a fair trial, excessive fines and cruelty ok...all by executive order. I realize they do not pay as much attention to the Constitution as they should in good ole Washington DC (on both sides of the political coin) but to be able to negate an amendment to the Constitution...all with an executive order from the President...that makes me nervous and could potentially take this country places we simply do not want to go.

Now to wait and see if it is actually legal for him to do it

A list of amendments of the Constitution just think with the stroke of a pen, from 1 man or woman....they could be gone... that I hope, is not possible

heard about it .....and I think it's a ploy to stay down immigrants birthing their newborns here

flip side......if being born here does not base citizenship
then what will?

 

[Curious George]

He is dismissing an interpretation of the 14A which has not be ruled by Congress nor SCOTUS practiced by the executive branch since the 60s. The legal battle will be over if said dismissed interpretation is law. It isn't at this time. That is the legal battle will be about. If birth right includes anyone or specific people as per previous law and precedent.



Nope. Wong helps my point as the criteria of it was the parents were legal residents whereas illegals are not. You didn't read the case did you? You never notice the exclusions which were considered but not deemed applicable? Ergo birth right never existed as it is being treated now.

Are you talking about the exception of hostile occupation? I hope ypu do mot think the United States is in hostile occupation of any of the several states.

 

[sealchan]

All of which points to the fact that we have a narcissistic nut job for a President. Trump has no more power to change the Constitution on his own than you or I. And the way both houses are now constructed he'd never get it passed anyway.


In any case this asinine grandstanding is just more Trump Rhetoric created to fool his gullible followers because he's stupid enough to believe he has the power.


.

He creating incentive for his followers to get up and vote.

 

[Sunstone]

Constitutional scholars often enough say the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says the Constitution is. A Court that found executive orders could over-ride the Constitution could only be challenged by impeachment. At least ultimately.

 

[Shad]

Are you talking about the exception of hostile occupation? I hope you do mot think the United States is in hostile occupation of any of the several states.

No.

 

[Shad]

What part of "Born in the USA" do you not understand????

Case laws show this view is nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

No.

Then, to what exceptions are you referring?

 

[Shad]

Then, to what exceptions are you referring?

First was Indians which did not have citizenship as they were members of a tribe. Wong isn't one ergo not applicable. There is the Chinese Exclusion Act was seen only applicable on immigrants. There are the 3 exclusions which predate the two above such as born to a ruler or diplomat, born on public ships or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

 

[Curious George]

First was Indians which did not have citizenship as they were members of a tribe. Wong isn't one ergo not applicable. There is the Chinese Exclusion Act was seen only applicable on immigrants. There are the 3 exclusions which predate the two above such as born to a ruler or diplomat, born on public ships or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

I think you have misunderstood the hostile occupation exclusion.

 

[Shad]

I think you have misunderstood the hostile occupation exclusion.

I am not using it as an argument nor did I make any statement about. I am pointing out it was an exception to birth right citizenship in a specific case.

 

[Curious George]

I am not using it as an argument nor did I make any statement about. I am pointing out it was an exception to birth right citizenship in a specific case.

Yes I understand. Which exception do you think applies.

 

[Shad]

Yes I understand. Which exception do you think applies.

I never said any applied to Wong. I pointed out there are exceptions to 14A via the case.

 

[Curious George]

I never said any applied to Wong. I pointed out there are exceptions to 14A via the case.

I am asking which exception found in dicta do you believe applies to children of illegal aliens?

 

[Shad]

I am asking which exception found in dicta do you believe applies to children of illegal aliens?

None of those. I used Wong's parents legal residence status as an argument. Illegals do not have legal residence status. More so they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the USA but that of their country of origin.

 

[Curious George]

None of those. I used Wong's parents legal residence status as an argument. Illegals do not have legal residence status. More so they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the USA but that of their country of origin.

So you are using a similar argument to the dissent in Wong Kim Ark? Given the case law, you are either asking for that ruling to be overturned or you are claiming that illegal aliens fit within one of the exceptions to common law jus soli. It sounds like you are trying to distinguish the case based on the narrow reading that common law birthright citizenship only applies to instances where the U.S. has more than territorial jurisdiction over one parent.

I cannot see how anyone can read Wong Kim Ark in this light. Please explain.

 

[Nous]

He is dismissing an interpretation of the 14A which has not be ruled by Congress nor SCOTUS practiced by the executive branch since the 60s. The legal battle will be over if said dismissed interpretation is law. It isn't at this time. That is the legal battle will be about. If birth right includes anyone or specific people as per previous law and precedent.



Nope. Wong helps my point as the criteria of it was the parents were legal residents whereas illegals are not. You didn't read the case did you? You never notice the exclusions which were considered but not deemed applicable? Ergo birth right never existed as it is being treated now.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was written exactly as it states in order to invalidate Dred Scott. The concept of "illegal alien" did not exist at the time the Amendment was composed or ratified. But what did exist in the case law and continues to exist is the principle that guilt for wrongdoing is not inheritable. Persons in the US without authorization are certainly under the jurisdiction of the United States, as the Amendment requires, and a child born here can only be considered subject to the Amendment's clearly stated principle of jus soli, without regard to the parent's unauthorization.

 

[Curious George]

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was written exactly as it states in order to invalidate Dred Scott. The concept of "illegal alien" did not exist at the time the Amendment was composed or ratified. But what did exist in the case law and continues to exist is the principle that guilt for wrongdoing is not inheritable. Persons in the US without authorization are certainly under the jurisdiction of the United States, as the Amendment requires, and a child born here can only be considered subject to the Amendment's clearly stated principle of jus soli, without regard to the parent's unauthorization.

While I agree with your interpretation, let us not pretend the Wong Kim Ark dissent was not also a viable interpretation that would have kept with invalidating Dred Scott. I would add that while the wording "not subject to..." was available and specifically not used in the amendment text which cuts against the dissent. Now, turning over such a long standing precedent would be mind boggling, however could we really be that surprised is the case was decided the other way? If so, why?

 

[Nous]

While I agree with your interpretation, let us not pretend the Wong Kim Ark dissent was not also a viable interpretation that would have kept with invalidating Dred Scott. I would add that while the wording "not subject to..." was available and specifically not used in the amendment text which cuts against the dissent. Now, turning over such a long standing precedent would be mind boggling, however could we really be that surprised is the case was decided the other way? If so, why?

Very simply, Plyler v. Doe clearly establishes (a) that unauthorized aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and (b) that guilt for wrongdoing is not inheritable.
This destroys all arguments that I am aware of claiming that children born in the US to unauthorized mothers are somehow outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore are not covered by the Citizenship Clause.

 

[Lyndon]

Its clear that Republicans only support the constitution when it is convenient for them.

 

[Curious George]

Very simply, Plyler v. Doe clearly establishes (a) that unauthorized aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and (b) that guilt for wrongdoing is not inheritable.
This destroys all arguments that I am aware of claiming that children born in the US to unauthorized mothers are somehow outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore are not covered by the Citizenship Clause.

First, that doesn't even respond to the argument. Second Plyer v. Doe was decided much, much later.