Posted on 10/31/2018 2:51:37 PM PDT by Innovative
President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar. But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.
An executive order by President Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.
Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
the writers of the constitutional clause worked very hard to make SURE it did not confer citizenship on “anchor babies”
or illegal immigrants
or anything like that
so, if there is no statute conferring such “free gifts” ...and so far nobody’s cited any such law.......
then the president has the DUTY to stop this awful practice
NOW!
Agreed. Let’s assume the drafters of the 14th Amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
1. “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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the first version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. The children of parents with foreign citizenship and no legal residency are constrained by our laws but are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home government, not that of the United States. President Trump is correct.
I love Tump for bring up this issue and watching the left get hysterical at the thought of losing millions of future voters. This has been a beef of mine for years! Trump is right - we’ve been the STUPID COUNTRY for far too long!
Now, moving forward - if he and conservatives would just start referring to the Caravan as INVADERS, I’d be ecstatic and wish I knew how to get in touch with him to make this suggestion and watch more liberal heads explode!
The correct perspective:
Giving citizenship to children born to illegal aliens was/is unconstitutional.
This is classic “Art of the Deal”. This is Trump’s starting point for negotiation. Wall funding incoming!
I don’t know. A conservative SCOTUS could easily disagree. Maybe we need another retirement.
Hans gets it right. When this Amendment was drafted in 1866, most governments in the world were monarchies, or variants of a single sovereign. You didn’t get to choose your country or your allegiance. At birth, you became a subject of a particular ruler, hence an alien to the rest of the world.
The Amendment was intended to protect citizenship for freed slaves and secondarily address the rights of Native Americans who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As the debates and contemporary writings disclose, this Amendment did not contemplate birthright citizenship and would consider it to be insane. Fixing it is simple and can be done through legislation or through the courts. An Executive Order, is a temporary fix, as acknowledged today by Trump himself. He is yielding the cudgel to move the Congress to action, but the legislative solution is the way to go and the court will sit on the sidelines and watch the fight.
>>They chose and ratified the first version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. <<
I hadn’t considered that before, and it makes sense. Thanks.
>>...but the legislative solution is the way to go and the court will sit on the sidelines and watch the fight.<<
I now think the executive order might be just as effective, and more likely to succeed, given that McConnell remains glued to the filibuster rule.
The “subject to the jurisdiction...” clause is open to interpretation but it’s quite possible that a conservative justice would interpret it to mean that the parent(s) must not still be under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.
While I wouldn’t bet on a success with the current court, adding one more originalist to the court could be sufficient to see them uphold an Executive Order doing away with the current birthright citizenship treatment.
I think one mistake the Left (as well as many on the Right) continually makes is assuming the Trump is always shooting from the hip. He now has direct, and immediate, access to the finest legal minds in the country. It’s silly to think that he doesn’t ever avail himself of that opportunity.
This is an outstanding article. Clearly lays out the constitutional case against illegal alien anchor babies
The moment that the E.O. is issued, multiple challenges will be filed across the land in every federal court. The result will be considerable delay whatever the eventual outcome.
Every single Republican running for a House seat should ask his Democrat opponent point blank if they think the child of an illegal alien or vacationing adult should automatically get US citizenship. Get them on record.
So this is the first time I’ve come across “legal residency”, and I’m interested.
All four of my grandparents were citizens based on their birth in the USA (in 1893-1896). No one ever questioned their citizenship based on the fact that their parents were aliens.
For that matter, no one ever questioned the US citizenship of millions of other similarly situated children born to German, Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish and other sorts of parents between 1860 and 1920.
So there must be something DIFFERENT about THOSE “anchor babies” and teh ones we are discussing here.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.
See my post#15. Native Americans didn't get birthright citizenship until 1924.
Were those parents wetbacks from Mexico, or did they come here legally into the USA? Big difference. If they came here legally, and obtained legal residency then they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction and their anchor babies did indeed become citizens.
Yes, and they weren’t subject to the 14th Amendment for that reason.
Whatever.
The gauntlet has been thrown down. Let the RATs defend the non-law.
Brilliant comment, ripe with wonderful insight and intellectual superior understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.