Posted on 10/30/2018 8:33:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Expect an explosion of media outrage and high powered lawsuits, especially in jurisdictions with Trump-hating federal judges. President Trump has launched an October surprise.
Last night in an interview granted to Jonathan Swan of Axios, President Trump announced his plans to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born on American territory to illegal immigrants and foreign citizens, presumably at least those “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as required by the 14th Amendment.
The Washington Post reports
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump said during an interview with Axios scheduled to air as part of a new HBO series starting this weekend. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”
Trump, who has long decried “anchor babies,” said he has discussed the move with his legal counsel and believes it can be accomplished with executive action, a view at odds with the opinions of many legal scholars.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Axios.
When told that view is disputed, Trump asserted: “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
“It’s in the process. It’ll happen . . . with an executive order,” he said, without offering a time frame.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
.
Birthright citizenship is only for children of parents in the country “under the jurisdiction...” (14th amendment)
______________________
........ sounds good to me.
A French couple on vacation in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Just like anyone else here. Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the law, and visitors have to obey the law too.
Trump is making the Presidency Great Again. I haven’t seen a president like Trump since Ronnie...
.
Lots of fairytale double talk in that one!
.
That is the way I first interpreted it as well. But my mind was changed by the article.
BTW, I meant this article, to which the OP article refers:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
.
It will automatically be retroactive unless SCOTUS finds a reason why it cannot be (Highly unlikely)
.
One who enters unlawfully is not entering subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and has made themself subject to Admiralty Law, as though they were “at sea.”
If a person can seek refuge here in the USA in another country's embassy or consulate where they are not subject to our jurisdiction, then they are not fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Is there any place inside the United States where you or I can avoid the jurisdiction of the United States? Why should other "citizens" be afforded this right? Why should "birthright" citizens have more protections against United States jurisdiction than natural born citizens?
-PJ
Yes. It gave them unbridled control of congress. It was always about power.
Unfortunately it is about 25-million children and thousands of dysfunctional elementary schools too late...
“President Trump could explode more liberal heads by making this executive order retroactive.”
Why wouldn’t it be retroactive. I suspect he would be issuing an order stating that the Constitutional language about “subject to the jurisdiction” does not apply to people here illegally.
Kind of an interesting question where people have applied for asylum and are waiting. Are they “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”?
I don[t think the 14th applies to illegal occupants of America.
Thanks for the link. Read it while eating lunch. Too bad the discussion ended without discussing how, why, and when all this changed.
This is...WOW!
I like where this is going.
It is possible that this is a first, tough negotiating position to ultimately get a law out of congress. Dems would push it to SCOTUS where it would be blessed.
It is possible that this is a first, tough negotiating position to ultimately get a law out of congress. Dems would push it to SCOTUS where it would be blessed.
We could use some specifics. But here’s a start.
I don’t know enough Latin to be a lawyer, but this one is a no-brainer when you understand the original intent.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh read a document of original intent that made it clear that this was clearly NOT to be a pathway for immigrant citizenship. The amendment was to ensure that all slaves and their children would be full citizens.
And, when you study the history of the law, it was interpreted for SEVERAL decades [a century?] exactly the way Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham intend to interpret it. But a progressive court later re-interpreted the amendment [just like the bastardization of the Commerce Clause].
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.