Posted on 10/30/2019 7:31:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
"It was always told to me that you needed a Constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. Number one, you don't need that. Number two, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order." —President Donald Trump, explaining that it is constitutional for the president to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment with an executive order, for enforcement purposes
The Anchor Baby Debate Resurfaces
Last year, President Trump explained in an interview with Axios that the ending of birthright citizenship can be accomplished "just with an executive order." The issue is coming to the forefront once again, as White House senior adviser Stephen Miller has recently explained that "all legal options" are being weighed.
What all the hoopla is about is the simple wording that constitutes Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause One of the 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." This modest statement makes it plain that persons born in the United States, who are subject to the jurisdiction of another country, are not American citizens. So babies born to foreign nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction of China, for example, are Chinese citizens, because they — like their parents — are subject to the jurisdiction of China. Since ex-slaves were either born in the United States or immigrated into the country legally — albeit as the property of slavers at the time of their coming — all these people were, by law, considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Freed slaves were, therefore, recognized as natural-born or naturalized U.S. citizens, according to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.  f
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Please act, mr. president!
OK, lets give the Dems more impeachment ammo.
Trump can’t, but Obummer could. Thanks to America’s judicial oligarchy...
The answer...is a clear, and resounding NO! Just read their words...their debate on the issue.
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
Senator Jacob Howard (served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th) clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"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."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside):
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. W. Williams:
I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Senator Jacob Howard states the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment published in the Congressional Record May 30, 1866.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
We have, at a minimum, 3 different Senators who were involved in drafting the 14th Amendment, stating on record in Congress that subject to the jurisdiction can not, does not, apply to foreigners or aliens (even if here legally).
The only thing missing for correcting the wrong introduced in the 1960's, is political will. We must do the right thing, and return to original intent of the 14th!.
I would start by putting a bunch of English Language Professors up to explain the English Language and it’s proper uses. All the while holding up and slowly reading the 14th Amendment and explaining the term “AND” as inclusive when it states UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF!!!
If he issues an executive order that requires compliance with the 14th amendment, he will have solved the anchor baby problems.
Yep. Judiciary trumps the Executive these days (unless the POTUS is a commie rat).
The authors of the 14th never intended it to apply to ANY child of ANY foreign national, legal or illegal.
Trump should issue the EO after the election.....regardless if he wins or loses.
That could make it a SCOTUS fight where a final decision can be made.
If Trump loses, I guess the next POTUS could just reverse the EO and avoid judicial review.
It would only work if the Trump Executive Order stated that no future Democratic president could issue an Executive Order canceling a Trump Executive Order.
Since the concept of illegal immigration didn't really exist at the time they drafted the amendment, probably not.
Whether they considered this aspect or not is sort of beside the point - the amendment says what it says.
It's hard to argue for the clear text of the 2nd Amendment and then argue to ignore it for the 14th.
RE: Whether they considered this aspect or not is sort of beside the point - the amendment says what it says.
See Post #6 above. I think they DID consider this aspect.
He can try
A local federal judge will fiat decree
It’ll take months to go to SCOTUS
and SCOTUS is sadly Deep State led
It is the fastest way to the USSC. It should not be negotiated in a process that allows any gain for the anti-MAGA’s
Pen and a phone, baby!
Publish various EOs worded with slight differences, 6 times a day, every day for 6 months.
The Dems will have to pay lawyers to challenge each one.
“OK, lets give the Dems more impeachment ammo.”
No doubt they would try to exploit an EO with everything they have in their arsenal.
It would certainly not be grounds for impeachment. Still, it’s probably best to wait until after he gets re-elected before issuing the order. January 21 would be good.
p
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.