President Trump and the Question of Anchor Babies: Can He Solve the Problem Via Executive Order?

"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. &nbspf

Let’s hope Pres. Trump puts the full package out there. This should be part of a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill. The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1987 goes like this -

1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.

Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.

Whether they considered this aspect or not is sort of beside the point - the amendment says what it says. .

It is exactly the point. Unless, of course, one advocates for a "living" Constitution which is to be understood in current, often evolving standards. (Think of the whisper passed down the line.)

It doesn't turn on what you and I or Hussein Obama thinks it means, it depends on what the authors meant.

It doesn't turn on what you and I or Hussein Obama thinks it means, it depends on what the authors meant.

Many, including some on the SCOTUS, would strongly disagree. Scalia, were he still alive, would jump all over you for making such a statement.

They think we must interpret the laws as written, not try to look back through the lens of today's events and determine what the framers would have done if only they had considered X.

This view says we have a process to update the Constitution and we should use that rather than reinterpreting it as convenient.

...not try to look back through the lens of today's events and determine what the framers would have done if only they had considered X.

Your position rests on an irrelevant point. There is ample evidence of what the authors considered and intended when they used the two phrases, "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within its jurisdiction", both appearing in the first section of the 14thA.

There is no, as you say, "if only" in play.

List of grievances:

1) War (especially undeclared)
2) Debt slavery https://usdebtclock.org
3) Aiding and abetting invaders who harm our citizens...

100) (Your list may vary)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

There is ample evidence of what the authors considered and intended when they used the two phrases, "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within its jurisdiction"

On the one hand you have an ambiguous statement by one of the authors and on the other you have centuries of understanding that "subject to the jurisdiction of" means subject to the laws and enforcement powers of that state.

There are a few people who special plead for the fringe interpretation but they're just that - the fringe.

First your absurd suggestion Justice Scalia, a bona fide originalist, would find great fault with my argument; and now this statement.

You don't even understand the terms you're using.

Justice Scalia was probably the best known textualist in modern times. He authored books on the subject and lectured on it many times

Do you know what textualism is?

"The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words." The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and was advocated by United States Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia; the latter staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."

Amendment XIV
Section 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .
Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress already has the power to write the provisions and clarify the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Paul Ryan could have had the Republican Congress of 2017-2019 clean this up once and forever, but he was in the pockets of the Chamber of Commerce and the donor class.

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...

I (and many others) read this to exclude residents with diplomatic immunity. The use of commas in the sentence introduces ambiguity but my interpretation is certainly consistent with the way the amendment is drafted.

What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

What determines allegiance? It's something that's freely given by an individual, hence the concept of a pledge. It isn't determined by place of birth and can't be imposed by a state, so just because a person was born somewhere else doesn't mean they have an allegiance to that place.

Diplomats and foreign soldiers stationed here, on the other hand, do hold allegiance to another country by virtue of their pledges/oaths. All consistent with my point above.

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.

In the US illegal aliens can be arrested, taxed, sued, tried, imprisoned and even executed. Specifically, to what aspect of our jurisdiction aren't they subject?

You apparently believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Justice Scalia practiced both. The distinction is between "understanding of the words used" and "intent of the legislation", quite different issues.

You quote Scalia: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."

Before we apply and enforce the law, however, we must understand the law as it was understood by the lawgiver.

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.