Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[DGS49]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump does not have the power to change the Constitution by himself.....

 

[Thunk]

OK...so we ban all pregnant women who are not citizens.

Problem solved.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Fact:
The birth right citizenship was meant for the children of slaves, not for the children of illegal aliens.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Only 35 countries allow birth right citizenship.

 

[progressive hunter]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

no one in their right mind can think the 14th meant that someone that sneaks into or otherwise uses subversion to enter the country means the child she has here is an american citizen,,

it was meant for slaves and their offspring,,

 

[Polishprince]

If someone is on a student visa, are they "subject to US jurisdiction"? How about if they are a tourist?

I wouldn't think so, those folks don't have to pay US income or estate taxes.

 

[progressive hunter]

If someone is on a student visa, are they "subject to US jurisdiction"? How about if they are a tourist?

I wouldn't think so, those folks don't have to pay US income or estate taxes.

do they have the protection of their home country??

same goes for a tourist,,

they are under the jurisdiction of our laws not the responsibilities of a citizen,,

they cant be axed for income or drafted into the military,,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We need to end birth tourism..

 

[AZrailwhale]

Trump does not have the power to change the Constitution by himself.....

The Constitution doesn’t need to be changed. The only thing necessary to end birthright citizenship is to recognize the true intended meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that means citizens of foreign countries who owe allegiance to them. The citizenship portion of the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from removing citizenship from ex-slaves, NOT immigrants. Otherwise there wouldn’t have needed to be naturalization procedures.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If someone is on a student visa, are they "subject to US jurisdiction"? How about if they are a tourist?

I wouldn't think so, those folks don't have to pay US income or estate taxes.

They are also protected by their diplomatic personnel. When arrested American law enforcement personnel are required to notify their embassy or Consulate which provides legal protection and representation.

 

[MarathonMike]

Only 35 countries allow birth right citizenship.
View attachment 1040559

The vague wording of the 14th amendment has caused the US more problems than all the other amendments combined. The INTENT of the 14th Amendment was clearly about Slaves' rights and THEIR children.

 

[sparky]

So would constitutional interpretations be a SCOTUS chore?

~S~

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

Do you mind if I provide some background on the 14th Amendment and why that language in it exists? If you prefer not I can create a separate thread and just reference it here in yours.

 

[excalibur]

Fact:
The birth right citizenship was meant for the children of slaves, not for the children of illegal aliens.

Simple truth.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

 

[Foxfyre]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

I have listened to/read constitutional scholars argue that the Founders did not intend that clause to be all inclusive. For instance it was not intended that tourists, ambassadors, people doing business here would have automatic citizenship awarded to a child that happened to be born here. And on that basis Congress could pass legislation that excluded those here illegally which should be acceptable to the courts based on precedent and that would not require a constitutional amendment. It would make for an interesting debate.

 

[1srelluc]

There's a reason fully half of the illegal women that arrive here are preggers or soon will be.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

It would have to be a Constitutional Amendment.

And, yes, it is easily and has always be defensible in law.

 

[PCB]