Is Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, constitutional?

.
Essentially, President’s Trump’s Executive Order sets a new federal public policy under which the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, will no longer be recognized as a United States citizen upon birth.

Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Current public policy, and only current public policy, presently recognizes a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national as a United States citizen upon birth.

Why is this so? According to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a qualifier exists, “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ”, which must be meet for citizenship to be granted. When examining the Congressional Debates during the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, sufficient evidence is found that the qualifier was intended to exclude from its operation children of “. . . . ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States . . . ” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

Considering that the 14th Amendment gives Congress, and only Congress, the exclusive power to adopt “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment, it would be an encroachment upon Congress’s exclusive legislative authority for our Supreme Court members to attach their personal meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier, by which United States Citizenship is granted.

Let us recall that in 1924 Congress did exercised its exclusive power to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation and adopted the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

At this point in time let us deal with the much touted case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been asserted by those who reference it, that it confirms a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American Soil, is granted United States citizenship upon birth. That certainly is not true because Wong’s parents were, at the time of his birth, what we define today as lawful permanent residents , (LPRs), and not illegal entrant foreign nationals which is what Trump’s Executive Order deals with.

Moving on, it is important to note that under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President. Not only did President Biden’s Administration allow, but effectively invited, millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals to flood across our border and settle in various communities where they began to inflict, and to this very day are inflicting, pain and suffering on American citizens and their children.

The policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate for change of existing public policy.

It seems quite clear from the above, that President Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is not only constitutional, but is specifically designed to effectuate public policy change which an overwhelming number of American citizens voted for when electing President Trump. And thus, our S.C. members should not get involved in this policy making change, except to educate the public how our system works, and that elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is the setting new federal public policy which no longer recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
The constitution specifically states ALL PERSONS.....(under our jurisdiction) And immigrants legal or illegal, are PERSONS.

I think due to the plain words written in the Constitution, it would take a constitutional amendment, to change its plain reading meaning.
 
Learn more

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in legal terms, particularly in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, means that a person is under the authority and control of the U.S. government, including the ability to be subject to U.S. laws and have their rights protected by U.S. courts. This phrase is crucial in determining birthright citizenship and other legal matters
That is actually "within the jurisdiction" language of the 14th. Google is not your friend.
 
Actually it was, the 14th Amendment. Didn't you know that?

No amendment needed. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have meaning. In your interpretation they do not.

Well, how about you go fuck yourself if you can't make a civil argument to support your interpretation.
If you are inside the US borders..you are subject to our jurisdiction.

..and right back atcha, you disingenuous hack~
 
Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.
Well that's where you are wrong. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified in 1868, clearly says "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".

There is no room for argument.
 
Well that's where you are wrong. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified in 1868, clearly says "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".

There is no room for argument.

What exactly am I wrong about, and why? Please explain.
 
That is actually "within the jurisdiction" language of the 14th. Google is not your friend.

Show me then..​

Constitution of the United States​

Fourteenth Amendment​

Fourteenth Amendment Explained


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.
 
Well that's where you are wrong. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified in 1868, clearly says "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".

There is no room for argument.
In your cult. But your cult does not tolerate freedom of thought.
 

Show me then..​

Constitution of the United States​

Fourteenth Amendment​

Fourteenth Amendment Explained


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.
Your interpretation does this to the amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
 
What exactly am I wrong about, and why? Please explain.
"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."

Your words.

They are incorrect.

I showed you the text of the constitution proving it.

This isn't rocket surgery, mang.
 
"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."

Your words.

They are incorrect.

I showed you the text of the constitution proving it.

This isn't rocket surgery, mang.
Correct, it is isn't.

Your interpretation does this to the amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
 
Nope you are "within the jurisdiction" of the US

And again, go fuck yourself if you can't support your argument
..and go fuck yourself if your too stupid to follow the argument.

It amazes me that lack-wits such as your elf can't see that their their skewed interpretations will never pass the sniff test at the SCOTUS level.

Birthright Citizenship is here to stay...and when/if Trump refuses to obey the rulings that dismantle his reign of misrule--he'll get the boot too.
 
"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."

Your words.

They are incorrect.

I showed you the text of the constitution proving it.

This isn't rocket surgery, mang.
My words are accurate:

"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."


Nothing in the text you quoted from our constitution, pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.
 
In your cult. But your cult does not tolerate freedom of thought.
And he said the "C" word.

everybody7.webp

My words are accurate:

"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."


Nothing in the text you quoted from our constitution, pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.
Of course it does. Right there in black and white.
 
  • Fact
Reactions: IM2
My words are accurate:

"Keep in mind there is nothing in our Constitution, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth."


Nothing in the text you quoted from our constitution, pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth.
Too bad we didn't have you in charge of the Rabid Republicans, but as it stands, you be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom