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

[johnwk]

..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.

Speaking of the S.C. and the sniff test, our Supreme Court noted in Elk v. Wilkins the Citizenship Clause’s jurisdictional qualifier means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”


And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may vote, may be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, etc., and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

.
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

It's called 'throwing shit at a wall and going with what sticks' immigration 'policy'.

 

[0311]

.
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

Pardon me while I vomit up that fucking lie. The U.S. Constitution does NOT grant any president the power to amend the U.S. Constitution. There is a process. A bill calling for amending the Constitution put forward on in House and if it passes it goes to Senate for another vote, it that bill passes, it is then sent the president to sign. Once the president signs, it goes to the states ratification. If 2/3 of the state's ratify the bill it becomes law. That is process MAGA MAGGOTS, fuck you for trying subvert that process.

 

[excalibur]

If you are inside the US borders..you are subject to our jurisdiction.

..and right back atcha, you disingenuous hack~

There are several forms of jurisdiction, one, arresting someone for violating the laws and prosecuting and incarcerating them, is not the same as 'subject to the jurisdiction' in the 14th.

After all, and unless you can show that prior to the 14th that foreigners were never charged with crimes in the USA or the several states, which of course they were if they violated the laws in the jurisdiction of the USA or the state or locality.

An American in a foreign country is subject to the jurisdiction in that if they violate the laws of that country, they can be charged and tried. It doesn't make them a citizen of that country.

 

[Rawley]

..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.

Have a blessed life

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Have a blessed life

Well..I certainly have thus far..but thank you for the sentiment~

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

They are persons of another country

 

[Care4all]

Nope you are "within the jurisdiction" of the US

And again, go fuck yourself if you can't support your argument

Here is the support, imo....

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

In this post I'll consider the original meaning of the second requirement of the Constitution's citizenship clause: that a person be born "subject to the

reason.com

...we should start with the text and with the contemporaneous meaning of the key phrase.

The citizenship clause's text begins, as discussed in my prior post, with the requirement of birth "in the United States." It then adds the further requirement of birth "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. So our inquiry is framed as: in the nineteenth century language and context in which the clause was written, who was in the United States yet not subject to its jurisdiction?

As with the first part of the clause, Chief Justice Marshall provides a good beginning. In Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), writing for the Court, Marshall discussed "a nation's jurisdiction," which he equated with national sovereign authority. Generally, Marshall said, a nation had jurisdiction over all people and things within its territory. But there were three exceptions, which he listed: foreign sovereigns themselves, foreign ambassadors and foreign armies. These exception apart, though, Marshall emphasized that aliens within sovereign territory were otherwise "amenable to the jurisdiction" of the United States (meaning governed by U.S. law).

Henry Wheaton, the leading nineteenth-century American writer on international law, described national jurisdiction in a similar way, using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." Ordinarily, Wheaton wrote in Elements of International Law (1836), a nation had "jurisdiction," meaning "sovereign power of municipal legislation," within its territory. But, he continued, foreign ambassadors and their households had diplomatic immunity under international law and so were "excluded from the local jurisdiction." Immunity thus was an exception from the territorial jurisdiction to which they, as aliens within sovereign territory, would otherwise be subject.
Also consistent with the idea of jurisdiction, the U.S.-born children of aliens (other than diplomats and armies) were considered U.S. citizens. In McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville (1824), for example, the Supreme Court (per Justice Story) treated as uncontroversial the U.S. citizenship of the U.S.-born child of Irish alien parents. In Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a New York court directly held that U.S.-born children of alien temporary visitors were U.S. citizens.

Thus when the Fourteenth Amendment's drafters picked the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," it had an established meaning that was already closely connected to citizenship. The first part of the citizenship clause ("born in the United States") adopted the territorial principle of jus soli. The second part embraced the longstanding exclusions from the jus soli principle: people in U.S. territory but nonetheless not under U.S. sovereign authority, namely diplomats, foreign armies and tribal Native Americans, who had not traditionally been born citizens.

Much more to read at the link...but basically, under the jurisdiction, or subject to it, has real meaning, at the time of its writing, continued to now....

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If you are inside the US borders..you are subject to our jurisdiction.

..and right back atcha, you disingenuous hack~

They are citizens of a foreign country, therefore they under their native country's jurisdiction

 

[Rawley]

Here is the support, imo....

Much more to read at the link...but basically, under the jurisdiction, or subject to it, has real meaning, at the time of its writing, continued to now....

Always fun to see a progressive to make an originalist argument rather a "living breathing" argument

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The context and intent of the 14th amendment was about freed slaves being garunteed citizenship.
It was not about foreign citizens who illegally crossed our border.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The bigger picture.
What this is really about is the democrat party importing poor third word people to increase their voter base.
If the democrat party wasn't so fxckedup they would not need to import voters.

 

[Care4all]

The bigger picture.
What this is really about is the democrat party importing poor third word people to increase their voter base.
If the democrat party wasn't so fxckedup they would not need to import voters.

Those born today on US soil will take 18 years before they can vote.....

 

[Stryder50]

If you are inside the US borders..you are subject to our jurisdiction.

..and right back atcha, you disingenuous hack~

Not exactly.
One inside our borders is "subject to our Laws", but "Jurisdiction" as used @157 years ago was another way of describing citizenship to nation of origin. A Frenchman visiting the USA is subject to (obey) our Laws, but they remain a citizen of France, i.e. of the Jurisdiction of France.

 

[Stryder50]

Native Americans were seen as a different class..assuming you don't know that.

Precedent...is how things have been..and for 127 years it has been axiomatic that Birthright citizenship applies to all born here unless you are a diplomat or enemy.

BTW..the legal resident thing you keep touting..is a difference that makes no difference.

Breaking our laws to enter this nation (cross our border) illegally, without legal permission, is a crime and an invasion; hence making one an enemy of the USA.

 

[my2¢]

Trump has his head up his butt in expanding our non-jurisdiction beyond diplomats. If I had my way all persons within the country would be under our jurisdiction. Placing limitation on our jurisdiction is restricting the reach of the arm of the law. I'm solidly for those that commit a crime needing to pay the price.

How rowdy foreign diplomats’ immunity thwarts NYPD

Zambian official Langford Banda will never be the king of Queens. He was detained in that borough in 2015 after crashing his BMW into a parked NYPD van while he “reeked of alcohol,” cops said. But …

nypost.com

 

[IM2]

What exactly am I wrong about, and why? Please explain.

The words in bold explain it clearly.

 

[johnwk]

Pardon me while I vomit up that fucking lie.

What lie are you suggesting I posted? Please quote the words.

 

[johnwk]

Here is the support, imo....

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

In this post I'll consider the original meaning of the second requirement of the Constitution's citizenship clause: that a person be born "subject to the

reason.com

See:

SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTIONTHEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

Also see:

The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question

Few of President Donald Trump’s new executive orders have caused as much alarm as the one on birthright citizenship. That order prohibits federal agencies from issuing or accepting citizenship documents for children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent...

www.heritage.org

 

[Care4all]

Speaking of the S.C. and the sniff test, our Supreme Court noted in Elk v. Wilkins the Citizenship Clause’s jurisdictional qualifier means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”


And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may vote, may be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, etc., and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

The child born here, has no allegiance towards any other country, but their own, the USA.

The child's parents chose their allegiance to America by leaving their country with all they own in their arms, to come here. The child knows no other country but the one they were born in....gone to school in...played with friends in, has a Doctor in, and their church in....