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

[Care4all]

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

Your opinion article is extremely weak and amateur, and proven not to be true, they skipped several court cases that solidified birthright citizenship before and after the 14th Amendment. Did you even read my opinion piece link, with the history, and supporting court cases and links? Subject to the jurisdiction there of, has real meaning at the time the constitution writers put the clause in there that was carried down to us initially with Common Law.

 

[johnwk]

Your opinion article is extremely weak and amateur,

According to you.

See: The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question 2

Key Takeaways

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens.

Legislative history shows that Congress intended the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate permanent race-based barriers to citizenship.

The president has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[Care4all]

According to you.

See: The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question 2


The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision.

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…

reason.com

 

[johnwk]

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision.

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…

reason.com

What, exactly, is the point of you posting that?

The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[johnwk]

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, [ . . . cut for brevity . . . ]

What, exactly, is the point of you posting that?

 

[0311]

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

The Constitution does NOT give the Executive Branch the right to determine Birth Right Citizenship. It is written into the Constitution as stated in the 14th. Amendment. Felon47 is over reaching. The way that right can be rescinded by amending the Constitution. He does NOT have the power to that. What part of that fails to penetrate the totally vacuous space between your ears..

Everything you post is a lie.

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution does NOT give the Executive Branch the right to determine Birth Right Citizenship.

But it does authorize the President to set new pubic policy.

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.

 

[0311]

But it does authorize the President to set new pubic policy.

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.

A lie. Birth Right Citizenship is written into the 14th. Amendment. As such the Executive Branch cannot alter or amend the U.S. Constitution.
-
Felon47 cannot on his own rewrite Constitution. There is a process to do so. A bill must introduce in House and if/or that bills it be sent over to the Senate where it would be voted on. One it passes, it is sent to the president for signature. Then it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Fifty States.

Felon47 cannot policy that is already written into the Constitution. The Executive cannot change the Constitution WITHOUT THE ADVICE CAND CONSENT OF THE LEGILATILVE. He is exceeding his authority. He cannot amend the Constitution, no what you think. The 14th. Amendment cannot changed by an Executive Order.

 

[Independent thinker]

.
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

Who cares? If this is what it takes to get rid of the rabid left then I'm all for it.

 

[johnwk]

A lie. Birth Right Citizenship is written into the 14th. Amendment.

There is no lie. The Fourteenth Amendment has a qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

.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.

 

[0311]

There is no lie. The Fourteenth Amendment has a qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

.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.

Birth Right Citizenship is Constitutionally Protected Right. He has zero authority to change the Constitution. As a Constitutionally protected right, the 14th. Amendment can be amended by another amendment. He rewrite part of the Constitution with out the Advice and Consent of Legislative Branch. He wants to end Birth Right Citizenship, he goes to Congress to do so, not on his own.

 

[johnwk]

Birth Right Citizenship is Constitutionally Protected Right. He has zero authority to change the Constitution.

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.

 

[0311]

The Felon-In-Chief cannot with a pen stroke, take away Constitutionally Protected Rights. ,You are lying to yourself if you believe he can. Using that fucked up logic, President Obama could easily taken the Right To Bare Arms. No, he does not have that power.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Everyone on our soil but foreign ambassadors/diplomats and their families, Sovereigns themselves, and wartime foreign enemies serving foreign govts and their families,

are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Per Chief Justice John Marshall ruling.

 

[johnwk]

Everyone on our soil but foreign ambassadors/diplomats and their families, Sovereigns themselves, and wartime foreign enemies serving foreign govts and their families,

are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Per Chief Justice John Marshall ruling.

Not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases are both held to be moot by most legal scholars.

Elk especially became moot once the Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
It is NOT applicable to the illegal aliens children born in the US...inasmuch as Elk was NOT born in the jurisdiction of the US...while they are.

Slaughter? Well..the concept of State citizenship somehow overriding Federal Rights died a long time ago.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_slaughterhouse.html

The Slaughterhouse Cases proved to be more important as a historical snapshot than as a lasting court decision. The strong dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen J. Field, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental rights and liberties of all citizens against state interference, was later adopted by the Supreme Court's majority. Although West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) ended the reign of Field's influence in this area, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted, over the course of the 20th century, to incorporate most of the rights protected in the first eight amendments against deprivation by the states.

 

[0311]

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.

No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that state of origin of birth parents matters.

XVI.

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.

No where in Section One is the birth country and/or countries of origin of the birth parents are discussed . All Persons means ALL PERSONS. YOU do not get to decide who is and is NOT an American. Strictly speaking, IF YOU ARE WHITE, YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT!! The Western European Caucasoid Is NOT indigenous to North America. YOUR forebears to this country from another country. Which means somewhere along the way, one of your family members was born a citizen, you do not have the right to take away Birth Right Citizenship when YOUR own ******* family had that same right.

The "Real" Americans are the Native Americans, they were thousands of years before White Men came to this country. Talk to them about who is an American.

 

[johnwk]

No where in Section One is the birth country and/or countries of origin of the birth parents are discussed . All Persons means ALL PERSONS. YOU do not get to decide

Our Supreme Court has already indicated birth parents nationality matters . . . see Elk v. Wilkins, and Slaughter-House Cases.

 

[0311]

U.S. Supreme Court Halts Deportation of Detained Venezuelans.

US Supreme Court halts deportation of Venezuelans under wartime law​

The accused gang members are being sent to a notorious jail in El Salvador under a 19th-Century law.

www.bbc.com
The US Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to pause the deportation of a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

A civil liberties group had sued to stop the removal of the men, currently in detention in Texas, saying they had not been able to contest their cases in court.

Donald Trump has sent accused Venezuelan gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president power to detain and deport natives or citizens of "enemy" nations without usual processes. The act was previously used only three times, all during war.

NO state of war exists between the U.S. and Venezuela or El Salvador. These deportations are Unconstitutional as ruled by SCOTUS.

 

[johnwk]

U.S. Supreme Court Halts Deportation of Detained Venezuelans.

US Supreme Court halts deportation of Venezuelans under wartime law​

The accused gang members are being sent to a notorious jail in El Salvador under a 19th-Century law.

www.bbc.com
The US Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to pause the deportation of a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The S.C. sent the case back to the 5th circuit to determine how many days notice the gang members must be given before their deportation..