Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Right, but laws are open to interpretation. The Supreme Court should take up the case and interpret the 14th, specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction”. The intent was to exclude certain groups, including foreign diplomats. Visitors, illegal or not, should fall into those exclusions.

The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" was decided by the Supreme Court in 1898. Thank you! Next!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I provided my source which contains documentation.

FACT: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE

CONGRESS HAS ACTED

Under current law, one parent must be a United States citizen for a child born to a couple to be a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at BirthA person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

www.uscis.gov

That does not apply to births in the US, but births outside the US.

 

[kyzr]

Really? Where did you dig that up? Or did you pull it from your posterior?

My ass? The Supremes can re-interpret the US Constitution, they do it all the time.


AI found:
The Supreme Court has reversed a Constitutional interpretation in several cases123. These cases include:

• Plessy v. Ferguson (overruled by Brown v. Board of Education)
• Other cases where the Court explicitly stated that it is overruling a prior decision or issued a decision that is the functional equivalent of an express overruling123.

Five times the Supreme Court reversed a precedent

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion this week that would overturn the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade has raised fresh questions about when, if ever, a court ruling can safely be considere…

thehill.com

 

[Curried Goats]

So, where is the legislation granting birthright citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national?

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

There you go. And again, you wont find the words illegal anywhere in section 1 of the 14th Amendment because no such class of people existed at the time. The Supreme Court did say this on jurisdiction however in their ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes...

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

 

[johnwk]

Congress cannot clarify the Constitution. The courts have already decided in 1898. Want it changed? Amend the Constitution or forever be subjected to the current wording if that is what you want.

Exactly what did the "courts" decide in 1898?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?

Trump’s January order aimed to end the right to citizenship for some children born in the US – here’s what to know

www.theguardian.com

Birthright citixenship seems to be a constitutional right in the US. But constitutional rights seem to narrow down to keeping guns.
Other rights are not seen as important.

The article is right in suggesting that trump could possibly enforce this but it would be a struggle. His performative memo is unlikely to do the trick even with a corrupt and servile supreme court and comgress.

Magas need to remember this is a God given right. Even if trump doesnt understand it.

Im not an expert but maybe an expert could explain how it would work.

 

[johnwk]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

There you go. And again, you wont find the words illegal anywhere in section 1 of the 14th Amendment because no such class of people existed at the time. The Supreme Court did say this on jurisdiction however in their ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes...

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

You didn't answer the question: So, where is the legislation granting birthright citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national?
Keep in mind:

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It has been clearly established that children of " . . . parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty..." as stated by John A. Bingham, author of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, are entitled to United States citizenship. But an illegal entrant foreign national who gives birth on American soil owes their allegiance to their home country, and thus, their offspring as indicated by Bingham, Senator Trumbull, SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, and Elk v. Wilkins, are not entitled to United States citizenship upon birth.

 

[Mac-7]

It wont do anything till its been tested in the courts

 

[theHawk]

What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?

Trump’s January order aimed to end the right to citizenship for some children born in the US – here’s what to know

www.theguardian.com

Birthright citixenship seems to be a constitutional right in the US. But constitutional rights seem to narrow down to keeping guns.
Other rights are not seen as important.

The article is right in suggesting that trump could possibly enforce this but it would be a struggle. His performative memo is unlikely to do the trick even with a corrupt and servile supreme court and comgress.

Magas need to remember this is a God given right. Even if trump doesnt understand it.

Im not an expert but maybe an expert could explain how it would work.

It’s not in the Constitution. The 14th amendment was for slaves.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My ass? The Supremes can re-interpret the US Constitution, they do it all the time.


AI found:
The Supreme Court has reversed a Constitutional interpretation in several cases123. These cases include:

• Plessy v. Ferguson (overruled by Brown v. Board of Education)
• Other cases where the Court explicitly stated that it is overruling a prior decision or issued a decision that is the functional equivalent of an express overruling123.

Five times the Supreme Court reversed a precedent

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion this week that would overturn the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade has raised fresh questions about when, if ever, a court ruling can safely be considere…

thehill.com

Not what you said, dumbass!

You said:
The legislative intent is that citizens make citizens, non-citizens do not.

Where did you get that?

The 14th Amendment is crystal clear. Born in the US equals US citizenship unless you are here as a representative of a foreign government, i.e. not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Try again.

 

[Curried Goats]

You didn't answer the question: So, where is the legislation granting birthright citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national?
Keep in mind:

Section 5​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It has been clearly established that children of " . . . parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty..." as stated by John A. Bingham, author of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, are entitled to United States citizenship. But an illegal entrant foreign national who gives birth on American soil owes their allegiance to their home country, and thus, their offspring as indicated by Bingham, Senator Trumbull, SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, and Elk v. Wilkins, are not entitled to United States citizenship upon birth.

Right there in provision A.

 

[Darkwind]

It wont do anything till its been tested in the courts

Agreed.

I don't think that any President has the authority to edit or alter a Constititional Amendment with just an EO/EA.
.

 

[pknopp]

Simply starting this in another catagory doesn't mean your questions haven't been addressed already in the other threads.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s not in the Constitution. The 14th amendment was for slaves.

You haven’t actually read the constitution have you? Picking up right wing talking points you find on the Internet isnt going to help you here. Educate yourself. Parrots don’t sound smart

 

[Slade3200]

Simply starting this in another catagory doesn't mean your questions haven't been addressed already in the other threads.

This is the first thread on this that I’ve seen

 

[WorldWatcher]

Deport the mom. The benefits are for the child if an only if the parent leaves them behind when deported.

That's what I don't get. US Citizen children are not and should not be "deported". The parent should have the option to choose what happens to the child:

• The parent keeps custody, and the child accompanies the parent. That child as a citizen is free to return at a later date.
• The parent surrenders custody to a relative with legal loco parentis authority to raise the child and the child can remain.
• The parent surrenders custody to the state and the child is put up for adoption.

WW

 

[pknopp]

This is the first thread of his that I’ve seen

Slick. (not really)

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT:
The 14th Amendment Birth Right Citizenship was meant to protect the offspring of the newly freed Slaves.
I was never meant for people who illegally crossed our border.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's what I don't get. US Citizen children are not and should not be "deported". The parent should have the option to choose what happens to the child:

• The parent keeps custody, and the child accompanies the parent. That child as a citizen is free to return at a later date.
• The parent surrenders custody to a relative with legal loco parentis authority to raise the child and the child can remain.
• The parent surrenders custody to the state and the child is put up for adoption.

WW

Agreed.

 

[pknopp]

FACT:
The 14th Amendment Birth Right Citizenship was meant to protect the offspring of the newly freed Slaves.
I was never meant for people who illegally crossed our border.

People use that same argument concerning the 2nd Amendment.