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

[ThisIsMe]

But the baby would immediately be a resident of the state and the US on birth.

You guys are such a bunch of racist fascists you're an example to the world.

First racism has nothing to do with this, but it's telling that you leftys always run to that as a first resort.

Second, in your first sentence, is what we need to determine. They wrote "subject to the jurisdiction of" and they wrote "in the state where they reside". It would seem to imply that they are talking about people already living in the country. A person here on business is not residing here. Residing meaning a permanent home in place. So if that person is pregnant when they come, and give birth early, did the cotus mean to include that baby as a citizen? The couple is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and is not residing in any state.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why wouldn't they?

They've turned down Trump before when his ask was too crazy.

Not overturning current precedent means turning down Trumps EO.

 

[Curried Goats]

Actually there are, based on conditions at the time. two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Wong Kim Ark of 1898 and Plyler v. Doe of 1982. It's very telling that the progressives always say that the Constitution is a "living document" when it suits them to ignore it but written in stone when it doesn't. This SCOTUS can revisit it if they choose and use their ' Well, this outweighs that' magic power to decide, but I will bet they don't take it on. The best we can reasonably hope for is to remove incentives for abuse and be honest with ourselves, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the Constitution is a tool and I'll wield it in whatever self serving way suits my purpose, just like everyone else. If that's an originalist argument or living document argument....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes , they wanted to limit it to born or naturalized citizens.

The constitution says what it says, and there's 126 years of precedents to back up that position.

You lose.

just like roe, a bad precedent doesn't make it right. You all seem to think that our laws and sovereignty can just be ignored. If that's the case, then why even have borders? Because, if that baby is born in america, and is a citizen, then you know good and well they won't deport the parents. So, it gives anyone and everyone who wants to live in the US and free path to entry, simply by coming here during the last few weeks of pregnancy and having the baby on US soil. So if that is the case, then why even have borders, sovereignty, and citizenship?

 

[johnwk]

Actually there are, based on conditions at the time. two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Wong Kim Ark of 1898 and Plyler v. Doe of 1982.

Keep in mind, the Court, in neither of those cases, was called upon to decide if, under the 14th Amendment, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

 

[JoeB131]

Not overturning current precedent means turning down Trumps EO.

Which they will do after a bunch of lower courts overturn it.

Look, if Trump is serious about this, he needs to propose a constitutional amendment and have that fail in Congress.

 

[JohnDB]

I think you misunderstand what that phrase means.

we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents.

The constitution CLEARLY spells out birthright citizenship.

That phrase means exactly that.
Nobody benefits from crimes or breaches of policies. Fruit of the poison vine is the exact doctrine.

Third parties should not profit off of criminal behavior when that was the intent of the crime.

SCOTUS has become an "originalist" court through conservative appointments...and that picture of text from before is the Author and writer of that ammendment explaining what it means in more detail.

Meaning that most likely Trump will win this one...again.

I am positive that nobody wants to restrict legal immigration. My family on both sides is full of all sorts of immigrants several times over. Some selling their services to afford passage. Others fleeing from ethnic and religious persecution....

I really don't want to ever stop an immigrant from coming here who just wants to work and raise a family. No qualms whatsoever.

What I don't want is for the world to look at the USA as some sort of cash cow to milk for free stuff. Yes, we are charitable, but it's not a license and a guarantee. It's charity and not an obligation on our part.

The abject lack of gratitude by the whole world is what is getting them cut off. We don't owe them anything. And those who want to poison us with drugs and sex slaves? Not an ounce of mercy. Same for terrorists. On the spot executions have been authorized. (Just saying)

 

[Dekster]

President Trump just signed an EO to put a stop to birthright citizenship. Some states have filed legal challenges. My guess is they will all fail.

My guess is all of the legal challenges will win. The Constitution explicitly states in the 14th Amendment. "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."

 

[JoeB131]

Let us establish fundamental rules of constitutional law from an accepted voice of authority.

Intent of constitution

YOu can go on all day about "intent", but what they clearly wrote into the constitution is that anyone born here is a citizen and that has been the legal precedent since US v. Wong Kim Ark.


Here's the problem with your whole position.

How do I know YOUR parents were here legally when you were born? Can you provide their birth certificates and/or naturalization papers?

My dad was born in Germany in 1925 and came over as a baby. Could I find his naturalization papers from 1929, when he and the rest of the family got citizenship? Probably not at this point.

So at best, Trump could perhaps prevent babies born going forward from getting citizenship.

 

[johnwk]

YOu can go on all day about "intent", but what they clearly wrote into the constitution is that anyone born here is a citizen and that has been the legal precedent since US v. Wong Kim Ark.

Stop with the bullshit. Wong Kim Ark was not about the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national.


Keep in mind United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealt with a child born to lawfully domiciled Chinese parents.

The Court listed a number of specific factors which led to the court's opinion in Wong:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.


After the above factors were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

“ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898)

 

[JoeB131]

That phrase means exactly that.
Nobody benefits from crimes or breaches of policies. Fruit of the poison vine is the exact doctrine.

Nope, that applies to evidence gained from illegal police action. We don't punish children for the crimes of their parents.

Third parties should not profit off of criminal behavior when that was the intent of the crime.

SCOTUS has become an "originalist" court through conservative appointments...and that picture of text from before is the Author and writer of that ammendment explaining what it means in more detail.

I thought you guys were "strict constructionists" who didn't find things in the Constitution that weren't there.

Meaning that most likely Trump will win this one...again.

Nope. SCOTUS would be destroying its own legitimacy by going that far. They realize they have to be seen as an independent arbiter, and this one is a no-brainer.

Keep in mind, SCOTUS didn't step in to stop Trump from getting convicted in NY. Because they know they didn't have the constitutional authority to do so.

I am positive that nobody wants to restrict legal immigration. My family on both sides is full of all sorts of immigrants several times over. Some selling their services to afford passage. Others fleeing from ethnic and religious persecution....

How do we know they were legal? Can you prove that after all this time? Do you see the problem your position creates?

Did you forget all the ******* nonsense about Obama's birth certificate, that propelled Trump to the head of the pack among the slack-jawed inbreds that vote in GOP primaries?

 

[kyzr]

YOu can go on all day about "intent", but what they clearly wrote into the constitution is that anyone born here is a citizen and that has been the legal precedent since US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Here's the problem with your whole position.

How do I know YOUR parents were here legally when you were born? Can you provide their birth certificates and/or naturalization papers?
My dad was born in Germany in 1925 and came over as a baby. Could I find his naturalization papers from 1929, when he and the rest of the family got citizenship? Probably not at this point. So at best, Trump could perhaps prevent babies born going forward from getting citizenship.

I'm fine with just going forward and not revoking past citizenships.

 

[johnwk]

Well, perhaps you should read President Trump's E.O. TITLED: PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

Trump has power to set new public policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop with the bullshit. Wong Kim Ark was not about the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national.


Keep in mind United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealt with a child born to lawfully domiciled Chinese parents.

The Court listed a number of specific factors which led to the court's opinion in Wong:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.


After the above factors were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

“ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898)

In short. You are born here, you are a citizen.

If anything, the Wong case confirms the concept of jus soli citizenship. At the time of his case, the US was under the Chinese Exclusion Act, that prohibited Chinese from immigrating and limited their ability to gain citizenship.


Wong Kim Ark (Chinese: 黃金德; Taishanese: Wōng Gim-ak), was born in San Francisco, California, at 751 Sacramento Street, the address of a Chinatown business (Quong Sing) maintained by his merchant parents.[81] Various sources state or imply his year of birth as being 1873,[82] 1871,[83][84] or 1868.[85][86] His father, Wong Si Ping, and mother, Lee Wee, emigrated from Taishan, Guangdong, China and were not United States citizens, as the Naturalization Law of 1802 had made them ineligible for naturalization either before or after his birth.[87][88]

In a 6–2 decision[120][121] issued on March 28, 1898,[122] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[123] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[124]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[125] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][126][127] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][64] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[128]

Bam! Done. YOu are born here, you are a citizen. Period.

 

[Curried Goats]

Stop with the bullshit. Wong Kim Ark was not about the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national.


Keep in mind United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealt with a child born to lawfully domiciled Chinese parents.

The Court listed a number of specific factors which led to the court's opinion in Wong:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.


After the above factors were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

“ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898)

The question was never about illegal verse legal. It was about jurisdiction. The court found that jurisdiction covered Wong and his parents even though Wongs parents were immigrants and subjects of the Emperor of China.

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia

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,

 

[JoeB131]

Well, perhaps you should read President Trump's E.O. TITLED: PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

I could care less about anything that Cheeto Hitler has to say.

Our goal now is to legally frustrate everything he tries to do by filing lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.

Until the country has a bout of good sense and tosses the Repukes out on their cans in 2026 and 2028.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump has power to set new public policy.

Only within the confines of law and the constitution.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, the residents of many cities would be thrilled. That’s where the anti-gun liberals live. Ninety percent of the counties of the USA would hate it.

You are confused and wrong.

 

[johnwk]

In short. You are born here, you are a citizen.

According to you, but not according to the court:

Keep in mind United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealt with a child born to lawfully domiciled Chinese parents.

The Court listed a number of specific factors which led to the court's opinion in Wong:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.


After the above factors were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

“ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, at a time when it was to our dubious advantage to import people to expand our greed west. Not only has it been interpreted incorrectly, it has been applied wrong, and had been abused for a long time. We have to close the barn door and quit putting out freebies in order to gain more congressional seats before we can even think about becoming a nation again. He is right to challenge the status quo, something we need very badly here.

Your error is thinking that the Constitution is misinterpretation. Your opinion has no standing.