If Trump successfully closes the 14th Amendment loophole...

The Constitution says that a person born here of illegal parents and not under the jurisdiction of -- meaning total allegiance to -- the United States is not a citizen, and does not leave it up to Congress. The Constitution also gives the federal government plenary power over immigration and naturalization; the states have no say in the matter as affirmed in the case where SCOTUS ruled that Obama had all the power and states (Arizona) had no authority,

 

It is probably even odds that some federal judge will order a stay. Federal judges issue rulings on things that they have no jurisdiction or authority for all the time. I doubt SCOTUS will uphold such an injunction -- certainly in no way by 9 - 0.

 

why do you believe the ussc will "void" it? i fully expect the politically-motivated 9th circus to do that, thus giving trump his day in court. all he need do is write an executive order defining the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a person authorized to be in the united states and who has entered through lawful means at a designated port of entry. that will immediately set in motion what you have outlined above, except the ussc has enough constitutional originalists on it now to properly interpret that phrase and we will join the rest of the modern world in denying citizenship to illegal aliens.

it is offensive to common sense at the very least that people who do not even have the permission of these lands to be present in them being able to pop out a citizen.

 

Nope, he cannot do so, since it is the job of SCOTUS to "define" (make interpretation) of the law, not that of a president. If that was the case, a president might as well define "militia" to mean national guard, and anybody who isn't enlisted can't own a gun.

 

in matters of civil law, taxation, and some other legal circumstances such as property ownership and child custody, a foreign national is subject to the jurisdiction of his home country until such time he renounces his citizenship of that country. in matters of criminal law, the individual is fully subject to the jurisdiction of his current location. and at least in our system, we do not draw a distinction between a lawfully present person and an unlawfully present person for criminal charges. this condition exists due to simple common sense and a series of international treaties and agreements among the various nations of the earth who have engaged in normalized relations with one another.

this is why we need a proper interpretation of this phrase in the 14th amendment. and that starts with a carefully worded executive order disqualifying the offspring of illegal aliens from said jurisdiction.

 

They will most definitely uphold an injunction. Since a president can't overturn an amendment or interpret it to his own liking.

 

Since an district judge's injunction would not be keeping with the law or the constitution, it is unlikely the more responsible SCOTUS would uphold it. Trump is not overturning or misinterpreting the 14th amendment. With an executive order he is stopping a practice that began with a bureaucratic decision -- even less than an EO -- in the 60s.
You have a real cognitive problem with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

 

In the SCOTUS case US vs Kim Wong Ark, the justices have interpreted the phrase. Feel free to say they have a “cognitive problem” with their interpretation.

 

Except that is a totally different case and circumstance.

 

It doesn't matter because the whole argument and decision of that case was hinged on the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" and the interpretation of it. It set the precedent for a definition that neither Trump or Congress can unilaterally change. The current SCOTUS will have to take up this interpretation again, and if they don't rule in Trump's favor, then the only recourse is an amendment.

 

It would help if you understood even the basics of the case. But, to save you the tremendous exertion on your part, both of Kim's parents were long time official permanent residents of the US and "subject to the jurisdiction of...." when he was born in the US. Not anywhere near the same circumstances of the "anchor babies" being discussed.

 

Yet the court did not say much about it in their decision. They ruled based on common English law of jus soli. Did you read the decision?

 

Because it is not a crime to overstay one's visa. See https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-overstaying-a-criminal-offense-in-usa---does-th-2402364.html which reads:

If you overstay your nonimmigrant visa, it is considered to be a "civil violation," and not a "criminal violation."

 

in matters of civil law, taxation, and some other legal circumstances such as property ownership and child custody, a foreign national is subject to the jurisdiction of his home country until such time he renounces his citizenship of that country. in matters of criminal law, the individual is fully subject to the jurisdiction of his current location. and at least in our system, we do not draw a distinction between a lawfully present person and an unlawfully present person for criminal charges. this condition exists due to simple common sense and a series of international treaties and agreements among the various nations of the earth who have engaged in normalized relations with one another.

this is why we need a proper interpretation of this phrase in the 14th amendment. and that starts with a carefully worded executive order disqualifying the offspring of illegal aliens from said jurisdiction.

 

I did a simple search for the word immigration in the US Constitution. That word does not occur. If you wish to say that the Constitution says something, be so good as to indicate where by article, section, and clause. As for your claim that the states have no say in the matter, I can only assume that you are referring to 567 U.S. 387 (Arizona v. United States), but the opinion is not as clear cut as you claim because only portions of Arizona's law were struck down.

 

careful with that straw, it is highly flammable.

you are comparing the rights of natural born or naturalized citizens v. the rights of foreign nationals who have willfully and wantonly violated our national sovereignty. you and your daughter need to keep trying. the former have rights that are irrevocable. the latter have none of any kind with regards to a claim on citizenship.

but i'll play along. please do tell me what evidence you have to support your assertion above that trump will repeal the cra and the vra and then tell me how it is rationally related to the topic. thank you.

 

Luckily we already know that Congress interpreted it to include the children of non-citizens when they signed it. Glad we cleared that up. From the commentary at the time, we can see that it was only meant to exclude a narrow band of people: children of ambassadors/diplomats. If you want more exclusions, you are going to need to amend.

 

wrong. newly-freed slaves and the children of newly-freed slaves, some of whom were excluded from citizenship depending on their state of birth, and specifically in response to the dred scott decision in which the ussc affirmed that blacks could not be citizens regardless of their status or where they were born. this was long before the immigration and nationality act of 1952 which finally consolidated the patchwork of various federal statutes into a unified body of law under control of the department of justice, and of course overrode all previous immigration acts such as the unfortunate nationality act of 1790 which restricted citizenship solely to "free white persons of good character," and the unfortunate national origins act of 1924 which sought to restrict essentially non-wasp immigration by placing significant restrictions on even italians (me), greeks, slavs/poles (me), jews, and of course asians. it was not until the 1924 act that the "open borders" of the usa began to be controlled.

the point is that during the antebellum period when the "civil war amendments" were ratified, there was not even a concept of an "illegal alien." but now that we the people have decided that an orderly and lawful immigration system benefits us, it is time to close this loophole that allows citizens to be produced by individuals who have willfully and wantonly violated our national sovereignty simply by pointing their vaginas in the right direction.

 

You say I'm wrong on that point, but I've already provided the quotes that prove it. It is you vs history. History wins.

 

oh? please do show me where any references were made to "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" in the debates over the civil war amendments.

and my apologies for using a racist term like "illegal." i know i'm supposed to call them "documentarily differentiated" but old habits die hard.

 

I didn't say illegal/legal, and in fact I've said numerous times on this thread that the concept didn't exist at the time. What I said was that they knew it would apply to the children of non-citizens. The argument offered by the anti-14th crowd is that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant citizens only -- that until a person renounces the citizenship of their home country by becoming a US citizen, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. We know this argument is false because Congress, at the time, acknowledged that the 14th would apply to the children of non-citizen immigrants. The children of non-citizen European immigrants were already considered citizens, and they knew that the 14th would expand this to include even the children of non-European non-citizen immigrants.

The 14th only excluded group X and made it clear that EVERYONE outside of group X counted. The anti-14th crowd has been busily arguing that illegal immigrant parents belong in group X and they have failed in that argument miserably. So now the argument is "Well, they hadn't even considered group Y, so we should be able to just add them in there." No. You want to add a new exclusion, you have to change the 14th. For that you need an amendment.

 

Barron Trump was born to a non-citizen.

 

the children of non citizens as they were defined at the time... free blacks.

 

Wrong yet again. They specifically mentioned the children of non-citizen Chinese and Gypsies as examples. The "they were only talking about freed slaves" myth has already been ripped apart.

 

a citation would be very helpful. thank you.