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

Except the language does not say anything about slave. The language is quite clear.

And no, Trump can't get this done with just a stroke of a pen.

 

There is a path that seems right to a man, but it's end leads to destruction.

Be careful what you wish for.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

 

I doubt SCOTUS would make a ruling that the children of legal immigrants are not citizens. The entire purpose of keeping the children of illegal immigrants from being citizens is keeping their parents from being able to gain legal status through them without having to go through the legal channels. Legal immigrants already have legal status. They don't need to use their children to get it.

 

Nobody becomes a citizen without going through the legal channels. Nobody.

Interesting sidelight: Rubio has stated that of the 11M here without documentation, very few would attempt to get citizenship. He points out that they came to work, and that the legal process would be seen by them as expensive, significant work (in records, etc.), time consuming and in the end not worth it.

This was in the context of discussion concerning the bi-partisan immigration reform act that he supported. That bill DID have a path to citizenship, but analysis showed it would definitely be expensive and would take 13 years at the minimum.

 

Unless legal immigrants abdicate their citizenship to a foreign entity, their children will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

 

What precedents are you referring to?

 

no. the whole purpose is that it is offensive to common sense.

 

An interesting question is the birthright issue. Trump insists that he has the power to interpret the Constitution, changing it from the way it has been interpreted for 150 years. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. In fact, that is their sole function, to protect the Constitution from the abuse of power by either the legislative branch or the executive branch. The executive branch is charged with enforcing and protecting the Constitution, not changing it to fit one's political purposes.

In a clear attempt at the usurpation of power, if Trump signs an E.O. changing the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, can he be charged with the high crime of threatening our Constitution?

If not, why not?

 

With a democrats, anything like that is possible.

The current interpretation is insane.

 

Dunno the Law in the US. Here is Australia, intent is not looked at unless the words are not clear or unambiguous. My view (from the outside looking in and reading the document) the 14th Amendment is very clear and unambiguous.

 

Not going to happen. The minute Trump signs an EO, a bunch of states will sue and a lower court will sign an injunction forcing Trump to take it up with the SCOTUS.

 

Except, of course, one is in the Constitution and the other is not.

 

I agree, but there is one major concern. For the last few decades the federal courts ruling based on the interpretation and meaning of the law and constitution has been a crap shoot.

 

For one, Trump's EO is in no way going against any SCOTUS ruling or interpretation.

 

Probably true but not relevant. Though, other than California, I am not aware of any state that wants to maintain anchor babies. Other groups likely, but states?
Though one of these times Trump may just tell a district court to stuff their extra-authority rulings.

 

It is about state's rights as afforded to them by the Constitution. They aren't going to accept precedent that a president can change the Constitution at will. Trump isn't king, and the courts and the states will tell him to stuff it, not the other way around.

 

Doesn't matter, since the idea that the clause confers citizenship on former slaves and their progeny and oh, by the way, also abrogates a key component of US sovereignty, is treasonously retarded.

 

Would be interesting if this case does go to the SC. Five conservative justices can reinterpret the fourteenth amendment if they so choose.

 

You can feel free to call those people who wrote this law "treasonously retarded " if you want. The word "slaves" isn't in it.

 

Happily, there's no need to so impugn them.

Your point being...?

 

Trump has too much free time on his hands.

 

I was discussing this issue with my daughter today. I told her that if Trump could get away with this, there is no telling what he would try next.
Maybe he'd try to rescind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

Recently saw a post recounting the creation of the 14th amendment, which was passed just after the civil war. At the time, the union government was manipulating the south and not allowing them to have or use states power in the constitutional manner- and as a result, the ratification of the 14th was done with an end run manipulation and is most certainly open to legal challenge as invalid by reason of never being ratified by the proper number of states according to constitutional requirements.

The author of the 14th also had stated that "of course", the provision didn't apply to children of diplomats or of citizens of other countries- that seems to be intended, but taken for granted that everyone would obviously understand that, and didn't get specifically added in the language.

Lot of room for legal challenge and re-definition- and perhaps amending the amendment to specify more directly.

Regardless, there will be legal challenge.

 

really. working in the interest of the american people constitutes having too much time on one’s hands?

somebody actually wrote this. omfg, you can’t make this stuff up, people.

 

The states have no rights or say in immigration policies as affirmed by the SCOTUS in Obama's suit against Arizona, where AZ was told it could not enforce federal immigration laws if Obama did not want them to..