Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

Some people do not believe foreigners in US (like tourists) are protected by our laws, but it is simply not true.

 

We're discussing a 19th century legal term of art.

 

Ok, Mr. Clinton.

Explain to the class, using the language of the 14th amendment and case law, how you’re somehow correct.

LOL.

 

We are? You mean “all” meant something different then? How about “subject to its jurisdiction “?

Have you been “reading up” again? Please let us know if all this study has led you to the actual text of the 14th Amendment, or the US v. Ark case that I cited to.

 

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof... "

 

where did i state they were?

 

precedent is one of the foundational principles of our society, our laws, and of the social contract at large.

 

When there was a posting that trump can just order birth certificates not to be issue as he have no power over state governments issuing or not issuing birth certificates.

In fact I know currently of no state that show the citizenship standing of the parents on the certificates.

It did not show such standing on mine or my parents certificates for that matter.

So in the Trump reality I and countless millions of others could not get our passports renew without somehow going back generations to prove our ancestors was legal US citizens.

Should be amusing indeed.

 

Where in the constitution does it give the federal government power over the states in issuing birth certificates?

footnote I do not think that one side of my family at least
had certificates other then the family bible as early as my grandparents births as both was born at home as was common in those days.

 

Thats a great idea

 

There is no need to state the citizenship of the parents, because the birth certificate proves you were born in US and hence a US citizen as per the US Constitution.

States issue birth certificates, but they do not enforce immigration (Fed Gov does), and therefore cannot verify the citizenship of the parents. Besides, in many cases the father is not around during birth and could not be verified even if the States had such authority. So, the father could be US citizen, but if he does not show up for verification, then the babys rights are taken away.

 

But Trump is planning one way or the other to cancel that amendment to the constitution had you not been reading this thread?

Love the reality Trump supporters live in.

 

So discuss away. Apparently the drafters had the opinion that anybody wandering around their turf were under their jurisdiction. Go figger.

 

and luckily extreme partisans have very selective memory. I do agree precedent is foundational to legal principles.

 

You are also full of ****. In response to

you quoted the above post and replied-

 

And yet Indians were wandering all over their turf and didn't get citizenship until a law passed in the 20th Century.

Go figger.

 

This issue has been discussed in several threads for several days, so if you don't understand the not-automatic-citizenship-for-illegals argument, whether you agree with it or not, that's kind of on you. Again and again I find that I can understand leftist arguments (even if I don't agree with them) but you guys live in such a bubble you don't do well with other viewpoints. But I'll bullet point it real quick and you can do with it what you will:

* The illegal citizenship argument seems to resolve around the section one of 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."

* The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" came from the the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

* The Drafter's intent was to ensure freed slaves citizenship. Not people who have foreign allegiances.

* In the Slaughterhouse Cases the SC ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to freed slaves.

* U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the case was about parents who were legal residents, not illegals of any sort.

* Elk vs. Wilkins, the SC ruled that Elk was not a citizen because he was an Indian, and not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

* This led to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Yeah, they actually needed a law.

* 8 U.S. Code § 1401. Inculcated the language of the 14th Amendment. No special language for illegals however it did have special language for Indians.


Again, you may not agree with the argument, but there is an argument.

Let the courts decide.

 

I do believe they were still considered under the jurisdiction of the US government. Or did I miss something with all them indian wars and reservations as stuff?

 

Sorry but that bit of babble has no relevance to my post.

 

Nope.

If the 14th Amendment were applied as the dog whistle blowers on the left are signaling their followers to believe, it wouldn't have required the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to grant citizenship to Native Americans who clearly were born in the US.

 

Well first of course Trump has to issue the EO which given Trump isn't going to actually happen. And if it happens and the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump probably half of America will no longer be citizens since the applicable " subject to the jurisdiction therof" if determined to apple to anyone born of a person with citizenship in another country would apply to every immigrant in history who had not formally become a US citizen. And of course also their entire family line.

Maybe such a decision would actually validate Trump's claim about all those illegal votes in the last election although instead of three million might be 50 million or more non citizens who voted.

 

If they were "under the jurisdiction," then why did it require a law to make them citizens?

 

Arguing this topic over the past few days has been more fun than most because it deals with real policy, and real questions of law and the constitution. But when someone tries to argue, "probably half of America will no longer be citizens " then I just have to tune out. I realize your job here is to provide talking points, but at least try to make them realistic and not ridiculous. How do you think it makes your side sound when you post silly stuff like this?

 

If they were a member of a recognized tribe, they were a citizen of a separate sovereign nation. An easy distinction to make. Moreover, that didn’t apply to all Indians. Look it up.

 

I just posted the reason. Can’t you do any research before posting?