Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

This could be a game changer and would probably do more to stop illegal immigration than the wall. Hope this happens!

"President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration."

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

I wonder if that is necessary. The way the 14th Amendment was written doesn't cover anyone not subject to this country's authority and control. I mean I don't see how foreigners without permanent citizen or green card status can be covered under the 14th. The word "and" denotes that both sides of the condition (born or naturalized AND subject to U.S jurisdiction) must apply to become a citizen.

When slaves (anticipating this possible counterargument) were granted citizenship it was because they were born here and definitely subject to the laws here. A foreigner's child born here only satisfies one part of the condition.

• "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.

Edit: removed some words

 

Non-citizens are still under the jurisdiction of the US. Eg: they are tired for criminal offences.

 

After November 6, this will all go away.

 

The country is allowed to punish anyone committing crimes as a defense. Also, being subject to U.S. law isn't exactly the same as being under it. So, when a foreign agent births a child, that child wasn't born to anyone subject to U.S. law ergo that child cannot be a citizen.

 

Correct headline: Dictator seeks to dissolve Constitution by fiat.

 

That doesn't mean jurisdiction. It is not limited to criminal prosecution. For instance can they be drafted? Can they be forced to pay income taxes on money not earned in the US? Can they vote? Can they collect benefits?

 

Fox just ran a story and noted that recently
Australia
France
Ireland
New Zealand
And one other I can't remember have done exactly this.

 

Very good. It was always a stupid allowance.

 

God forbid anyone gets in the way of your plan to bring in more illegals huh?

In fact, as soon as one makes it over the border why don't you give citizenship to their entire extended family?

Invite them up here, give them free schooling, stick them on welfare and give them the right to vote.

Woot! Good times!

 

Interesting. We'll see.

 

I think the poster meant this is a ploy to garner votes with no actual intention of being implemented. Just like the November tax cuts.

I hope this is one of the things Trump is actually honest about - we need it to protect our national sovereignty.

 

Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

Works for me. Same we cannot strip it from anchor babies

 

Ahhhh this is a very smart move on Trump's part. He can't just end birthright citizenship with an EO. He knows that. What he is doing is putting the issue of Birthright citizenship right to the American people. And gets them asking the question of why do they get to come here illegally, drop a child, and boom citizenship for that child and they usually get to say too. Its a good move because it bypass the media who would spin it. But more importantly it puts the democrats on the defense, they can't come out and publicly support it, the idea of illegals getting citizenship, nor can they fight it because that would show they support illegals over Americans.

 

It's all FAKE NEWS. trump can't do that LOL

 

He most certainly can. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to the former slaves not the offspring of foreign nationals! This weird interpretation seems to have came about from an administrative change on the forms that occurred in the late 60's, not even back up by legislation.

Trump most certainly has the executive power to change it back.

An EO rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is certainly a reasonable point of view.

 

More than this. Germany, Denmark, Finland, etc. all the first world intelligent countries that know that allowing millions of poor & uneducated to invade is suicide. Unlike brain dead liberals.

 

There is a way to remove an amendment.

He needs to do it that way.

 

The US Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. Decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified, it still took 1924's Snyder Act to grant Native Americans US citizenship.

 

If the US can deny birthright citizenship to Native Americans almost 60 years after 14A was ratified, 14A is not an ironclad guarantee. If the children of foreign diplomats are exempted from the birthright citizenship 'rule', 14A is not an ironclad guarantee.

 

What about US vs Wong Kim Ark?

 

What about it?

Two judges dissented and would have agreed with Trump.

Its not a clear cut case.

Go read their dissenting opinion for clarity on their reasoning if you like.

Its pretty interesting and they make very solid points.

This could easily swing either way.

 

Yeah I don't think they ever had it. Only us and Canada in the developed world.

 

He can start the process and by the time it gets to the SC Ginsberg will be pushing up flowers and someone to the right of Kavanaugh will be warming her seat.........Trump is playing chess.......the Dems checkers.......

 

Ark's parents were here legally, part of the community, the only reason they had not become citizens was because of a rather foolish treaty we had at the time with China. It most certainly did not confer citizenship to illegals or folks who make a day trip to drop a baby on this side of the border. In fact, it didn't even apply to Native Americans who were born and lived their entire lives on US soil.

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Elk argued that he was a citizen by virtue of being born on US soil per the 14th amendment.

The court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The same goes for illegals, visitors or any foreign national.

While the United States Congress later enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which established citizenship for Indians no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment.

The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.