Idiot president will revoke 14th Amendment by executive order
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Thank you for your learned opinion, counsellor. I'm sure we're all of us the better for it.
^^^^ Yup. It's a silly law. But it's going to require a constitutional amendment to change it.
Considering his comments on various legal immigrants and their children (such as the Judge of Mexican descent) ...
There might be a side effect. If the 14th amendment can be changed by executive order, why not the 2nd?
Speaker Ryan: ‘You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order’:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...ht-citizenship-with-an-executive-order-949387
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...ht-citizenship-with-an-executive-order-949387
You seem to know a lot more that the house Speaker Paul Ryan. He categorically said that the President cannot revoke the 14th Amendment through an Executive Order!!
The courts have long precedent that exact wording is sacrosanct over the changing world. For example, the SC has ruled that the right to bear arms does not mean the right to bear weapons that were available in 1791.
And there is no ambiguity for the meaning on the 14th. Congress has the ability to change the 14th to be like the UK so it only applies to children of citizens or permanent residents but saying the President has unilateral ability to change an amendment means all 27 are open to the same treatment. I would expect that even the most conservative judges realize that setting this kind of precedent is not in their interest (unless they start revoking citizenship of anyone who votes Democrat).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d9qBXrEYTc
Immigrants steal African-Americans' 14th Amendment 'birthright’ – civil rights activist
Immigrants steal African-Americans' 14th Amendment 'birthright’ – civil rights activist
However, there was no case law until 2008 as to whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applied to an individual right to ownership and possession of firearms.
Ryan is right. But what this is is a conversation starter.
Try better to understand that changing bad law starts with identifying it as a problem and then developing enough public support to change it.
Opinion of the Court
Associate Justice Horace Gray wrote the opinion of the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.
In a 6–2 decision[111][112] issued on March 28, 1898,[113] 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."[114] 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.[115]
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[116] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[117] 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.[118][119][120] 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).[121][57] 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".[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The Slaughter-house cases are clearly over-ruled by Wong Kim Ark . The latter case does not deal with illegal residents because that concept was unknown at that time. OTOH, the case is clear and of more than a century of authority. It is hard to imagine that it could be over-ruled without creating chaos or that any court would not respect it, despite the fact that it might not represent contemporary realities.
Associate Justice Horace Gray wrote the opinion of the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.
In a 6–2 decision[111][112] issued on March 28, 1898,[113] 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."[114] 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.[115]
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[116] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[117] 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.[118][119][120] 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).[121][57] 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".[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The Slaughter-house cases are clearly over-ruled by Wong Kim Ark . The latter case does not deal with illegal residents because that concept was unknown at that time. OTOH, the case is clear and of more than a century of authority. It is hard to imagine that it could be over-ruled without creating chaos or that any court would not respect it, despite the fact that it might not represent contemporary realities.
The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of
unauthorized aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a U.S. citizen or
whether the native-born child of nonimmigrant aliens as opposed to legal resident aliens may be a
U.S. citizen.
111
However,
Wong Kim Ark
specifically held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a
child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the
Chinese emperor, but had a “permanent domicil [
sic
] and residence in the United States”
112
and
were not diplomats of the emperor, was born a U.S. citizen. The holding does not make a
distinction between illegal and legal presence in the United States, but one could argue that the
holding is limited to construing the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of parents who are
legal permanent residents. However, the Court’s own discussion of the common law doctrine of
jus soli
and the Fourteenth Amendment as an affirmation of it indicates that the holding, at the
least, would not be limited to permanent legal residents as opposed to nonimmigrant, transient,
legal aliens
113
and currently accepted law would also weigh against this argument.
114
(...continued)
footnote 103, 72 A.L.R. Fed. at 133, §§7-12. The annotation lists and summarizes a number of cases which do and do
not find extreme hardship, including cases involving U.S.-citizen minor children. The spec
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf at p.20
unauthorized aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a U.S. citizen or
whether the native-born child of nonimmigrant aliens as opposed to legal resident aliens may be a
U.S. citizen.
111
However,
Wong Kim Ark
specifically held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a
child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the
Chinese emperor, but had a “permanent domicil [
sic
] and residence in the United States”
112
and
were not diplomats of the emperor, was born a U.S. citizen. The holding does not make a
distinction between illegal and legal presence in the United States, but one could argue that the
holding is limited to construing the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of parents who are
legal permanent residents. However, the Court’s own discussion of the common law doctrine of
jus soli
and the Fourteenth Amendment as an affirmation of it indicates that the holding, at the
least, would not be limited to permanent legal residents as opposed to nonimmigrant, transient,
legal aliens
113
and currently accepted law would also weigh against this argument.
114
(...continued)
footnote 103, 72 A.L.R. Fed. at 133, §§7-12. The annotation lists and summarizes a number of cases which do and do
not find extreme hardship, including cases involving U.S.-citizen minor children. The spec
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf at p.20
But I'm guessing that there was a popular presumption that they did, so no one was surprised or caught off guard.
https://www.webcitation.org/6HKkZWG...y-birthright-citizenship-change-can-t-be-done
We can disagree Oagre, but I see the pertinent part of the holding in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), as the parents of a child need to have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States (which I do not believe people illegally in the U.S. or there only on a student or tourist visa have.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
What is bad about that law?? In other words those children could be considered to be "Stateless" if that citizenship right is revoked. Is that okay with you then tat they are stigmatized and what then what happens to their careers??
Should it also apply to Melania Trump's parents as well? Why is it considered to be bad, when it was never an issue in the past, but is to this President??
Is the "so called "Public Support" is his base, that cheers at all his lies and racist remarks at Trump's campaign rallies?
