Idiot president will revoke 14th Amendment by executive order

[bver_hunter]

They get the citizenship of the parents.

Not necessarily:

"In some countries, children become stateless because women cannot pass on their nationality to their children. Even if the child is born in the same country as its mother, if the father has no nationality, the child has no right to citizenship in its country of birth and becomes a stateless person. Discriminatory regulations on nationality can also lead to statelessness if the father is unknown and the mother cannot pass on her nationality. Until 2013, Senegal had discriminatory legislation which prevented women from passing on their nationality to their children."

https://www.humanrights.ch/en/switz...ldren-a-status-contradicting-childrens-rights

 

[Smallcock]

"Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So, to be clear, the president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment."

 

[essguy_]

Hey Terb righties - maybe Bone Spurs should take a look at the 13th Amendment too, huh? What do you think? A simple Executive Order and BAM!!, the major inflationary pressure (wages) could be reduced and Mushroom Dick could continue his idiotic trade policies with no fear of an inflation spike. Damn those pesky Reconstruction Amendments!

 

[mandrill]

"Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So, to be clear, the president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment."

But clearly the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to convey jus solis citizenship on the children of illegals ever since the US had a modern immigration system which provided for processing of immigration applications and which by default created a category of people who had avoided that process and who were therefore "illegal".

The fact that this practice was codified by being written into immigration department manuals in the 1960's simply reflects what everybody believed was the law until President Idiot decided he knew better a couple of days ago.

 

[oldjones]

"Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So, to be clear, the president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment."

And to be absolutely clear, that would be the polar opposite of any version of 'repeal'. Whether Trump (or more accurately his minions, who have the skills with English he so obviously lacks) can find wording that accomplishes his purposes without offending the clear construction of words in the Amendment is for him to attempt and the Supremes to judge him on.

Although as the highest court, they can be as plastic and vacillating as they want, he may find himself wishing for Justices a little less committed to strict interpretation of the words as they were writ than the ones he and his GOP predecessors appointed.

 

[mandrill]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/news...p-in-final-stretch/ar-BBP9Rok?ocid=spartandhp

Backlash from centrist and mainstream GOP-ers at Trump's announcement.

 

[Aardvark154]

With Trump's rant about "executive order", presumably you not only have the issue of violating the 14th Amendment, but you also have the issue of ultra vires and impermissible delegation of a congressional function, I would think.

The only way this legitimately works is in serving as a vehicle to get the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court for Constitutional interpretation.

 

[Aardvark154]

If the state in ? only applies "jus soli" and not "jus sanguinis". Then you get a stateless child. The article I linked deals with exactly that issue and it's something that the USSC would undoubtedly be concerned about.

Is that not an issue for the parents and their state of origin? ~~~Certainly the U.K. is not particularly concerned about the issue of
child whose parents are illegally in the U.K. being stateless. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61

 

[mandrill]

Is that not an issue for the parents and their state of origin? ~~~Certainly the U.K. is not particularly concerned about the issue of
child whose parents are illegally in the U.K. being stateless. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61

You could argue that. But if I am a USSC justice, I might want to hear submissions on whether a few million people in the US are suddenly made stateless and whether the administration thinks that's a good idea in a country which prides itself on being a beacon of hope and sympathy in the world. But hey! - Maybe that's just me being silly?!

 

[anon1]

Hey Terb righties - maybe Bone Spurs should take a look at the 13th Amendment too, huh? What do you think? A simple Executive Order and BAM!!, the major inflationary pressure (wages) could be reduced and Mushroom Dick could continue his idiotic trade policies with no fear of an inflation spike. Damn those pesky Reconstruction Amendments!

He will have to Executive Order repeal the 1st Amendment to start.

 

[y2kmark]

Trump's latest claim is that he will extinguish the automatic US citizenship of babies born to illegal immigrants in the States with an "executive order". Apparently, the idiot doesn't realize that "birthright citizenship" is specifically protected under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The tomfoolery continues....

Probably the only thing Rump and I really agree on. The 14th am. was put in place to benefit former slaves, all of whom are long gone. US and Can the only ones I can think of that have this "anchor baby" rule and it's about time for it to go, though not by presidential decree...

 

[toguy5252]

Trump's latest claim is that he will extinguish the automatic US citizenship of babies born to illegal immigrants in the States with an "executive order". Apparently, the idiot doesn't realize that "birthright citizenship" is specifically protected under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The tomfoolery continues....

Probably the only thing Rump and I really agree on. The 14th am. was put in place to benefit former slaves, all of whom are long gone. US and Can the only ones I can think of that have this "anchor baby" rule and it's about time for it to go, though not by presidential decree...

You are right. We if you don't count:

1 Antigua and Barbuda
2 Argentina
3 Barbados
4 Belize
5 Bolivia
6 Brazil
7 Canada
8 Chile
9 Cuba
10 Dominica
11 Ecuador
12 El Salvador
13 Fiji
14 Grenada
15 Guatemala
16 Guyana
17 Honduras
18 Jamaica
19 Mexico
20 Nicaragua
21 Panama
22 Paraguay
23 Peru
24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
25 Saint Lucia
26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
27 Trinidad and Tobago
28 United States
29 Uruguay
30 Venezuela

 

[mandrill]

It's kinda hard to argue the 14th Amendment was "just to benefit former slaves" when every country in the America's has an exact similar rule re citizenship, including slave-less Canada.

 

[Aardvark154]

You are right. We if you don't count:

1 Antigua and Barbuda
2 Argentina
3 Barbados
4 Belize
5 Bolivia
6 Brazil
7 Canada
8 Chile
9 Cuba
10 Dominica
11 Ecuador
12 El Salvador
13 Fiji
14 Grenada
15 Guatemala
16 Guyana
17 Honduras
18 Jamaica
19 Mexico
20 Nicaragua
21 Panama
22 Paraguay
23 Peru
24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
25 Saint Lucia
26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
27 Trinidad and Tobago
28 United States
29 Uruguay
30 Venezuela

Gee how many of those are Western Developed States?

p.s. answer given in previous posts.

 

[toguy5252]

Gee how many of those are Western Developed States?

p.s. answer given in previous posts.

LOL. The previous post did not qualify what kind of countries have that right. But in any event why does that make a difference.

 

[mandrill]

Gee how many of those are Western Developed States?

p.s. answer given in previous posts.

But if one wanted to figure out what the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant when they wrote it in the 1870's - when there were no "Western developed states" - knowing that every Western hemisphere nation had the same rule is a pretty good argument that it wasn't "just to provide for the freed slaves".

Back in the 1870's, it seems that every Western hemisphere country wished as many immigrants as it could get in order to develop its hinterland and anyone born on its territory was welcome to be a citizen. The fact that a couple of those countries - the USA and Canada - are now far richer than the others and have developed sophisticated administrative systems for selecting immigrants is certainly relevant to what might have been written in 2018. Not so much help in interpreting what everyone was trying to do in 1872.

You could add in that most immigrants were uneducated back in 1870, many in fact illiterate and that modern systems of documenting criminal records were unknown. So one citizen was about as good as the next, assuming good health. So systems of selecting and processing immigrants would have been unknown and irrelevant at the time the 14th Amendment was written.

Remember when I suggested to you that the Emoluments Clause should be interpreted to make Trump divest himself of all his hotels in Saudi Arabia and all his companies doing business in China and you got all huffy and said that wasn't what the Founding Fathers meant back in 1789? Well, I'm damn, frigging sure that the drafters of the 14th Amendment in 1870 (?) didn't draw a distinction between illegal and legal immigrants either.

So are we "strict constructionists" here on TERB? Or are we not?

 

[Darts]

Interesting subject. For what its worth, I think the 14th Amendment as currently applied is way too broad in the same way that some people think the 1st Amendment gives them the right to say anything they want and the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own any weapon they want.

"U.S. law holds that natural persons born on foreign ships docked at U.S. ports or born within the limit of U.S. territorial waters are U.S. citizens."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_aboard_aircraft_and_ships

 

[Aardvark154]

The previous post did not qualify [the issue]

Previous as in two pages ago.

 

[Aardvark154]

Back in the 1870's, it seems that every Western hemisphere country wished as many immigrants as it could get in order to develop its hinterland and anyone born on its territory was welcome to be a citizen.

My learned friend, actually, both Canada and the United State were concerned about just who was able to immigrate and become a national.

As previously stated, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to speak to this issue.

Further in the words of the late Justice Scalia, the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[Smallcock]

^
Yup, such a despicable lie from oagre. He knows better, but agenda trumps truth.