From what I’ve been reading and hearing, it appears as if any Executive Order on the subject will revolve around “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the 14th Amendment. Would it be legal? Constitutional? We’ll have to see how it is written, if it is at all. But, hey, what about those poor kids of illegal aliens?
What Trump’s proposed birthright citizenship order could do to the children of immigrants
President Trump wants to stop the U.S. from automatically granting citizenship to undocumented immigrants’ babies born in the U.S., a policy that — if approved — could hinder those children’s future economic success, critics say.
The president wants to sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a rule under the 14th Amendment that guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. regardless of their parents’ status, he told Axios. He claimed the U.S. was the only country in the world where immigrants’ babies get all the benefits of citizenship, though that is incorrect — more than 30 countries have birthright citizenship, including Mexico, Canada and Brazil.
Trump said on Twitter TWTR, -1.35%  that birthright citizenship costs the country billions of dollars and is unfair to its residents. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator from South Carolina, said birthright citizenship was a “magnet for illegal immigration in modern times.†(snip)
The American Civil Liberties Union has called Trump’s proposal “blatantly unconstitutional.†Executive orders don’t need Congressional approval, but repealing the 14th Amendment would, said Rose Cuison Villazor, director of the Center for Immigration Law, Policy and Justice at Rutgers Law School. There are many unanswered questions about the proposed policy, such as whether it would apply only to children going forward or those who were born to undocumented immigrants in the past, and whether it would apply to children born to one unauthorized immigrant parent or both, she said.
The same people said that Obama’s DACA order was just fine. Regardless, you look at the attempt at misdirection by Marketwatch and writer Allesandra Malito. The picture above is from the article, and shows legal immigrants, most likely during a citizenship ceremony. Trump’s order would not cover them in the least.
If reversing birthright citizenship were to succeed, it would essentially create a second class of Americans — those who were born in the country but do not have the same benefits as citizens, Villazor said. If children were denied citizenship because of both parents’ legal status, there would be another 16 million undocumented people in the U.S. by 2050, according to a 2010 Migration Policy Institute report. If the repealed amendment denied children citizenship because either parent was a noncitizen, however, 24 million people would be unauthorized by 2050 — 2.5 times the amount if birthright citizenship were retained.
If the children were not granted automatic citizenship, then illegal immigration would drop. How much? Good question. The idea is to make it so illegal had less incentive to come illegally.
Interestingly, no one is complaining that there are zero European Union nations that allow birthright citizenship. No complaints about second class citizenship.
The Dominican Republic recently re-interpreted its birthright citizenship policy and retroactively denationalized thousands of Dominicans of Haitian descent, thus limiting their right to work, attend school or obtain birth certificates and passports, said Susan Akram, a clinical professor and director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law. If the U.S. were to follow this path, the results would be similar, she argued.
“It would deprive all children born in the U.S. to immigrants living without authorization to a plethora of basic rights,†she said. For example, children may have trouble finding work when they’re older without access to identification papers, including driver’s licenses and state ID cards, she said. “The U.S. will be creating a population of stateless persons whom it cannot deport anywhere, but who have neither the right to work nor obtain basic benefits for survival,†she said.
No, the illegal alien parents will be creating this. So, they should stay home. Or apply for citizenship like so many other people do.
William Teach: From what I’ve been reading and hearing, it appears as if any Executive Order on the subject will revolve around “subject to the jurisdiction thereof†from the 14th Amendment. Would it be legal? Constitutional?
Ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment.
Baloney.
formwiz: Baloney.
Despite the power of your argument, we remain unconvinced. The 14th Amendment is clear. Those who are born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at birth.
Not if they came here illegally.
formwiz: Not if they came here illegally.
If they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t be held account under U.S. law. Like diplomats, they would have immunity in the host country. They would also be exempt from taxes.
Z,
No you are wrong in your so intellectual assessment. When you get to higher education, you will find that amendments have a considerable amount of definitions and precedent that modify the meaning. It is amusing your trying to act as an adult.
david7134: amendments have a considerable amount of definitions and precedent that modify the meaning.
Sure, and the legislative record, court precedent, and history of enforcement support birthright citizenship.
Actually, they don’t.
The whole mess came out of a dissent to a Court decision, so it’s a lot of Lefty nonsense.
As Always.
Z,
Don’t lie.
Trump has said he’d rather have a bill ending, seeing as how he’s proven how transitory the pen and a phone style of government can be.
Problem is, a bill would have to wait until January. What may happen is EO now until the bill is written and passed.
It wouldn’t create stateless people any more than John McCain was a “stateless person” when he was born outside the USA. The world universally recognizes that the children of citizens are citizens, where ever they are born.
As long as the fiction of dual citizenship exists then the government can absolutely claim that those people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Professor Hale: As long as the fiction of dual citizenship exists then the government can absolutely claim that those people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Immigrants, whether documented or not, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. When an immigrant commits a crime, they are not referred to their home country for prosecution. That only occurs for diplomatic personnel.
When an ILLEGAL immigrant crosses our borders, he is not immediately or entirely subject to our laws. We do not draft him, tax him, assign him to jury duty or gain any other of the obligations of citizens from him. In most cases, the US does not even know he exists. That immigrant can return home to answer summonses from his government as a citizen, subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of that government… not ours. Sure, we can try him and jail him. But we can also do that to all manner of foreigners without granting their children citizenship. The 14th amendment use of the word “jurisdiction” was clearly (clearly as written and described by the people who wrote it in their notes) intended to denote FULL jurisdiction, not just criminal jurisdiction. This is NOT a new or creative argument on your part. This has all been discussed before and the position I stated was the legal and court approved position of the USA until a nameless bureaucrat changed it in the 1960’s. But none of that matters. The Left demands the outcome they want and will ignore any argument that disagrees with them. A Honduran citizen who crosses our border bearing a Honduran flag is a Honduran. He bears loyalty and allegiance to Honduras. His children are Honduran, wherever they are born (this is How Honduras sees it).
Professor Hale: When an ILLEGAL immigrant crosses our borders, he is not immediately or entirely subject to our laws.
That is incorrect. The moment an immigrant enters the U.S., they are immediately and entirely subject to U.S. law.
Professor Hale: We do not draft him, tax him, assign him to jury duty or gain any other of the obligations of citizens from him.
Only citizens have the right and duty to serve on juries. Undocumented aliens, however, are subject to the draft, and must pay taxes.
Professor Hale: Sure, we can try him and jail him.
Think about this now.
Court: You are charged with a crime.
Undocumented: I am not under the jurisdiction of this court.
Do you really think this will work? Of course not. That’s because the immigrant is under U.S. jurisdiction while in the U.S.
See? You completely ignored what I said.
Criminal jurisdiction != full jurisdiction. This concept was clearly understood by the writers of the 14th amendment and the US government for 100 years after that. It is only forgotten now because the Democratic party wants the outcome it wants without regard to the law.
Professor Hale: Criminal jurisdiction != full jurisdiction.
You gave examples. Immigrants have to pay taxes and are subject to the draft. The only remaining example was serving on a jury. Documented immigrants also cannot serve on juries (or vote), therefore, according to your undefined term “full jurisdiction”, they are apparently not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Barron Trump was born (March 2006) while his mother was not yet a citizen (July 2006). Is he not a citizen then? He has known no other country.
Yep, they do that a lot then they deflect.
Prof,
Z is in grade school. Likely a debate club as they change every few months. That is why he is arguing like a child.
Wrongaroonies.
An illegal is still subject to Mexican (or wherever) jurisdiction.
formwiz: An illegal is still subject to Mexican (or wherever) jurisdiction.
We understand your position. What you are saying is that if an undocumented immigrant harms you, you have no recourse, civil or criminal, but to go to their home country for redress. Regardless of the foolishness of such a policy, that is clearly not how the law has always been applied.
Court: You are charged with murder.
Undocumented: I am not under the jurisdiction of this court.
Court: Okay, you can go.
Don’t be an ass.
The accused is convicted of murder and deported.
Think Lucky Luciano.
Duh.
formwiz: The accused is convicted of murder and deported.
If they are tried and convicted in the U.S., then they are under U.S. jurisdiction — obviously.
But, in the eyes of this country, their jurisdiction is Mexico (or wherever).
formwiz: But, in the eyes of this country, their jurisdiction is Mexico (or wherever).
If they are tried and convicted in the U.S., then they are under U.S. jurisdiction — obviously.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was born in Canada, the only other nation with birthright citizenship, to an American mother. From that, he was both a natural born citizen of the United States and of Canada. He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.
I must say though that I am tickled at how Trump had caused the entire democratic party to suddenly discover the constitution and want to support it.
Just for you Zac:
“As the court has explained again and again and again:
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.
The 14th Amendment fixed that.
The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
Still the kiddiez cannot point to any legal document or any adjudication that confers citizenship to a child born to an illegal immigrant on American soil.
I can: the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States! It specifies that if you are born here, you are a citizen here, and there is no exception in the text of the amendment which makes an exception for the children of people here illegally.
In 1868, there were no illegal immigrants. At the time the amendment was ratified, we wanted immigrants, and there were no immigration restrictions on the books at all. The concept of an illegal immigrant was foreign — pun very much intended — to American law.
Correct, therefore, they immigrated here legally.
Read my post again.
Kye: The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why?
Because Indian nations were sovereign, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Legal mumbo jumbo.
Tell it to all the sovereigns placed on reservations.
formwiz: Tell it to all the sovereigns placed on reservations.
Have no idea what that means. Under current U.S. law, tribal nations are considered “domestic dependent nations”. Tribal sovereignty has changed considerably since the 14th Amendment was enacted. Indians have had U.S. citizenship since the Revenue and Indian Citizenship acts of 1924.
But they’re still on reservations where the US Army forcibly put them.
Kye: Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
Because they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., but of their home country.
By George, I think he’s got it.
formwiz: By George, I think he’s got it
So this confirms the above. You don’t think undocumented immigrants can be held to account under the law, that they are immune under U.S. law, and exempt from taxes. Like diplomats, the most the U.S. can do is send them back to the country to left to face whatever justice might be found there.
That’s why we have 4 time murderers sneaking back into the country.
Not that it matters since your mind is made up but “it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”
It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.
Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.”
I’m not asking for you to change your mind. I don’t think you are capable of that. I’m only suggesting there is another valid opinion on the subject and it behooves all of us to consider both.
Remember to vote. MAGA.
Kye wrote:
Huh? It is? Where is that controversy?
Think about the implications. If the born here children of legal immigrants are not automatically citizens, probably three quarters of the population are not citizens! After all, they’d never have sought naturalization, and thus their children, down through the generations never would have, and we’d have a country of some 200 million stateless individuals.
I should have been clearer. Legal immigrants are NOT citizens and therefore neither are their children. If the legal immigrant do become citizens then their kids would too, no doubt. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.
So children born here to legal immigrants would not be citizens? What if only the father is a “citizen” – would you demand a DNA test to make certain the father was indeed the father?
How do we know for sure that The Don fathered Jr, Eric, Ivanka and Barron? Their mothers were not citizens when they were born.
Seems like a can of worms.
Kye: Legal immigrants are NOT citizens and therefore neither are their children.
The Supreme Court disagrees. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 1898.
Don Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Kushner and Barron Trump were born to non-citizen mothers.
So?
What Would Happen If Trump Uses An Executive Order To End Birthright Citizenship For Illegals?
His fan boyz would get woodies?
He has stated that he’d prefer a bill passed by Congress, but an EO might have to do until January.
He understands the pen and a phone method is easily overridden.
Unlike Jeffery’s Mocha Messiah.