And how is this 2nd Amendment that you speak of working out ?
Words don't mean shit until SCOTUS tells us what the meaning of "it" is.
Slavery - Abortion - Gun Rights
It's all open to interpretation.
Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship
- Thread starter Catskillkid
- Start date
And how is this 2nd Amendment that you speak of working out ?
Words don't mean shit until SCOTUS tells us what the meaning of "it" is.
Slavery - Abortion - Gun Rights
It's all open to interpretation.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
If that's how you fast track a complaint where is the shale issue and the semi automatic rifle executive orders?
And do you understand DACA was 100% illegal, and never even tested by SCOTUS ?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Sure, I love a good counter factual as much as the next guy.
If the Nazis had "captured" NJ under force of arms during declared war, and their women were giving birth there- would that still be under US jurisdiction for 14th amendment purposes?
I'd say no.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
you can't keep the proceeds of a crime .. you rob a bank and get caught you don't get to keep the $$$ ..
you and your GF/wife are here Illegally and have a kid .. its a Illegal child just like them .. not a US Citizen
you and your GF/wife are here Illegally and have a kid .. its a Illegal child just like them .. not a US Citizen
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
So...if someone kicks your door down and leaves a minor in your living room. Does that minor now have the right to live in your home, eat your food, and access your bank account for the rest of their life? Of course not. The 14th amendment prevents this exact scenario on a national level.
So you believe the democrats wont do what they want when they get the presidency?
Seriously???
This type of thing is what executive orders are for. This, according to ALL constitutional scholars, is a blatant misinterpretation of the constitution.
Things like this are why the left hates Trump.
He has the balls to correct long standing things the swamp creatures have developed over decades.
This isnt a left/right thing, this is a glaring issue created by the political class to gain favor with their party.
soylentBlue
.357 mag
In an alternate universe where Hillary is President, the left is rejoicing over her Executive Order that specifies that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia and clarifies that the militia is the National Guard. It is expected to pass SCOTUS easily due the recent appointment of Justice Obama.
Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution
John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
UPDATED DECEMBER 22, 2015, 11:59 AM
The question of whether birthright citizenship should be abolished is based on the faulty premise that our Constitution actually mandates it. In fact, the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause reads: “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.”
That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens.
The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil.
Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
Topics: Donald Trump, Republican Party, citizenship
John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
UPDATED DECEMBER 22, 2015, 11:59 AM
The question of whether birthright citizenship should be abolished is based on the faulty premise that our Constitution actually mandates it. In fact, the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause reads: “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.”
That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens.
The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil.
Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
Topics: Donald Trump, Republican Party, citizenship
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
More chess moves by DJT. Dems will for the next two years have to defend their pro illegal imigration stance to an overall anti illegal immigration populus.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
And more immediately, they will have to defend illegal immigration the week before an election.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
EISENHAUER
Longer than THAT !
Tho just barely, perhaps.
EISENHOWER
Operation Wetback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
United States immigration enforcement actions, 1940–1960, data from Dept. of Homeland Security.
Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, the Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), in cooperation with the Mexican government. The program was implemented in May 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell and utilized special tactics to deal with illegal border crossings into the United States by Mexican nationals.[1] The program became a contentious issue in Mexico–United States relations, even though it originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States. Legal entry of Mexican workers for employment was at the time controlled by the Bracero program, established during World War II by an agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments. Operation Wetback was primarily a response to pressure from a broad coalition of farmers and business interests concerned with the effects of Mexican immigrants living in the United States without legal permission.[2] Upon implementation, Operation Wetback gave rise to arrests and deportations by the U.S. Border Patrol.[3][4]
Longer than THAT !
Tho just barely, perhaps.
EISENHOWER
Operation Wetback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
United States immigration enforcement actions, 1940–1960, data from Dept. of Homeland Security.
Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, the Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), in cooperation with the Mexican government. The program was implemented in May 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell and utilized special tactics to deal with illegal border crossings into the United States by Mexican nationals.[1] The program became a contentious issue in Mexico–United States relations, even though it originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States. Legal entry of Mexican workers for employment was at the time controlled by the Bracero program, established during World War II by an agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments. Operation Wetback was primarily a response to pressure from a broad coalition of farmers and business interests concerned with the effects of Mexican immigrants living in the United States without legal permission.[2] Upon implementation, Operation Wetback gave rise to arrests and deportations by the U.S. Border Patrol.[3][4]
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
I'm saying everyone was up in arms when Obummer used an EO, yet applaud this nonsense.
Right and left. 2 sides of the same coin.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Not exactly.
Obama used executive orders to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
Trump is planning to use an executive order to support the U.S. Constitution.
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
This is how I view it myself. And while I agree that EO's are a slippery slope this appears to be correcting a wrong.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Correct.
An executive order by one President that reverses a constitutionally questionable executive order by a prior administration is a good thing.
Any executive order that increases the power of the administrative state, or seizes unconstitutional powers for the executive branch, is always bad.
Jsmegs77
.308 Win
Under most circumstances I am vehemently opposed to executive orders, as I believe they are most often used to circumvent the checks and balances system and directly contravene the laws of the land, first and foremost the Constitution.
In this particular instance, I support it, because it appears to be reaffirming what is already the law of the land, as expressed in the 14th Amendment. There is no way a person randomly materializing on US soil makes them under our jurisdiction. Ergo, their offspring is not a citizen. Period. I would go so far as to argue that until the parents are naturalized citizens themselves, this still applies.
But I expect I’m preaching to the choir in this group. Oh well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In this particular instance, I support it, because it appears to be reaffirming what is already the law of the land, as expressed in the 14th Amendment. There is no way a person randomly materializing on US soil makes them under our jurisdiction. Ergo, their offspring is not a citizen. Period. I would go so far as to argue that until the parents are naturalized citizens themselves, this still applies.
But I expect I’m preaching to the choir in this group. Oh well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Not completely.
We've got many views expressed here. Heck...we'll even read and honestly respond to Liberal postings. You know...with FACTS.
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
Tell me again how a president can amend the Constitution by executive order?
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
in 1944 we were in a DECLARED war with Nazi Germany. Apples and Oranges
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Edit. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
He can't do it.
Person within the United States,
The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
Last edited:
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Which president?
Obama did it with immigration through "prosecutorial discretion."
Trump, however, is bolstering the letter of the law in the constitution.
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Even simpler: Is an illegal alien who breaches our borders subject to United States federal income tax laws? No. Ergo, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and their progeny are not citizens.
Ah, so you only support EOs you personally agree with. Got it.
The irony is burning a hole through my shirt. Need to go tend to it.
byron
.308 Win
USCIS Policy Manual
Current as of October 30, 2018
Volume 7 - Adjustment of Status
Part O - Registration
Chapter 3 - Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats
A. Purpose
The child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily register for lawful permanent residence. [1]
B. Background
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” [2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth. [3]
Registration as a permanent resident under this provision is entirely voluntary, but it does involve an application process.
This registration process is necessary and available only if both parents were foreign nationals when the child was born. If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.
C. Legal Authority
how can they even think Illeagels would be citizens when this spells in plan english even leagaly here fireign nationals born here are NOT CITIZENS
Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats - Chapter 3, Part O, Volume 7 | Policy Manual | USCIS
Current as of October 30, 2018
Volume 7 - Adjustment of Status
Part O - Registration
Chapter 3 - Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats
A. Purpose
The child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily register for lawful permanent residence. [1]
B. Background
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” [2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth. [3]
Registration as a permanent resident under this provision is entirely voluntary, but it does involve an application process.
This registration process is necessary and available only if both parents were foreign nationals when the child was born. If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.
C. Legal Authority
how can they even think Illeagels would be citizens when this spells in plan english even leagaly here fireign nationals born here are NOT CITIZENS
Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats - Chapter 3, Part O, Volume 7 | Policy Manual | USCIS
Last edited:
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Crap! I gave this post a like and then realized how dirty I felt...