Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 14th Amendment includes anyone born on US soil. You don't get to ignore that just because you don't like it. US Tribes were different in that they maintained their own sovereignty.
Hmm if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction then how are you legally going to deport them?
Or prosecute them if they commit a crime.
They may not want to open that can of worms. Every illegal alien currently in federal prison will argue they are being held illegally and demand release. Every one of them accused of a crime will argue for dismissal.
You’re talking way too much logical sense for SJWs.
Are you saying we should actually worry and take care about poor American natives before bringing in poor illegal immigrants with America’s limited resources?
This makes too much sense. You’re just a racist!
It isn't a question of being concerned about "poor American natives," "racist" or even a question of what the best outcome is from a policy perspective. Its a question of Constitutional interpretation and, in that regard, there really is not much of a question.
The Constitution states that "all people born . . . in the United States" are citizens provided that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. There is little doubt that babies born in the United States are both "people" and subject to the laws of the United States (unlike, say, a diplomat or Native American prior to 1924). Ergo, children of illegal immigrants born in the US are US citizens.
The Constitution provides for a mechanism to change the language of the 14th Amendment, but Trump's proposed Executive Order quite clearly does not fall within those guidelines.
an EO can also be used to informally expand the original meaning of the Constitution, such as President Truman's executive order integrating the military and President Clinton's decision to wage war in Yugoslavia without obtaining Congressional approval.
Abraham Lincoln suspended judicial habeas corpus and controlled speech during the civil war without legal support from Congress and actual opposition from the Supreme Court.
Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation were based on such orders. So were Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of his Works Progress Administration to fight the Great Depression, Dwight Eisenhower’s use of the military to enforce Little Rock school desegregation, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon’s assertion of affirmative action to control employment discrimination, and Bill Clinton’s bailout of Mexico... All EO's
remember also....what can be done by executive authority can be undone by it. Reagan’s Mexico City restriction on the use of federal funds for abortion was annulled by Clinton, reinstated by Bush and revoked again by Obama
No. This particular EO would attempt to change the Constitution directly by removing a previously-determined right. What you're trying to argue here is like having an EO that says "the right to bear arms, but only for white Republicans" is an "expansion" of the original meaning, but that too would be reprehensible nonsense.
There was nothing in the Constitution that said the military had to only be made up of men.
There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a president from military action, even without an official declaration of war.
Yes he did, and that act by Lincoln remains very controversial, to the point that many would say it tarnishes some of his legacy. But it was also a time when the very future of the country was at stake, something we hadn't faced before and haven't faced since. And HC was reinstated. This is really the only example historically where a president did something like this. All the other examples are not direct alterations of the Constitution. You're grasping here. The 14th is clear.
Yes, EO's can be overturned, but we're not talking about a simple EO.
You didn't bother to answer the question, you just keep repeating that the Nationality Law means that the president can ignore the amendment process.
The 14th Amendment doesn't need to be amended. It just needs to be enforced. The US legislature clarified exactly how to do that when it enacted our current US Nationality Law.
No one has ever challenged the Constitutionality of that law, which specifically does NOT provide exceptions for the children of illegal aliens as it has for US-born members of US aboriginal Tribes. NO exception given to the children of: tourists, nor those here on temporary visas or other temporary basis, and not illegal aliens. Thus, so-called "anchor babies" are political policy citizens only, not actual legal citizens. They do NOT meet any of the listed qualifications.
It depends how you interpret the constitution. But that aside. Lets say there is an amendment.
You seriously believe the government will use this to deny children of American citizens their citizenship?
How would that even work?
I'm not just talking about children. I'm talking about everyone. If Trump can get away with this, what stops him from doing this to all naturalized immigrants and their children as far back as he wants to go? What really stops him from arbitrarily defining who is and who isn't "American"? You really have that much faith in government to do the right thing when they've already locked up and murdered children the last year based on the supposed sins of their parents? You need to wake the hell up.
The 14th Amendment includes anyone born on US soil. You don't get to ignore that just because you don't like it. US Tribes were different in that they maintained their own sovereignty.
And illegal aliens are different as well - when entering the US they 'maintain their own sovereignty'!
So would this take away citizenship of most Americans today? We are mostly descendants of people who immigrated and whose children became citizens upon their birth. If Trump were to declare using his vast powers of constitutional interpretation, that they were not citizens then all of their progeny would also not be citizens. It seems only black people descended from slaves are truly safe.
The language of the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear, despite your opinion of its intent to the contrary. Those drafting the Constitution were acutely aware of the distinction between citizens, slaves, resident aliens (illegal and legal), diplomats, and Native Americans. They chose to bestow citizenship on all people born in the US unless they were not subject to US jurisdiction (e.g., diplomats and Native Americans on reservations) but did not distinguish between citizens and residents for this purpose. Given their penchant to make such distinctions in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere, I cannot see how one could reasonably argue that the 14th Amendment excludes illegal aliens absent any such language indicating that to be the case.
Last edited by TEPLimey; 10-30-2018 at 08:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
