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.
It may not be. In fact, if it goes to the Supreme Court, they might just as easily find that an executive order is not even necessary. People have argued that by saying "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.", the constitution only grants citizenship to people born here that are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Illegal aliens dont fall under that category, or at least, the conservative Supreme Court may find that they dont fall under this category.
All we can do is hope.
I think they’d take the case.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Its about time. The 14th Amendment was created to protect the children of emancipated slaves, not create citizens of anyone baby plopped out within our borders. How would you feel if your parents were in the United States on vacation and your mom gave birth and you were stolen from your home country??
What kind of twisted, bizarre logic is this? Babies are born on ships, in airplanes, and during vacation. The parents return home with the baby. Maybe when the baby is older is can claim dual citizenship. Who is going to 'steal' a baby and make it stay in America because it was born there?
It may not be. In fact, if it goes to the Supreme Court, they might just as easily find that an executive order is not even necessary. People have argued that by saying "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.", the constitution only grants citizenship to people born here that are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Illegal aliens dont fall under that category, or at least, the conservative Supreme Court may find that they dont fall under this category.
All we can do is hope.
You cant remove a constitutional right by EO, those great conservative textualists will not allow this.
I agree that it needs to be addressed because some are taking advantage but it will have to be through a constitutional amendment. But then there is the problem of rewording the 14th amendment.
He said he is going to decrease individual taxes by 10%, as we have seen he claims a lot of things that never come to pass. This is about next Tuesday and some of his supporters will believe him.
He's only doing it to boost turnout for next week's elections.
I actually support ending birthright citizenship, but I know that it cannot be done by EO since it is a part of the 14th amendment. The constitution would have to be amended to remove it, same as was done for prohibition back in the day.
But he knows his base isn't that bright so he's giving them something to rally their complaints behind about how he will be bullied/spoken ill of by the evil media in order to make himself a victim to the not too bright people.
Those of us bright enough and who actually do want to see the constitution amended on this issue, aren't that stupid.
He'll create an EO and there will be a lawsuit to stop it immediately. Would be better if he asked his GOP controlled Congress to create legislation to amend the constitution on this issue.
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born" seems pretty straight-forward. I wonder how those that believe in the 'originalism' viewpoint of the Constitution would interpret this clause? What did they mean by 'All persons born'?
In short, President Trump cannot amend the meaning of the Constitution by executive order. I happen to agree that the Constitution should be amended so that 'anchor babies' (meaning, those whose parents are not US citizens) are not citizens simply due to the fact that they were born within our borders. If one parent is a citizen, fine. If both are not, then no citizenship for the child.
But such can only be by amending the Constitution.
Wrong. That was part of reconstruction and made all current slaves full citizens. That’s why it says “are” and not “shal be.” Also, no legal right can be granted through fraud, which is what illegal immigration is.
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.
