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.
I was referring to a specific lie by Trump, claiming that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship, which was repeated here as if it was true. It's not - at least 30 countries have it. Trump lied, Trumplings repeat his lies as if they have some basis in fact when they don't.
That's a separate issue from the intent of the 14th Amendment, whether a President can change the Constitution via EO, and all the rest. The one indisputable fact related to this topic at the moment is that Trump lied when he claimed the US is the only country with birthright citizenship.
the only developed countries to still have it are the USA and Canada
Congress can expand who is eligible for citizenship, but absent a Constitutional amendment cannot deny citizenship of someone born in the US subject to its jurisdiction, which would include all immigrants, illegal and legal alike. There is not much to clarify on this point and the Supreme Court is not empowered to make a decision as to whether birthright citizenship is "consistent with the core principles and highest ideals of the United States" - it is only authorized to interpret the plain meaning of the Constitution.
well,
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (overturning, in part, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that no black could be a U.S. citizen) clarified the conditions of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."
It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
Historically speaking, it looks like ONLY the court has the right to interpret the meaning of constitution. It certainly is not up to YOU or ME to interpret it.
And no, deportation is not "the essence of waiving jurisdiction." It is exercising jurisdiction over someone to remove them from US territory. It is literally the opposite of "waving jurisdiction".
Wrong. We have no jurisdiction over diplomats yet can expel them.
the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
Yet that has been the established practice for hundreds of years deriving from the government's clear understanding of the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship. The court is unlikely to change that imo.
Yet that has been the established practice for hundreds of years deriving from the government's clear understanding of the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship. The court is unlikely to change that imo.
probably not.
Which is why I think Trump is again fighting a lonely battle.
Wrong. We have no jurisdiction over diplomats yet can expel them.
Well, Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 plainly states that I'm right and you're wrong, but why would I believe well-established international treaty signed by 192 countries (including ratification by the US in 1969) that forms the very underpinnings of international diplomacy when random C-D poster oceangaia tells me otherwise?
Generally if Trump decided to go through with it, we can expect officials to withhold birth certificates to newborns until they are proven to have American parents. After the courts manage to get things together for this case, they would either overrule it, allow a lesser version in some states, or otherwise pass it onto a vote with the states, which would require 2/3 of the US to agree to it for it to go nationwide.
In the unlikely event that it is passed it would likely have passed with large changes to it one that would not be ending birthright citizenship, but rather just more legal hurdles. But it is most likely to simply be overruled and make Trump look bad.
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.
