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 President has now gone after the Speaker hammer and tongs about the issue. More craziness from our capitol. What else is new?
Personally, I think it's a horrid mistake for President Trump to do this via executive order. It will end up in the courts, but I guess he thinks it's enough that he takes his stand.
So who has the right of citizenship in this country? According to the 14th amendment, anyone born here. Even if the parents were here illegally. As an immigrant myself who values my naturalization certificate that I earned, I don't think that's right or fair. Thoughts?
It is a long-standing legal principle reinforced through dozens and dozens of US Supreme Court rulings, and literally thousands of State Supreme Court decisions, that no one can profit or benefit from the illegal acts of another.
So, children born to parents here illegally can neither profit nor benefit from the fact that their parents were here illegally, and they can be denied citizenship on that basis.
There is also an implied presumption in the 14th Amendment, that all persons receiving citizenship were lawfully situated in the US.
The whole purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect American Blacks, especially native-born American Blacks.
In the post-Civil War Era, American Blacks were denied the freedoms and privileges that White Americans enjoyed, and the 14th Amendment rectifies that.
It starts by saying natural-born or naturalized persons are both citizens of the United States, and of the State where they reside, then says no State may abridge the privileges or immunities of those citizens.
Then, in the event the first part is somehow interpreted in a differently twisted manner, the language shifts from "citizens" to "persons" and says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and that no person shall be denied equal protection under the laws.
At that time, the US had no cogent immigration policy or any immigration laws. Much of the US was frontier land, the US government wanted it conquered and settled post-haste, and immigration was the best way to do that.
Even so, there is no evidence the authors of the 14th Amendment ever intended for it to be used to grant citizenship to those who are unlawfully situated or have no legal presence in the US, and those persons referenced in the 14th Amendment were lawfully situated and had a legal presence in the US.
If anyone can prove that was the intent of the 14th Amendment was otherwise, then let's hear it.
It is a long-standing legal principle reinforced through dozens and dozens of US Supreme Court rulings, and literally thousands of State Supreme Court decisions, that no one can profit or benefit from the illegal acts of another.
Criminal defense attorneys?
10-31-2018, 05:42 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by max210
How is this a bad thing? Please explain in detail.
Try not to look up Colbert videos.
So you'd be fine with a Democrat changing the second amendment via executive order?
We have the system we have for a reason. We want checks and balances. We want lasting guiding principles. We want it to be hard to change fundamental aspects of the country.
If we abandon all that and let Trump do whatever he wants via executive dictate, including changing the constitution, then what's the point of having our form of government.
What you're calling for is a dictatorship where one man can, on his own, make up whatever law he wants. That should frighten you.
Ask yourself this - would you support this kind of extreme executive power if someone were in office with whom you don't agree ideologically, or would you want to security of knowing that congress is there, the states are there, the courts are there, and the constitution is there to make sure your rights aren't yanked away from you?
Personally, I think it's a horrid mistake for President Trump to do this via executive order. It will end up in the courts, but I guess he thinks it's enough that he takes his stand.
It's not a mistake. Who is eligible for birthright citizenship needs to be corrected and properly defined and the only practical way that's going to happen is through the supreme court.
We know how Trump's EO will play out. The lower courts will immediately enter an injunction against, and then later hold a full hearing where they'll likely strike it down. It will then start percolating up the federal judiciary.
The big question is this: will it get the courts, especially the SCOTUS, to look directly at the interpretation of the 14th Amendment with regard to birthright citizenship as it applies to children of illegal aliens. AFAIK, there's never been a direct SCOTUS precedent on this before. The closest case, Wong Kim Ark, dealt with children of people in the country legally.
There is no legal justification for this EO--it's not a close call at all. Even though the courts will eventually strike it down, it risks disarray for native-born citizens of the United States, who will spend time in legal limbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
There are 33 countries that have birthright citizenship.
1 Antigua and Barbuda
2 Argentina
3 Barbados
4 Belize
5 Bolivia
6 Brazil
7 Canada
8 Chile
9 Cuba
10 Dominica
11 Ecuador
12 El Salvador
13 Fiji
14 Grenada
15 Guatemala
16 Guyana
17 Honduras
18 Jamaica
19 Mexico
20 Nicaragua
21 Panama
22 Paraguay
23 Peru
24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
25 Saint Lucia
26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
27 Trinidad and Tobago
28 United States
29 Uruguay
30 Venezuela
Are these other countries having problems with this? In Canada, even the children of foreign nationals automatically become Canadians if they are born in Canada. Nonetheless, if you have a child born in Canada that does not impart citizenship upon the parent. ... You will first have to obtain permanent residence, then when you qualify you can apply to be naturalized as a citizen. So it is just like the United States.
Some countries used to have it, but have changed that.
If we are going to do away with this, we cannot strip children already given citizenship of their rights at this point. And, it has to be done properly by amending the Constitution.
The western hemisphere was depopulated by disease, then repopulated by overseas colonists and the slaves they carried here. That is why almost all of the western hemisphere has birthright citizenship. Canada has a higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the United States.
People born in the United States are not given citizenship. They possess it from birth. I was born in the United States and I never had to contact the State Department to receive citizenship. If birthright citizenship were terminated, every US-born citizen would have a cloud over their citizenship.
How could we know if a 70 year-old is actually a US citizen if that person cannot produce evidence that their parent was a US citizen? If you suggest that a date of birth before the Executive Order demonstrates citizenship, then a) you are not solving the "problem"--current citizens born in the US to unlawful immigrants remain citizens, and b) you create an Equal Protection problem--what justification exists to treat people who are in the same situation (born in the US to non-citizen, not lawful resident, non-tourist parents) except for birth year differently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Canada is the only other develop nation and doesn't border the underdeveloped world like the US that severs as a buffer. The US is the only developed country bordering the undeveloped world with birthright citizenship for illegals.
There are only two countries in the western hemisphere classified as "developed." They both have birthright citizenship (and Canada has a higher proportion of foreign-born residents).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberiaboy
If a child born in America is allowed to attend a public school and more importantly obtains a diploma, that study and discipline represents a clear loyalty to the United States. You also have to be pretty dumb economically to allow taxpayer money covering K-12 education inherently invested in a child born in America to non-citizen parents, not get a chance to see its return unfold on the kid whose tax money you funded from the age of 5 thru 18.
Also unlike the reservation cases, if the child born in America is living under the jurisdiction of US law, that child is not loyal to any other soil but the United States.
And should a child born in the US be of non-citizens whose previous nationhood no longer exists due to the outcome of a war abroad, you create enormous complications retracting that child’s only citizenship to render the kid stateless.
Correct, it is stupid and misguided to terminate birthright citizenship for people who have only known one country in their lives--the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack2000
It's practically the entire western hemisphere.
Hmm, I wonder why people here identify more with "Europeans" than they do with the people that live right next door.
Soooo hard to figure out.
Agreed. In a pair of continents depopulated by disease and currently populated by 90%+ the descendants of immigrants and imported slaves, it only makes sense to recognize birthright citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomPenguin
One person is enough to change this law, all beggars can leave this nation. We don’t cater to dreamers of other nations any longer. Only those legally green card applied who have skills, rest get out. Americans > everyone else in my mind. I live here so I only care about my friends and neighbors. Sorry other nations. Fix yourselves
Plenty of US citizens are on assistance programs. Are they also beggars who should be kicked out of the country? You've already said that you have neighbors who are immigrants and undocumented immigrants--why don't you care about them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sactown4
I'm not a fan of birthright citizenship.
It doesn't benefit America in any way, and directly incentivizes people to come or stay here illegally.
That said, I'm in awe of Republicans who want this to be overturned by EO.
It shows that Republicans have as much respect for the Constitution, as they do for family values, the national debt, and the middle class, which is none, unless it suits them.
Overturning is and should be a difficult and bi-partisan process. Maybe this is an issue that we can all unite over, and work together on, but it sure as **** is not something that the President can overturn by EO.
It was a dumb political stunt like putting troops who can't do anything on the border, over a month before they won't be able to do anything.
I also think that it flies in the face of what Trump actually wants. I would guess that Birthright citizenship is taken advantage of far more by the wealthy than by the poor, and I don't think that's who Trump wants to keep out.
Birthright citizenship gives people who have only lived in the United States certainty that they can build lives here. It reduces the administrative burden of figuring out who has the required parentage to justify citizenship. And first generation Americans, in many cases, are high achievers who contribute to our economy and society.
If you don't want people to stay here illegally, legalize their labor. Require employers in agriculture, child care/house care, and unskilled construction to comply with labor laws. Don't try to solve a labor issue with citizenship and immigration laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Who has suggested we revoke citizenship already granted? Going forward, if a child is born here to illegal parents, it should not have birthright citizenship and should be removed along with it's parents long before any taxpayer-funded education takes place.
How do you propose removing any future children of the current 11 million people who are not lawful immigrants and the untold number who will come in the future? What will you do with children who have one parent who is a lawful immigrant and one who is not? How can you justify treating a child born one day to undocumented parents as a citizen and a child born the next day to undocumented immigrants as an undocumented immigrant? How many new SSA staff are you willing to pay for to examine the parentage of every child born in the United States going forward?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Simply untrue. Read the contemporaneous discussion. More discussion of the treatment of Gypsies and Chinese than of Blacks. The legislators understood what they were doing.
You are correct: they did. Birthright citizenship is what they proposed and intended.
It's not a mistake. Who is eligible for birthright citizenship needs to be corrected and properly defined and the only practical way that's going to happen is through the supreme court.
Needs to go through Congress. EO is vulnerable to the next administration. President Obama made the same mistake. Using EO's to force change creates whiplash for the American people. It's an election stunt, and everybody knows it just like the middle class tax cuts and the prescription drug price reductions.
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.
