Jump to content
retrofade

Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I don’t see how they could uphold it. It should be a unanimous decision to overturn an executive order like this. 

I can't imagine it would make it that far unless it continued to be appealed, in which case I can't imagine they would hear it.

  • Like 1

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I can't imagine it would make it that far unless it continued to be appealed, in which case I can't imagine they would hear it.

SCOTUS could use the opportunity to settle it once and for all. They’ve technically never ruled if the 14th amendment applies to people born here to parents who aren’t here legally.  

  • Like 1

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, retrofade said:

That's interesting... but it really comes down to how you interpret that highlighted sentence. 

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors (sic) of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Now, you can read that two different ways. Is he saying people who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers? Or is he defining three distinct categories with an implied "or" following the comma after "aliens"? 

 

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

 

I read it the other way as in he's listing people it won't apply too.  We would also have to look at it from a 19th century context in terms of speech.  And that's not something I'm an expert in.  Did they define foreigners & aliens as two separate groups then?

edit:  we also need to consider that this is a transcript of the Senate debate and not an essay so we need to take that into account. 

I'm 90% sure he is only referring to the children of families of ambassadors/foreign ministers. "Who belong to" is qualifying "foreigners" and "aliens" is used as a further descriptor of foreigner.

Decent discussion of it here: https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

"The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations).  The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.)  Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.'

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, retrofade said:

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

I don't think that Trump has the Constitutional authority to actually do this... that being said, I don't consider Executive Orders to be particularly Constitutional begin with, especially when they're written and signed in order to end around Congress. 

Here's the text of the 14th Amendment... with my emphasis.

That seems pretty cut and dry, regardless of your thoughts on birthright citizenship. I do find it interesting that Conservatives, who tend to shy away from the concept of "interpreting" the Constitution, especially in the application of the Second Amendment, seem to be going with an "interpreting" philosophy as it pertains to this issue. 

Only batshit crazy conservatives try to interpret the 14th in a way that denies birthright citizenship. The rest of us take it as it's written.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Only batshit crazy conservatives try to interpret the 14th in a way that denies birthright citizenship. The rest of us take it as it's written.

Not sure all of these are batshit crazy conservatives... also interesting what they have to say of the oft referenced Supreme Court decision... https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

"Parsing the entire debates over the Citizenship Clause in the 39th Congress admittedly presents some occasional inconsistencies and ambiguities, leading reasonable people—on both the Left and Right—to disagree about the meaning of the Citizenship Clause. Conservatives scholars such as John Eastman, Lino Graglia, Edward Erler, and even former Attorney General Edwin Meese, have written in opposition to birthright citizenship. Notably, this point of view is shared by liberal scholars such as Yale Law School Professor Peter Schuck, who coauthored a book with University of Pennsylvania political scientist Rogers Smith, entitled Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) making the same argument now embraced by Trump. Federal Judge Richard Posner has called the current practice of birthright citizenship “an anomaly” that Congress “should rethink” because it “makes no sense.” Judge Posner, never bashful, went on to state (in a published decision, Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003)) that “We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.” Posner volunteered that he “doubt[ed]” whether a constitutional amendment was necessary to change the current practice of birthright citizenship.

Now, in fairness, other respected commentators take a contrary position, including the conservative attorney James Ho. But a considerable body of scholarship supports the view that the Citizenship Clause does not compel birthright citizenship, and that the current practice could be corrected by legislation, pursuant to Congress’ power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Contrary to the assertions of some (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist), amending the 14th Amendment is not required. In fact, such legislation has been introduced in the past—for example,  S.1351 (1993), H.R.1567 (2003), H.R.140 (2015)—and supported by Republicans and Democrats. That includes former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who stated in 1993 that “no sane country” would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants solely because they were born on American soil. In Oforji, Judge Posner stated that “I hope [H.R.1567] passes.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit."

 

Granted all of this comes from the "Law and Liberty" Blog who's mission is as follows:

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

The website is provided by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities, with the goal of fostering discussion and thought on enduring topics pertaining to the creation and maintenance of such a society.

I found it via Google search.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good find, but the majority of us still believe it says what it says. I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but to me there is no ambiguity in the amendment. If people want it changed they need to go through the process spelled out in the Constitution. No legislative end runs, no executive orders, no phucking shenanigans. Do it the correct way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting as well from the other side of the spectrum (Media Matters)... https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2010/08/09/did-the-author-of-the-citizenship-clause-really/168957

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. During the May 30, 1866, Senate debate over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment, several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners, as Media Matters for America has noted. The debate indicates that they believed the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of foreigners. For instance, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. And Sen. John Conness of California stated:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

..

Legal scholar Garrett Epps: Restrictionist reading of Howard's statement is "strained." Legal scholar Garrett Epps wrote in a recent working paper that "a review of the legislative debates" indicates that the Citizenship Clause "was designed to exclude two and only two groups" -- children of diplomats and "members of Indian tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status." Epps further wrote: "Originalism is often advanced as a methodology that holds promise for clarifying unclear portions of constitutional text or for filling lacunae in the document. That is not the use to which it is being put in the context of the Citizenship Clause. Here, the originalist claim is in essence that seemingly clear words mean something other than what they say; that the language was adopted with mental reservation or qualification that should prevent our giving them their plain meaning." Referring to Howard's statement, Epps wrote in a footnote:

Professor Mayton reads this language as excluding the children of two classes of aliens from birthright citizenship: first, all "consular personnel," and, second, "aliens." That is, we should construe Howard as meaning that the citizenship clause will exclude the "two classes," consisting in essence of 1) the children of all foreigners and 2) the children of some foreigners. Professor Mayton considers his thesis confirmed because "at that time no objection was made." The most logical inference to this reader is that no one objected because no one understood it in the strained way that Professor Mayton does. In descending so to the level of grammatical parsing, I feel that we in [are] in danger of leaving the world of constitutional history and entering some kind of Da Vinci-code alternate universe. That is, can we really suppose that this one ambiguous phrase spoken by one Senator, no matter how read, can supply us with a code key to general language adopted by both Houses of Congress and the legislatures of two-thirds of the States?

CAC chief counsel: "The language [Howard] used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats." Elizabeth Wydra, the chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal group, wrote in May 2009 that Howard was likely referring only to "families of diplomats" and not to "foreigners, aliens" generally:

Opponents of birthright citizenship also cite a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the Citizenship Clause, that the amendment would "not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." But if Howard was intending to list several categories of excluded persons (e.g., foreigners, aliens or families of diplomats) he could have said so. The language he used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats.

This interpretation of the Reconstruction Framers' views on the classes of persons excluded from birthright citizenship is clarified by a statement made just six days prior to Senator Howard's introduction of the Citizenship Clause. In an exchange on the Senate floor, Senator Wade acknowledged a colleague's suggestion that some persons born on U.S. soil might not be automatically granted citizenship, stating "I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language." He went on to explain that children of foreign ministers were exempt not because of an "allegiance" or consent reason, but because there is a legal fiction that they do not actually reside on U.S. soil: "By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States." In light of the legislative history described above, it is highly unlikely that Senator Howard's comment regarding foreign diplomats means what opponents to birthright citizenship claim. A single comment plucked out of context should not be used to sweep aside the overwhelming text, history, and principles that point to the opposite conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Good find, but the majority of us still believe it says what it says. I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but to me there is no ambiguity in the amendment. If people want it changed they need to go through the process spelled out in the Constitution. No legislative end runs, no executive orders, no phucking shenanigans. Do it the correct way.

I think you are right that the majority would read it as conferring citizenship on anyone born on the US soil regardless of parentage (and no diplomats), but there seems to be a sliver of room for debate. Maybe Trump is trying to get it before SCOUTS now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Only batshit crazy conservatives try to interpret the 14th in a way that denies birthright citizenship. The rest of us take it as it's written.

Then we have more than our fair share of batshit crazy conservatives over at the BarkBoard.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pokebball said:

Or even if this kid is granted citizenship, are the parents still subject to deportation and will they want to leave their kid here?  The parents should still be subject to deportation, right?

I think so.

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that just because you have a baby in the US, that should not automatically make the baby a US citizen, unless one parent is a US citizen.  But this needs to be fixed by congress.  There are a large portion of countries that don't give you birthright if you are born in their country.  Had my daughter given birth to my grandson in a Japanese hospital, while she was stationed at Okinawa, her son would not get Japanese citizenship because both parents are American.  However, it didn't become an issue because she was sent state side several months before he was due and his birth certificate says Camp Pendleton.  

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Broncomare said:

I agree that just because you have a baby in the US, that should not automatically make the baby a US citizen, unless one parent is a US citizen.  But this needs to be fixed by congress.  There are a large portion of countries that don't give you birthright if you are born in their country.  Had my daughter given birth to my grandson in a Japanese hospital, while she was stationed at Okinawa, her son would not get Japanese citizenship because both parents are American.  However, it didn't become an issue because she was sent state side several months before he was due and his birth certificate says Camp Pendleton.  

Children of US military members and Contractors born overseas are US citizens. There wouldn't have been an issue with your granddaughter had she been born in Okinawa.

The debate about this was done in Congress before the passage of the amendment and it was written without any ambiguity. So again, if you want it changed go through the process. Congress can't legislate it away, and the President can't shit can it by executive order. You either have to repeal the 14th or strike the language giving birthright citizenship out. Either way it has to go through both houses of Congress, and get passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures. We have a process spelled out to do this correctly. Any other measure taken is unConstitutional and will likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Broncomare said:

I agree that just because you have a baby in the US, that should not automatically make the baby a US citizen, unless one parent is a US citizen.  But this needs to be fixed by congress.  There are a large portion of countries that don't give you birthright if you are born in their country.  Had my daughter given birth to my grandson in a Japanese hospital, while she was stationed at Okinawa, her son would not get Japanese citizenship because both parents are American.  However, it didn't become an issue because she was sent state side several months before he was due and his birth certificate says Camp Pendleton.  

This isn't an issue to be "fixed by Congress", it would take a Constitutional Amendment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, retrofade said:

This isn't an issue to be "fixed by Congress", it would take a Constitutional Amendment. 

Which is done by ????

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Children of US military members and Contractors born overseas are US citizens. There wouldn't have been an issue with your granddaughter had she been born in Okinawa.

The debate about this was done in Congress before the passage of the amendment and it was written without any ambiguity. So again, if you want it changed go through the process. Congress can't legislate it away, and the President can't shit can it by executive order. You either have to repeal the 14th or strike the language giving birthright citizenship out. Either way it has to go through both houses of Congress, and get passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures. We have a process spelled out to do this correctly. Any other measure taken is unConstitutional and will likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Of course my grandson would have automatically been an American citizen, no matter where he was born.  Both Mom and Dad are active duty military and US citizens, going back generations.  She just happened to be transferred state side before he was born.  Plus, Camp Pendleton looks pretty cool on a birth certificate.

The point was, had he been born in a Japanese hospital, on Japanese soil, he would not automatically become a Japanese citizen.  Many countries are like that and it is time for the US to become that way too.  

I also said through Congress!

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

Then we have more than our fair share of batshit crazy conservatives over at the BarkBoard.

In Fresno?

Noooooo.....

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...