.>
.
.
So being a data guy I have a question about the logistics of how this EO is supposed to work.
Will Trump be ordering States they cannot issue citizen birth certificates to children of illegal aliens?
Will Trump say States can issue birth certificates but those birth certificates must now include the babies federal citizenship status?
Will Trump say States can issue birth certificates but those birth certificates must now include the citizenship status of the mother and father (or the citizenship status of at least one parent for Jus Sanguinis purposes)?
.
.
.
.>>>>
This is a very interesting point, which is why it would have been imperative of the framers of this amendment to address what should then become of the legal status of the parents of such children.
You mean there are a lot of unintended consequences? It’s pretty telling that none of the details you mention and myriad others have ever been resolved… It’s almost like this is a settled question… LOL
That’s not a very creative dodge. I’m still waiting for you to post the statutory law enacted by Congress which you referenced. You did write:
“As the law currently stands today, a child born in the United States, but neither parent are citizens or permanent residents are citizens of the United States”
Post the statutory law you are referencing, or admit there is no such “law”.
In regard to Wong Kim Ark, that case is irrelevant.
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was asserted to have been fulfilled by the Court as follows:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:
“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Aside from that, the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not addresses if a child born to an alien while on American soil, who has entered the United States illegally, is considered a citizen upon birth.
But, the Supreme Court did, in an earlier case, addressed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause in the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
In regard to your “point”, there is no need to alter the Constitution to “exclude children of illegal aliens” born on American soil from citizenship at birth, because the preponderance of evidence establishes “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” already excludes them. Additionally, and today, it is a “policy decision” which now embraces them as citizens, and the President can change that policy by EO, which would force the question before the Supreme Court.
Now, once again, let me ask you to post the “law” you referenced.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
It simply wasn’t an issue then. The country was just being formed and there were no benefits being awarded to people coming into the country. Welfare as we have it today did not exist back then.
The mind numbing thing is, when a foreign citizen knowingly violates our immigration laws by entering or residing in the US illegally, they have voluntarily placed themselves outside of US jurisdiction.
You cannot simultaneously violate US immigration law, a purposeful act where you place yourself outside US sovereign jurisdiction, then when you give birth to a child, claim you are inside US jurisdiction and demand the US must grant your child US citizenship.
You are confounding sovereignty and jurisdiction. There is no such thing as sovereign jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is legal control over something. Sovereignty is what you are describing
I am not trying to be dim so i will ask again how are the two phrases compatible.
Yes. It has been laid out in layman’s terms by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse cases and the Court noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
And in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) , all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
That is one reason why I keep pointing out how an immigrant officially and legally declares “allegiance” to our country. They do it by taking our country’s Oath of Allegiance:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Yup, you are absolutely correct this has been laid out in layman’s terms over and over. And you ought to pay attention to the Court rather than personal opinions or irrelevant voices floating about.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs of millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
I see repeated posts about three exceptions to birthright citizenship:
foreign diplomats
Indians on Indian lands
occupying forces
I don’t see those exceptions in either the constitution or in the US code. If the exceptions come from an executive order, then logically the president should be able to change and/or clarify them with a new executive order.
For example, an executive order could classify persons here illegally as being similar to occupying forces (foreign citizens here illegally and without the consent of the US government). It could also classify foreign tourists being similar to foreign diplomats (foreign citizens who are here temporarily under an agreement with a foreign government).
Unless there is a statute or a court case the explicitly defines the three exceptions to birthright citizenship, I see no reason why they can’t be changed or clarified by executive order.
Those exceptions come from the legal meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”, at the time the amendment was written. The President does not have the authority to “clarify” the Constitution.
Can you point to a specific source for the exceptions and explicitly defines the terms?
The closest thing that I see is the US v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case addressed children of legal permanent residents.
In the absence of legislation or a clear legal precedent, the President should be free to define terms in an executive order. For example, the executive order could say that children born to people here illegally are considered to fall under offspring of “occupying forces” rather than those of “legal permanent residents”.
150 years of legal precedent. The Congressional Record of the Senate debates over the amendment. The common law precedent. The legal definition of the word “jurisdiction”.
