Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

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”.

By that logic marriage would still be defined as a union between a man and woman.

Ultimately, the courts will decide the case, and they have shown very little regard for common law or intent of the authors.

But the president, by the terms of the Constitution, does have authority and is obligated to, take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, such as repelling invasions, and making certain the 14th Amendment is adhered to, which includes only those children born on American soil who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are granted citizenship at birth.

So, at this point in time, and considering the terms of our Constitution and the preponderance of evidence ___ the “legislative intent” of the 14th Amendment, as stated during the framing of the 14th Amendment ___ the President would be acting within his constitutionally authorized powers, to repel the ongoing invasion of our southern border and issuing an executive order to not recognize for federal purposes, children born on American soil whose mother is not an American citizen.

And let us not forget what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment:

’This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

The fact is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in the 14th Amendment, is designed to deny citizenship to a child born to a foreign national who enters our country and gives birth, unless the mother has been naturalized and takes our countries “Oath of Allegiance”. Doing so, makes that person “subject to the Jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

"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."

Haven taken the above oath, one becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

** BTW, in regard to the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment the fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment said:**

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The 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“.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

We still have plenty of room for even more citizens.

Allan

Correct. President job is to enforce laws, not clarify the constitution.

Allan

What? There was no such thing as legal permanent residence… In fact, when Ark was NINE years old, we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which would clearly would have applied to Ark.

He takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, therefore it is his duty to do so. You don’t agree with his interpretation of the part in question, which is your prerogative. You however are wrong and he is right. As demonstrated both by legal precedent and the contemporary historical record surround the adoption of the Amendment.

There is so much fantasy in this paragraph it’s magical to read… There will not be an EO on birthright citizenship, this was bait for the suckers for the mid-terms…

1 Like

I don’t care, just raising the issue served a pretty good purpose, to prompt democrats to show just whose side they are on, citizens or illegals, just prior to the midterms. Even if he never issues the order, it served a purpose.

Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant!

In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is asserted to have been fulfilled as follows as stated by the Court.

(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, who has entered the United States illegally, is considered a citizen.

The Supreme Court had earlier discussed 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.”

I wonder why Wong Kim Ark is repeatedly brought up in the thread when it is totally irrelevant to whether or not a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant becomes a citizen upon birth. Perhaps it is brought up as a distraction and to avoid the actual, and documented legislative intent of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

JWK

How about on the side of actually upholding the constitution… Personally, I believe we do need to amend the 14th. Birthright citizenship doesn’t make sense any longer, that aside, it IS what the constitution says today.

1 Like

Yet is still cited in hundreds of cases a year… Now, it’s possible all those real attorney’s are wrong and you are right, but I’m leaning more toward you not having any idea what you are talking about…

No it isn’t. What subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant is amply documented both in legal precedent and the historical record, you can pretend it merely means subject to the law all you like, that doesn’t make it so.

Actually Dems revealed they’re on the side of the constitution. Many Republicans are on the same side as well. It’s only the Trump base that is fired up by the issue and demonstrated they don’t care as much about the constitution as they do winning.

Yet here we sit, 120 years after Ark and you can’t point to ONE case where the courts have agreed with your interpretation of jurisdiction and I can cite DOZENS of case that support mine. Who is more likely to understand this?

1 Like

If you’re in this country illegally…you are not a citizen and are not subject to the protection of the Constitution which was written for citizens. You can’t STEAL your way in to the United States and I for one am glad that we have a President who will attempt to stop the illegal shenanigans.

No, you cannot cite a single Supreme Court case that defined subject to the jurisdiction thereof in this context as merely subject to our laws.

I cited plenty, you just keep believing you have some new, novel legal theory that over 100 years of law has never considered…

1 Like