When judges meddle with setting immigration public policy, they act in defiance of our Constitution

We are witnessing federal rogue judges meddling in our system’s executive and legislative functions and doing so without establishing their interventions are required because a constitutional provision is being subverted and demands intervention.

Congress needs to grow a spine and start impeaching these rogue judges.

For example, Joseph N. Laplante, United States District Judge issued THIS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in response to the following COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, et al. v. Donald J.)

In addition to not establishing standing, the complaint fails to articulate where in our Constitution’s wording are the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, are granted citizenship upon birth, and is the limited subject matter of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order.

In fact, there is no such wording in our Constitution granting the kind of citizenship in question, nor is there any law enacted by Congress granting such citizenship under Congress’s exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 1.

History establishes that Congress has exercised its exclusive authority in the past when enacting the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending citizenship as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no appropriate legislation to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil.

Additionally, there is no S.C. Case in which the Supreme Court has been asked to address this specific question and confirmed the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born while on American soil, are intended, by the terms and legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, to be granted United States citizenship upon birth. The truth of the matter is unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, now recognizes them as such.

It is important to note that under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President and adopted a disastrous and destructive open border policy.

This policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government and our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy as determined by the people through that election process and their vote.

President Trump is free by the terms of our Constitutional system, to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

When a judge inserts himself into this area, as did Judge Joseph N. Laplante, and gives standing to complainants where no such standing exists nor have they presented a case confirming that our Constitution is being violated, that judge is undermining the separations of powers written into our Constitution and interfering with an election where an overwhelming number of the people have affirmed that new federal public policy regarding the granting of citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrants born on American soil is in order.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

Your head is going to explode when the SC finally rules that until there is an amendment, anyone born here is a citizen.

This whole issue is going to end up in front of the SC so why not relax until then.

That and about every executive order will likely wind up there at the Supreme Court. Democrats used the courts to,try to block Trump from the Presidency. they will do the same thing to try to block most things he tries to implement. The best Republicans can hope for is a fast track to the Supreme Court.
This birthright citizenship has less chance than most, I’m afraid. Pretty sure there is currently a law on this as well as an historically accepted constitutional interpretation.

there is no law

1 Like

8 usc 1401?

says exactly the same thing as the amendment leaving the same exact question. Otherwise, it deals with the citizenship status of US children born abroad.

2 Likes

Agree with all of that

But that is the very point. Congress has not enacted a law to grant citizenship upon birth, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, and there is no S.C. case in which the Supreme Court has been asked to address this specific question and confirmed the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born while on American soil, are intended, by the terms and legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, to be granted United States citizenship upon birth.

Unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born while on American soil, are U.S. citizens upon birth.

Under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President and adopted a disastrous and destructive open border policy.

This policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government and our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy as determined by the people through that election process and their vote.

President Trump is free by the terms of our Constitutional system, to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

I agree it needs to be fast tracked to the SC. This is the only way this question will be answered once and for all.

Doesnt really bother me which way it goes as long as we have a resolution.

This states the argument against automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Might be nice if the constitution writers would avoid being ambiguous.

The way abortion rights were resolved once and for all?

Previous Administrations apparently used that [8 usc 1401] to adopt a federal policy granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, and that policy has been in effect for a few generations. The Trump Administration, acting within its policy making powers, has decided to alter that “policy” and no longer grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Elections have consequences, and a change of public policy is one of those consequences.

My prediction: 5-4 against Trump with John Roberts and Barrett siding with the Libs.

1 Like

I’m thinking the S.C. will not rule on the case.

Congress, and not our judges, have exclusive power [Section 5] to enforce the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment

In 1924 Congress exercised its exclusive Section 5 power under the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending citizenship as outlined in the Act. Since then, I can find no “appropriate legislation” under which Congress has extended citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Under the Citizenship and National Act of1965 we find: 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Previous Administrations apparently used 8 USC 1401 and their opinion of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to adopt federal policy granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, and that policy has been in effect for a few generations.

The Trump Administration, acting within its policy making powers, has decided to alter previous Administration’s “policy” and no longer view “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” [found in USC 1401] to include illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Since Congress, and only Congress, and not our judicial system, is delegated the exclusive power to enforce the terms of the 14th Amendment, and it has not extended U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, Trump is acting within his policy making authority granted under Article 2 of our Constitution. Until, and if, Congress extends birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil by the required “appropriate legislation”, Trump’s E.O. is within the four walls of our Constitution.

.
Elections have consequences, and a change in public policy is one of those consequences.

That’s decent but i have a feeling it’s going to be a slam at 9-0 against.

I don’t see that if they put the 14th in the context of the time it was ratified that the more Constitutional purists could vote against Trump. Like the 2nd, context is something that shouldn’t be ignored.

1 Like

Name one child that was denied citizenship because his parents were illegal.

What is the context of the 14th? 2nd?

The context of the 2nd? Having just overthrown a tyrannical government. The 14th? Having just finished a civil war and the inequality of blacks who were not given the rights of citizens.

But you know these things.

2 Likes

That is fundamental constitutional construction . . . "The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Or as emphatically pointed out in In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903):

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

1 Like