• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

I think he is going to find out the hard way, just how hard it is to amend the Constitution.

Agreed. If he does this, he's going to look like a dumbass when SCOTUS supports the Constitution over Trumpian idiocy.

We, the People, need to resolve the illegal immigration issue by working smarter, not violating the Constitution....which is a very bad precedent to set. What's next? Repeal the Second Amendment? Declare the comma in the Second Amendment doesn't exist?
 
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.


I thought you were pro Constitution, WCH... Am I miss reading you here?
 
People are mowing others down with AR-15s, but we should stop those American-born kids from becoming Americans.

What a country.

I don't know what's worse, that Trump would pander with this, or that pandering with this appeals to his supporters.
 
Do not count him out. Everyone does and so far they get burned. The government can make a very strong argument on that phase Subject to the jurisdiction thereof . The 14th has never really been pushed in court. Remember you yourself misconstrue in the second amendment the phrase A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, that meaning in its context is more clear than that of the 14th and we know how much horse crap we deal with on the 2nd A. We will find out soon enough how this will ply out.

That phrase changes nothing regarding the grant of citizenship to ALL PERSONS born here.
 
I thought you were pro Constitution, WCH... Am I miss reading you here?

I am but, the 14th need to be changed or abolished. It was meant for the freed slaves and their children, not anyone who can scam their way into the country.

I still want to see a legit excuse from the Left on why we shouldn't.
 
It just bypassed it. He was hoping the Dems would win the WH and keep it legal.

It didn't bypass it at all since the EO did not make them citizens. That's just your revisionist history while Trump's EO would actually change the constitution. Where are your complaints about that?
 
I am but, the 14th need to be changed or abolished. It was meant for the freed slaves and their children, not anyone who can scam their way into the country.

I still want to see a legit excuse from the Left on why we shouldn't.

Then a constitutional amendment is needed. You are well aware of how to do that and Trump's EO is not one of the ways it is done.
 
I'm trying to follow along as a lay person, but are you saying that an illegal alien is or might be more subject to the jurisdiction of their own country than the U.S., even if they happen to give birth on U.S. soil?
Thanks.

The reasoning is basically the illegals including their offspring are primarily subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, therefor the offspring is not a us citizen but a citizen of the country of origin. That is a primary argument but there are others and they all suspect will be put to the test. Here's the other thing Congress has complete control over immigration and nationalization, so they technically can define jurisdiction, and thereby subvert the need to change the Constitution. It would be hard for the courts to throw out. This fight is gona get ugly because there are a lot of very legitimate issues gona be thrown about. My dad was born in Japan on a US Naval base over 6 decades ago and is a US citizen by birth but he still has trouble with background checks passport renewals and the like.
 
That phrase changes nothing regarding the grant of citizenship to ALL PERSONS born here.

You wana bet? :lol: You think we have dog fights with the 2nd Amendment, this is gona make those look tame. All sides will have an actual leg to stand on to boot. I would hate to be a justice on this one. Mark my words the phrase Subject to the jurisdiction thereof will be the lynchpin of many ,valid I might add, arguments. That phrase can and will be used as a crowbar as it provides for the exception to the rule, All persons.

I will give Trump this, that man sure knows how to piss people off. He made the skill a scientific artform. :lol: Funny ass ****, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
It requires more than an executive order to Amend the Constitution.


It could be they are defining jurisdiction and more importantly who is subject to what. Trump can do that at least temporally with an EO and if Congress does not intervene then it could be permeants.
 
I am but, the 14th need to be changed or abolished. It was meant for the freed slaves and their children, not anyone who can scam their way into the country.

I still want to see a legit excuse from the Left on why we shouldn't.

Hmm...so, basically, you're the same as the Left: Respect the Constitution, except for the stuff you don't like. I swear, how you got so divided is beyond me, underneath your issues, you are all the same...hehe...

Why not change it? Meh...I don't have an excuse for you, knock yourself out. Just remember...once you open the door anyone can walk through it. Can you think of any other unconstitutional movements that are only being held back by the Constitution? ;)
 
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.

It won't be allowed to stand. An EO cannot amend the US Constitution. Didn't "conservatives" used to be against this sort of thing?
 
War on Crime - Made alot of people money, did nothing for crime, cost us a lot of men and women and resources
War on Poverty - Made alot of people money, did nothing for poverty, cost us a lot of resources
War on Drugs - Made alot of people money, did absolutely nothing to stop drugs, cost us men and women, resources, and created an unstable political situation in several other countries leading to civil wars and lawlessness that sends us refugees on a daily basis.

War on Illegal Immigrants brought to you by the war on drugs - Yeah this one will go better...

When an old rich white guy is telling you he's starting a war on something, rest assured, he just wants to funnel money to his buddies and set up an ineffective and corrupt system for them to milk for years. Usually at the expense of brown people.

Does anyone see this going any differently?

Pre-emptive response to Trump Supporters:

I have no respect for your opinion, if I deign to respond it will be to insult you in some fashion. Whatever you have to say is likely very stupid. And I'm just really tired of interacting with stupid people. So here is a blanket response to you all. You can :kissass
 
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.

Three threads already on how the president hasn't read the Constitution and thinks he's a king rather than a president.

and it appears that at least some of his supporters don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional republic either.

and the idiocy continues.
 
Three threads already on how the president hasn't read the Constitution and thinks he's a king rather than a president.

and it appears that at least some of his supporters don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional republic either.

and the idiocy continues.

Idiocy seems to be a birthright.....get it? LOL

FWIW: https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...ndment-immigration-naturalization-act-2018-10
Trump's plan could be at odds with the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, both ratified by Congress, which state that people born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens at birth....But Trump's executive orders on immigration have been met with heavy legal challenges before, and that is sure to be the case this time, with the US Constitution saying, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Further, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
 
The Left attempts to subvert the Constitution on a regular basis. Y'all should be thrilled.

Why exactly do you oppose this move? [other than because it's Trump's doing]

Anybody who attempts to change the Constitution without following the proper channels is wrong, no matter what their political party.

Repeat after me:

Anybody... who... attempts... to... change... the... Constitution... without... following... the... proper... channels... is... wrong... no... matter... what... their... political... party.

See how easy that was? To say something is wrong without making it a partisan argument?
 
Agreed. If he does this, he's going to look like a dumbass when SCOTUS supports the Constitution over Trumpian idiocy.

We, the People, need to resolve the illegal immigration issue by working smarter, not violating the Constitution....which is a very bad precedent to set. What's next? Repeal the Second Amendment? Declare the comma in the Second Amendment doesn't exist?

Yup. There's a reason why it's so hard to make changes to the Constitution. It's so power-hungry maniacs can't make changes without approval.
 
I really don't have any idea what it would take to amend an amendment, but I do think it will be good to have Constitutional scholars argue the merits of what this amendment was meant for when it was adopted, as compared to how it is abused today.


Good. While they are at it, have them argue the merits of the 2nd amendment, what it was meant for when it was adopted, and compare it to how it is abused today.
 
Good. While they are at it, have them argue the merits of the 2nd amendment, what it was meant for when it was adopted, and compare it to how it is abused today.

I'm pretty sure there's been plenty of that done before, no?
 
Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable, to say the least.

No, actually it's not debatable at all. He has no power to do this whatsoever. He is now literally trying to re-write the constitution by executive fiat. The pure and simple fact that he would attempt to do this is in and of itself grounds for impeachment. He is blatantly violating his oath of office, and any member of the Supreme Court that would side with him should be thrown off the court as well.
 
I'm pretty sure there's been plenty of that done before, no?

Yeah, and how'd that work out of them? It didn't. Constitutional amendments are pretty much impossible to pass, even on things that should be changed. He'll never get the votes, and he shouldn't.
 
Here is a quote containing the Official Congressional Record where the authors of the 14th tell everyone what was meant by the language used.


The language isn't ambiguous as the authors of that language tell you exactly what it means.

"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

What many folks think it means, and what it actually means, are two different things. The only reason for that is ignorance of the topic.

This is Senator Trumbull the author of the language inserted into the 14th's citizenship clause.

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 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

The Congressional record proving that.

A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.




This Senator Howard, the author of the 14th.


I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

The Congressional record proving that.



A close up for those who may have trouble reading the small print.




They didn't mean something other that what they said it meant.

And what they agree they meant is the following.

A full and complete jurisdiction that meant, Not owing allegiance to anybody else.


This is a definitive. There is no rebuttal to it.
 
Here is another quote containing relevant information.

The only valid argument that can be made here is that if the Issue comes before the Court (which someone would obviously attempt), the Court may find differently. Such a decision, though legal, would not be correct as we have the Official Record of what the language means.


As for an argument that it means something different? Not under what is known.


1. Federal Judges have already recognized that the word "jurisdiction" as having many a different meaning, so the Court would have to establish what was meant by it's usage at that time. And as already pointed out, we have an Official Record doing just that.

Here is Justice Souter in a dissenting opinion recognizing that "jurisdiction" has many a meaning.

"‘Jurisdiction,’", we have warned several times in the last decade, "‘is a word of many, too many, meanings.’" Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 90 (1998) (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996)); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454 (2004) (quoting Steel Co.); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 510 (2006) (quoting Steel Co.); Rockwell Inti'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. ___, ___ (2007) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Steel Co.). This variety of meaning has insidiously tempted courts, this one included, to engage in "less than meticulous," Kontrick, supra, at 454, sometimes even "profligate . . . use of the term," Arbaugh, supra, at 510.
KEITH BOWLES, PETITIONER v. HARRY RUSSELL, WARDEN


2. Then we have a past Attorney General who issued a legal Opinion indicating that it was known that it meant exactly what the Author said it meant, and was used as an annotation for our Federal Statutes.

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

Federal Statutes Annotated: Containing All the Laws of the United ..., Volume 11
(Link)


3. Then we have Harry Reid who once proposed holding to the original intent of the wording.
The legislation died in committee, and Reid has since flip-flopped on the issue, but it still serves as an example.

“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993   /   Text | S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 | Text
 
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is what is going to be clarified. Personally I believe you need a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, however that particular phrase can be pushed rather reasonably to construe jurisdiction meaning somebody subject to US primarily. An unlawful alien would then be considered subject to foreign law primarily. I consider such interpretation a stretch as I am a textualist, however such meaning can be reasonably derived from the text by reasonable people. Further arguments for said amendment brought this subject up at the time it was ratified, said arguments were a mixed bag.
Which may be why Trump waited until now to bring the issue up (two SCt appointments) so as to argue the Official Congressional Record which tells us exactly what was meant by the wording used.
So Trump has what was actually meant and a history of an Official Atty Gen Record indicating that the 14th should be interpreted in that manner to argue.
(See above posted info.)




I'm trying to follow along as a lay person, but are you saying that an illegal alien is or might be more subject to the jurisdiction of their own country than the U.S., even if they happen to give birth on U.S. soil?
Thanks.
The Framers of the 14th made it clear what they meant by the language they used as the question was made during discussion and survives on the Official Congressional Record.
(See above posted info.)




Further, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."[/I]
And? The Executive can certainly have his agencies interpret that as meaning exactly what the Framers of the 14th said the wording meant, which is exactly what a previous Atty Gen said as well. And it can legally be done until the Court finds otherwise.

Which means it comes down to what the wording "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
We absolutely knows what the Framers of the 14th said it meant.
(See above posted info.)
 
The Constitution would have to be amended to achieve what trump wants to do.
Wrong.
He or his Atty Gen can issue guidelines to follow the intent of 14th Amendment as written.




I think he is going to find out the hard way, just how hard it is to amend the Constitution.

iLOL Enforcing the 14th as intended is not amending it.





Best I can find on this, Trump is setting himself up for a Constitutional challenge that speaks right to the 14th Amendment.
Of course it will be challenged.
The left has too much vested in illegals for it not to be challenged.




I dont see where it would be legal to do it this way,
How is enforcing the 14th as written not legal?





It requires more than an executive order to Amend the Constitution.
Following the Constitution as intended is not Amending it.





No, actually it's not debatable at all. He has no power to do this whatsoever. He is now literally trying to re-write the constitution by executive fiat. The pure and simple fact that he would attempt to do this is in and of itself grounds for impeachment. He is blatantly violating his oath of office, and any member of the Supreme Court that would side with him should be thrown off the court as well.
iLOL Wrong on all counts, as usual.




Anybody who attempts to change the Constitution without following the proper channels is wrong, no matter what their political party.
It is not an attempt to change the Constitution, but an attempt to follow it as intended.





It won't be allowed to stand. An EO cannot amend the US Constitution.
No.
Enforcing the 14th as written is not amending it.
 
Back
Top Bottom