Trump Cannot Restrict Birthright Citizenship by Presidential Edict
The executive order that the president-elect plans to issue contradicts the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment.

For 126 years, U.S. courts have recognized children born in this country as American citizens. President-elect Donald Trump plans to overturn that understanding by issuing an executive order on his first day in office.
That order, Trump claims, will "end automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens." But the president cannot do that on his own, and any such order is bound to provoke a constitutional argument that Trump cannot win.
The 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are "citizens of the United States." But "under the correct interpretation of the law," Trump argues, birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of unauthorized U.S. residents because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Trump's interpretation of that phrase contradicts the definition that the U.S. Supreme Court embraced in 1898. That case involved a Chinese cook, Wong Kim Ark, who was born and raised in San Francisco but was denied reentry when he returned to the United States after visiting China on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen.
Ruling in Wong's favor, the Supreme Court held that people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when they are bound to obey its laws. The majority reached that conclusion after considering British common law, colonial legislation, judicial rulings in England and America, and the debate preceding the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Based on that history, the Court said, "children of diplomatic representatives" and "children of alien enemies in hostile occupation" are not U.S. citizens. It made an additional exception, which no longer applies, for children born to "members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."
Otherwise, the Court said, people born in the United States automatically qualify as U.S. citizens. That principle, the justices emphasized, predated the 14th Amendment, which aimed to ensure that it applied to black people as well Americans of European descent.
"To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries," the Court noted, "would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." To avoid that implication, the German-Scottish president-elect asserts a constitutional distinction between the children of legal immigrants and "the children of illegal aliens."
That distinction is ahistorical. "Congress did not generally restrict migration until well after adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment," James Ho, whom Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2017 and considered as a potential Supreme Court nominee, noted in a 2006 law journal article.
"Nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters [of the 14th Amendment] intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens," Ho wrote. "To the contrary, text and history confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches all persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws, regardless of race or alienage."
Trump himself assumes that people who cross the border illegally or remain in the United States after their visas have expired are "subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws." Otherwise, it would make no sense to describe them as "illegal aliens."
In 1982, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the distinction that Trump perceives. As Ho noted, "all nine justices agreed" that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, which applies to "any person within [a state's] jurisdiction," "protects legal and illegal aliens alike."
During his first term, Trump also threatened to restrict birthright citizenship by presidential edict. Tellingly, he never issued such an order.
"People born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents," South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman noted in 2018. "An executive order by President Trump cannot erase the original meaning of the Constitution."
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Poor Jacob.
They really do need to send someone in for a welfare check. He seems unwell.
Sarc is used to welfare checks. Let's send him.
Is there a liquor store on the way?
That also cashes welfare checks? Or at least converts them into store credit?
Sarc cut out the middle man and just has his checks sent to the bar now.
More pearl clutching. I guess Jacob missed all of the "precedents" of SCOTUS rulings that were overturned by a new Court. Dred Scott for instance.
The operators of “USA Happy Baby” could have used a constitutional scholar like Sullum in their defense:
https://apnews.com/article/california-birth-tourism-china-pregnant-travelers-citizenship-b22eb4efe701ae0083b1b335c35fbf47
Members of Indian Tribes are American citizens not because they were made citizens under the 14th Amendment but because there is a Federal Law making them citizens. The constitutionality of a Federal law denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens has never been tested. It could be argued that illegal aliens are citizens of foreign countries who owe allegiance to a foreign power and that there is an exception to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment on the same grounds as there was an exception for members of Indian Tribes.
The Wong Kim Ark case rejected this reading, the court analyzed the argument that Wong's parents were subjects if the Emperor of China and found that because they were obligated to obey the laws of the US and subject to their enforcement they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and the citizenship Clause applied.
The lefties always bring this case out. The parents were here legally.
The righties always point that out, but then turn around and continue to claim that being subject to a foreign sovereign (IE citizens of another country) is the sticking point for the citizenship clause.
Furthermore, how can you simultaneously claim that they are here illegally, and that they are not subject to the jurisdiction (IE laws) of the United States?
How does it work in Canada?
How did it work in the Assyrian Empire? Same relevance. We aren't talking about Canada.
Sorry, I assumed you knew all about this stuff.
As I understand it, very similar to how it works in the US.
A large majority of countries in the Americas have some form of territorial based birthright citizenship similar to what is spelled out in the US 14A.
Thanks.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your question earlier and gave a snarky reply that was unwarranted.
It’s part of the scene.
Agreed. I'm here for the snark, deserved or otherwise.
And to be clear, it works the same as the US under the current US interpretation. The parent's legal status is not relevant unless they are diplomats.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/FullText.html
This has not been adjudicated by courts outside of legal immigrants Mike.
But please continue to pretend it has.
Did you mean to link canada?
"This has not been adjudicated by courts outside of legal immigrants Mike."
At the time 14A was ratified, there were NO immigration restrictions, so there was no legal/illegal distinction for the authors of 14A to make, and thus zero reason for courts to read such a distinction into it today.
This is a false strawman from lefties.
The issue is proper jurisdiction. Legality vs illegally. It is clear from their arguments. Lefties are incapable of honesty though.
In your reading of jus soli, which is retarded on its face, an invading army that was here and had children during an invasion would birth citizens.
Congress already passed laws prior in the 1800s regarding children of native Americans, a law not needed with your retarded framing of jurisdiction.
Likewise jurisdiction of us law extends to citizens such as tax laws. An illegal alien would not fall under the jurisdiction for this, yet you want to argue they qualify for jurisdiction.
Leftists are retards.
Other instances where jurisdiction fails.
An illegal immigrant can not return to the country legally if they leave the country.
An illegal immigrant can't go to a US consulate in a foreign country.
They fall outside of many legal programs and benefits legal migrants qualify for.
Amazing how it works.
False. The language of the birthright citizenship and due process clause of the 14th amendment applies to "persons" and "people."
If the framers of that amendment wanted these to apply only to citizens they knew how to do so and would have used language to indicate such a limiting view. They didn't. Subsequent us sup ct decisions [to wong kim ark] uphold that all people in this country are entitled to certain of our constitutional rights...including importantly due process. Hence, the huge fucking backlog in immigration courts processing deportation requests. Because those 'illegals' are entitled to due process.
If they have due process rights and are present in our jurisdiction, they are "subject to our jurisdiction." You can't get around the language employed in the 14th amend. If you don't like it, it needs to be changed.
Quit making shit up you look like an idiot.
"uphold that all people in this country are entitled to certain of our constitutional rights…including importantly due process. "
A lot in the Constitution is about government's behavior. I take that to mean how the government behaves regardless of who their target is.
Of course, there are a few people in Gitmo that would disagree.
Oh I don't dispute that certain foreigners captured by US forces abroad but held in our custody ARE entitled to due process...but because they are alleged to be unlawful combatants against the US and were captured on foreign soil...i could see an argument for their rights to be diminished vis a vis a routine child born to undocumented parents somewhere in the US.
But once we bring them into our custody; i think certain treaties kick in with regards to the laws of war etc... That is a thornier question than the simple question of whether the 14th amend applies to any person born here. People are trying to make the latter easy question as hard as the enemy combatant problem but really you are comparing apples & oranges there.
Now, if an enemy combatant was born on a US base in foreign territory or at one of our embassies and then engaged in hostilities against US forces... [oh never mind none of this matters to the original OP.]
Persons "subject to the jurisdiction" qualifies “persons”. An opportunity for various interpretations. AZ is right, lefties are indeed retards.
If we can arrest them, they are subject to our jurisdiction.
I'd support an amendment making reasonable changes to this clause of the 14th Amendment. It was no written looking forward to a regime of federal restrictions on immigration, but backwards to the Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision and it's assertion that blacks could not be citizens. (Never mind that several free states had recognized blacks as citizens...)
BUT until such an amendment passes Congress and is ratified by the states, if you were born here and weren't the child of a diplomat here on a diplomatic passport (that's now the only class of individuals that is on our soil and not in our jurisdiction), you are a citizen.
Wong addressed the subject of invading armies as well. You should try reading it before commenting further on the court's interpretation of the 14th.
What are you talking about? Illegal aliens are absolutely subject to tax laws.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were in the U.S. legally so it is not clear the case controls with respect to parents in the U.S. illegally. At the time the 14th Amendment was passed, there were no laws making it illegal for a foreign citizen to enter the U.S. So it is not clear that the Amendment speaks to this issue, and Congress has the power to enforce the 14th Amendment under Section 5 of the Amendment. So Congress may have the power to pass a law that governs the legal status of the offspring of persons in the U.S. illegally. Also, if just being physically in the U.S. is sufficient then the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" would have no meaning. That phrase has been interpreted to exclude American Indians, foreign representatives and persons born on foreign flagged vessels based on a legal fiction that they are on foreign soil.
"At the time the 14th Amendment was passed, there were no laws making it illegal for a foreign citizen to enter the U.S. So it is not clear that the Amendment speaks to this issue,"
You are mistaken, it is 100% clear that 14A does not speak to that issue and it would be absurd for courts today to read that distinction into the text of 14A.
As to the Wong Kim Ark case, if you think that there is something in the reasoning of the court that would not be applicable to a child of illegal immigrants, you should spell out exactly what you think that is.
It's a bit like the qualified immunity arguments.
"Sure, courts have ruled that we can't torture subjects to get a confession. But they never ruled on torturing subjects to get a confession while wearing a red hat."
Of course the headgear has nothing to do with it, likewise Wong Kim Ark's parents had nothing to do with his citizenship.
Nevertheless, a motivated and less than honest judge looking for an excuse might buy the red hat argument or the parentage argument. Trump might find one his district court appointees willing to play along. But I strongly doubt that it'll fly at the SC level.
Great. We can continue the deportations while the SC deliberates.
The Wong Kim Ark case involved parents legally in the U.S. and was decided in the absence of Federal statute that addressed the issue.
As the 14th Amendment is not clear at to what "under the jurisdiction" means as stated in the analysis in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court might conclude that Congress has the power under Section 5 to resolve the issue. That would require the enactment of a new law, and could not be done by the President acting alone.
Should a cat have a litter inside an oven, they wouldn’t be called muffins but instead kittens. Or dinner if a certain group of illegal aliens were involved.
OR more logically and basically: If their birth is subject to the abortion or not of their non-citizen parents , they HAVE NO RIGHTS.
. The Dred Scott case in 1857 denied constitutional rights to
enslaved Africans and their descendants living in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 created a constitutional right to abortion that denied constitutional personhood to human beings prior to birth."
And both are anti-Black in the extreme.
"The prevalence of abortion facilities
within minority communities serves as a
major contributor to the rate in which
black women obtain abortions.
Accordingly, black women are 5 times
more likely to have an abortion than white
women. A recent study released by
Protecting Black Life, an outreach of Life
Issues Institute concluded that, “79% of
Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion
facilities are strategically located within
walking distance of African and/or
Hispanic communities.” "
AND
“Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”
You are making it more complicated than necessary. Indians weren't considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US if they lived on supposedly sovereign Indian territories in the US. Diplomats and their families generally enjoy broad immunity to prosecution. Immigrants of all kinds are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They can be arrested and tried for any crime, state or federal and are subject to detention and deportation. If that's not being subject to jurisdiction then nothing is.
JS has a raging case of TDS.
Can clumps of cells be Americans?
"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States..."
Thank god for the magic birth canal fairy (with immigration credentials).
You just have the point the end where you want it.
I didn't write it. Campaign for an amendment if you like.
You're American, so 'YES"
Doesn't matter. Part of being a *real* US Citizen is realizing you don't get to take from others (Womens Body-functions) what they aren't willing to give you. (i.e. You can't legally RAPE a woman).
You can save your clump of cells all you want; you just can't enslave any Women doing it.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
At what point in fetal development does the potential human have a legal interest? Age 3 months after delivery, everyone who's not a murderer, yes. Age 1 day after conception, potentially no. Where do YOU think it starts? Tell is, then spout off all you want.
When it has a demonstrate-able *inherent* right to life.
As *all* Individual Rights have to be else they become *entitlements* at the cost of others.
And that answer will be found in every single case when fetal ejection is made legal.
...exactly as Republican written Roe v Wade stated using the word 'Viable'.
Sure he can...name one cornerstone right that doesn't have restrictions...Does Freedom of Religion protect bigamy and suttee?
Does Freedom of Speech allow yelling "Fire!" in a theatre?
Of course he does.
JS; DC (don't care).
I think he's become completely unglued. It's like every day now.
Shady, have you ever seen data or reasoning for the crap Shady says??? Me neither.
JS;dr
Note how sullum says “historical understanding” instead of constitutional understanding as it really has never been argued in courts as to the requirements of constitutional. The courts have never discussed what it means to be in the jurisdiction of.
The EO wouod.be to force the courts to step in and clarify.
Wasn’t a certain Team recently supporting stacking scotus? Wonder where they are with that initiative.
Taking a shit on a potato bun doesn’t turn that into a Sloppy Joe.
Sqrlsy disagrees.
NO, this is about who gets to say you (unborn, Black, etc) are a human being.
Lol. Right to racism.
Are you incapable of logical arguments instead of emotional?
Also weird this is the cry from the left as they also demand a subservient underclass of migrants.
No, the courts can and probably would just narrowly rule the president has no such authority and leave the question open for legitimate legislation to be passed.
Legislation also can not violate the constitution. The constitutional question has to be determined by the courts.
The 14th amendment re birthright citizenship was a direct and explicit refutation of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot case. It doesn't surprise me at all that you MAGAMises clowns want to bring back Dred Scot precedent as a way of ensuring controls on citizenship
In the jurisdiction of means you can be prosecuted for crimes. The idiots who insist that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States want to give them diplomatic immunity!
You are actually correct. Diplomats can be deported, but they are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of their country of citizenship.
...Indeed; They are 'subjects' of their foreign 'jurisdiction'.
They are ILLEGAL in US jurisdiction.
The left loves flipping sh*t upside down, sideways, and wrapping it all around to get their greedy, selfish, virtue-signalling ways.
You are making stuff up. Diplomats cannot be arrested. Illegal immigrants can be arrested (and should be). That means they are in our jurisdiction.
The fascism is strong with this one.
Except you don’t even know the liberal impulse of Fascism
“Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. ”
KAMALA IS THE FASCIST AND TRUMP THE ANTI-FASCIST if we are using words correctly … Try it,it’s liberating ????
Jonah Goldberg is not an unbiased expert on what constitutes fascism.
This isn't socialism. It is an authoritarian strong man arbitrarily deciding who the internal enemies are. Deciding who is we and who is other. With a cult of personality around him making sure that the decision is militarized.
Now you've changed your statement. And your voice went up two octaves. Any shriller and you'll break a glass.
OMG! Trump plans on upholding Federal Immigration Law????
Heaven-Forbid... What an 'authoritarian strong man'!!! /s
Do you people realize just how stupid your TDS has made you sound?
The actual socialista the Nazis murdered would disagee. But Innote that you consider Nazi propaganda to be a reliable source.
...and the rest of the story.
They murdered them because their [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] zero-sum resources failed.
'Guns' don't make sh*t.
Political 'Gun' worshiping (will save me; ?free? ponies) *is* the curse.
They are there to ensure Liberty and Justice for all; not to supply 'armed-theft' mentalities with ?free? other peoples ponies.
And back to on topic. 75%+ of Immigrants vote for the ?free? ponies party and that is exactly where immigration is failing to filter properly.
Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also murdered millions of socialists. Leftists often murder each other over small differences of opinion, and the Nazis and Communists were no exception. But they DID cooperate in many ways from 1933 to 1941. It wasn't just invading and dividing Poland, but the USSR provided testing grounds for Hitler's new tanks, and the Nazis provided engineers to help the development of the USSR's industry and weapons.
That ended when Hitler invaded the USSR, but that stab in the back is also quite typical for socialist and communist regimes.
Mr lock down himself calls others fascist lol.
I read it that JFree has turned over a new leaf and was referring to the author.
Is he converting to Judaism?
New law needed: Congress hearby revokes all authority of the Executive Branch to purchase pens and phones.
Well, that takes care of my witty reply. I guess we finally had enough student loan dismissals.
Only two categories of citizens: (a) entitled by birth via the 14th Amendment, and (b) granted citizenship via laws passed by Congress – either naturalized or rules related to parentage.
But there is no category that’s “at the discretion of the President.”
Whatever the law is, whether the 14th grants citizenship children of illegal aliens or not, there is no plausible argument that it hinges on the whim of a president. Or his shitposting supporters on the Internet.
Now do student loan forgiveness.
Obviously illegal too, and shut down by the courts.
Did you imagine you had some kind of gotcha?
The idiot is projecting the fact that he and his tribe only want the constitution and rule of law to apply to the other team. So when you say you want it to apply to Trump, the idiots infer that you don’t want it to apply to Democrats.
So spaketh The Almighty One True Libertarian for whom no Democratic idea is terrible yet any Republican idea is bad, even if the Democrats did it first.
I thought I was on “mute”.
Sarc doesn’t mute anyone. He ignores them so he can claim they’re on mute.
Did you imagine you had some kind of gotcha?
No. Why do you ask?
That's a relief. Wouldn't want you walking around thinking you'd scored.
You presumptions will be your downfall.
Pretty decent fortune cookie.
I figured it would be your slavish obsession with ENB.
Your emotional advocacy for open violations of law for immigrants is amusing Mike. They again we know you married a migrant which biases you completely.
You're confused again. We're talking about the child, not the parents. What law prohibits being born without authorization?
Confused is a step up from lying, though. Congratulations.
So are you dp saying you’re merely confused now?
Trump and his defenders despise the constitution and limited presidential powers. In other news water is still wet.
Ideas™ !
While you continue to blatantly ignore that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" *in* the Constitution.
Perhaps you need to word that "Trump and his defenders despise" P.O.S. Leftards trying to corrupt and ignore the constitution.
In what way are illegals not subject to US jurisdiction? I'm not defending birthright citizenship as the best policy here, but the plain text of the 14th seems pretty clear. Illegals are subject to arrest and imprisonment and/or deportation if they commit crimes (or are caught being illegals). They are subject to taxes, regulations, etc, etc. In what way are they not subject to US jurisdiction?
Could there be a third way? (Just throwing this out there as an off the wall idea.). The kids born here to illegal alien parents go with the parents back to their country. At the age of majority, these kids can be given a choice to a) become US full citizens following much of the same pathway as legal immigrants (ESL classes, civics classes) or b) renounce any claim to US citizenship and stay where they are.
Deporting the parents is undoubtedly constitutional, even if I think it’s poor policy.
The child is a US citizen, period and no wiggle room. The child is also under the guardianship of the parents and absent some objective reason to terminate parental rights, they are entitled take their child with them.
One would guess that most parents would do that, so most of the time, it would work out roughly the way you describe. Except that as a full-up citizen the child is strictly entitled to return at the age of majority with no conditions.
If it upsets you that there will be a citizen population that grew up outside the US, doesn’t know English, and has had no civics courses, then you can make a policy decision not to deport the parents. Decide what's more important to you within the bounds of the Constitution.
Thank you for the answer, even if you did have to be a twit in the last paragraph.
Meant it quite literally and without any snark.
“Decide what’s more important to you within the bounds of the Constitution.”
Dig a little deeper into the Civil Rights Act of 1800s from which the 14th was crafted from and it’s bloody obvious being born from parents who are under “foreign powers” (direct quote) / jurisdiction violates the *AND* part of the 14A. Even though 'invader' lobbyists keep cutting-it-out by biased-ignorance of the 14A.
It's not bloody obvious at all. In fact, much the opposite. I'm predicting an 8-1 or worse SC loss for Trump on the birthright citizenship issue, if he goes in with nothing but his Executive Order and a raw claim that he has the power to decide who's a citizen.
Even if he got Congress to pass a law backing him up - which is not likely - it would probably still go down but maybe he'd get a few more votes.
...because of Alito's 'Moral Standards'????
Or do you really think the writers of the 14A meant that any person who successfully trespasses illegally is granted national citizenship? Perhaps Russia can just 'move' into Ukraine and end the war via that BS 'trespasser' privilege.
Got any other prognostications for us?
MAGA “logic” of the day:
When Biden exceeded his authority via executive order, it was illegal and the courts shut down his student loan program program. Therefore, when Trump exceeds his authority via executive order, it is legal and has to be respected.
Via E-BHS and Dlam
Democrats exceeded their authority first. That makes it ok when Trump does it.
Basically equivalent to the Golfos shooting up a restaurant during business hours, and justifying it on the grounds that the Sinaloas did the same thing the week before. And then expecting the diners bleeding out on the floor to think the Golfos are better.
(But actually AFAIK the Golfos never stooped to such a lame argument. Violent and murderous but more intellectual integrity than the Trump defenders here.)
My morning deuce has more integrity than any Trump defender here.
Are you referring to the one in your pants after waking up from the previous night’s blackout drunk fest? Because I’ve heard that deuce, and it has almost as little integrity as you.
You need to join Sullum, asshole.
Fuck you, I never said any such stupid thing.
"Now do student loan forgiveness".
I suppose, if we were at some more civilized venue and you had a different record of posting here, I might have left open the possibility that you were sincerely eager to join in a condemnation of executive overreach regardless of which president does it, and that your remark was meant to be the first in an enlightening exchange on how the wonderful concept of limiting president authority could be extended to more areas.
But we're not and you don't so I didn't.
You failed.
Oh. Were allowed to post statements you've made in the past again Mike?
I don’t call him Mike Liarson for nothing.
""MAGA “logic” of the day:""
Why would this be MAGA logic?
You clearly understand that the logic is well represented in democrats too.
You are correct. However, in this thread it’s being deployed by MAGAs, most specifically E-BHS.
Dlam apparently did it too, but he’s denying that’s what he meant so under the incompetence vs malice rule, I’ll attribute it to him sacrificing clarity for pithiness.
It's true that (R) violations are called out more frequently, but that's because the shitposters here split roughly 60(R)-10(D). 30% reasonable people and the occasional (L) shitposter.
Difference being.
Biden ([D]-reasons) are 100% UN-Constitutional.
Trumps ([R]-reasons) are 80% Constitutional.
There is no “you can only obey your oath of office” when ‘democracy’ provides for it.
If you think Trump is violating the Constitution UR more than welcome to file with SCOTUS to that effect.
Fuck off and die, Sullum. Your one act "I'm a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit" is beyond tired.
Please, fuck off and die, asshole.
Lot of things Trump will not be able to do.
The president is of limited power by design.
Is Sullum sure he wants to go here?
"Ruling in Wong's favor, the Supreme Court held that people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when they are bound to obey its laws."
His own statement gives Trump all of the ammo he needs. "bound to obey it's laws". Illegals are NOT obeying the laws of the United States. With that being said they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction and should have no protection.
Not even Jesse level reasoning.
1. “Bound to obey” and “obey” mean different things.
2. Usual dishonest attempt to conflate parents with children.
3. Contradicts itself in the last sentence.
Keep in mind folks that the above is from the same guy who thinks turducken is GMO meat, believes water to be HO2, and follows ENB around like a lost puppy dog.
Not as-if SCOTUS has jumbled up a huge UN-Constitutional mess of a ruling ever in its past.
The writers of the 14A ***obviously*** used "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of being a 'subject' of a "foreign power" (foreigner). It's right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that is the roots of the 13A & 14A.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/civil-rights-act-of-1866/read/text-of-the-act
"That all persons born in the United States and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --------> not subject to any foreign power < ----------------------------!!!!!!!!!!!, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States"
That isn't what the 14th Amendment says.
That is the very basis of the 13A & 14A. Did you want to insert your own (instead of the very foundations) interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" with your own tailored (greedy deceitful) definition????
Why Yes; That's exactly what you want to do isn't it. Manipulate the words/meanings to your own revolutionized meaning. Just like Leftards constantly try to use the taxing clauses 'general welfare' of the Federal Government into meaning the "the people" wealth distribution instead.
That's all you Leftard hacks do... Manipulating, deceiving and destroying the USA for your [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire revolution.
Trump wants to do something unconstitutional. A Reason columnist points this out. Trumpsters lose their minds, clearly suffering from SDS.
You lot are so gutless it's pathetic. You can say, I wish it could be done but the constitution prevents it, or Trump's wrong to think he can do this, or we need a constitutional amendment, but no. It's Sullum bad, Orange King good.
Why worry about things that won’t happen?
It is not UN-Constitutional for a President to follow the US Constitution.
You leftards spin sh*t any which way you can to meet your BS.
Refusing to recognise some citizens as citizens and denying them services - like passports - provided to other citizens is unconstitutional.
As for "leftard", I am sure that based on our actual economic views, you're more leftwing than I am. But you're a Trumptard, and anyone who isn't you probably regard as a leftard. Sad,
And let me guess... Trump is "refusing to recognize some citizens as citizens and denying them services" because you bought another load of BS propaganda from some left-wing professor at a Univeristy.
Birthright citizenship (jus soli) in the US predates the 14A.
Precisely. See my comment.
Jus soli - Government determines 'Jus Soli' in two ways.
1) Unrestricted birthright citizenship
2) Restricted birthright citizenship
14A
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ***AND****** subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Looks like the US Constitution follows that #2 by its very use of *AND* instead of *OR*.
Want to try another word-game or what?
What do you think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means? If the US does not have jurisdiction over children of illegal immigrants, they could commit crimes with impunity as the US would have no jurisdiction over them!
My god you're an ignorant clown.
I think the very roots of the 14A written out in the CRA of 1866 clarifies that to a T. It means "not subject to any foreign power". Not being a subject of a foreign nation.
The amount of gullible it takes to pretend a nation cannot enforce it's criminals laws over visiting foreign citizens is laughable. All other laws like IRS tax collection aren't enforced on illegal immigrants anymore than they are on visiting foreigners.
The only clown around here pulling rabbits out of their *ss is you.
Such an Executive Order would not only certainly lose in court, it’s entirely unnecessary. If the parents are deported, then the children will naturally go with them back to whatever country they are deported to. That will not change the citizenship status of the children born in the US one bit.
Those children would become US expatriates. When they reach the age of maturity, they will have the opportunity to return to the US, should they want to. Like all US expats, they will have to pay US taxes, be subject to US laws, be potentially conscripted into US military service and jury duty, receive US retirement benefits, and be able to vote in US elections.
A US citizen is a citizen wherever they happen to be living. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect, you can never really avoid the long reach of our government unless you legally renounce your citizenship.
Being deported will be incredibly inconvenient for the parents who are here without permission, but that is the risk they took coming here illegally. We should not have to just accept the fact that they are here merely because the Biden administration decided to look the other way. They are here under false pretenses.
But by the same token, a person born here is a US citizen, and intentionally NOT giving those children legal recognition is odious, stupid, illegal, and incredibly short-sighted.
Those are FUTURE VOTERS. Treat them with respect.
Those are FUTURE VOTERS. Treat them with respect.
lol, because a country overrun with anti-American criminal aliens and the far-left wackos that empower them has a future where it votes.
Sure Dave. Sure.
DJT loses on this one. His supreme court won't go along, because it's not about their religion this time.
What the nativist bigots don't want to accept is that birthright citizenship didn't start with the 14th Amendment. It had been in English Common Law since the Middle Ages. What the 14th Amendment did was to extend birthright citizenship to anyone who wasn't White, overturning the Dred Scott decision.
Sure, Sure.. That's why the 14A wasn't written till the Civil War.
Do you think England carries supremacy law over the US Constitution?
BS Excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses ... endlessly.
Just deport the parents. The kid can stay. In an orphanage.
Or with family or friends here legally. This aint rocket surgery.
Well, no, being born within America's borders does not make a person a citizen. For that matter, being born outside our borders does not preclude citizenship. The fourteenth amendment says nothing of the sort.
"For that matter, being born outside our borders does not preclude citizenship."
It would be quite entertaining for those arguing such to demonstrate that argument on foreign territory wouldn't it.
Of course he can't. The real question is : Is he incompetent enough not to know he can't do that ? Or instead, was he just lying again to get elected like telling the desperate middle America that he was "bringing back coal" and then never bringing up or making any attempt at it during his term because he know he was lying from the start.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", Article IV S4 of the US Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land)
If 2/3 of Senate can come to the fold, then a new Treaty or modification to existing one to not grant birthright citizenship to tourists and non-permanent residents is the solution.
If 2/3 of Senate can’t come together for this then an Executive Order international agreement with home countries bearing responsibility for the criminal acts of their citizens in the USA could pass legal scrutiny. Every foreign national from a country in the agreement would be tried by their consular officials in the USA or returned home for trial with DOJ Legal Attaches to assist effective prosecution. As a provision, we would provide courtesy detention for the foreign nationals until the home country takes custody. We would ensure justice using carrot/stick incentives. Because these people would not be subject to “jurisdiction” then no birthright citizenship for their children.
We also need to reinstate Consular Notification for all non-totalitarian countries. It makes no sense that federal and local law enforcement do not have to notify Mexico or Central American consulate offices when arresting citizens of those countries.
The author inadvertently proved his claims about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is anti-factual. Taking the arguments cited in the article to their logical conclusions supports Trump's position FAR more than the "traditional" interpretation.
If illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, enough to satisfy the 14th Amendment, then why are they still here?
The whole notion of “anchor babies” is a ludicrous concept in the current age of nanny states.
The 14th Amendment was about slavery, not immigration.
precisely why ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was put into the 14A. CRA-1866 fully demonstrates that. Why else would it be there.
Slavery was part of it. It was not the sum total of it - not even close. And the word "slavery" doesn't even appear.
Passed with the 13A "involuntary servitude" ... close enough.
It occurs to me the discussion might be missing the point. What if we suppose the President-elect already knows all this … knows this approach will ultimately fail. What if direct success is not the point but that the presumed executive order and its failure would set up the achievement of some other goal? Maybe a goal not even directionally similar. What might that goal be?
Here is someone who has defied conventional wisdom not once but twice and won election to the Presidency. Certainly, in both cases, I didn’t believe he would or could win. But he did. Maybe I need to reconsider my assessment of the depth of his thinking. Maybe he isn’t plainly stupid & lucky but has another goal in mind. So of people who know far more constitutional law and immigration policy than me, what would that second or third order tactic or complete reverse be? Is there a policy which by comparison would seem innocuous or far less harmful and be accepted but if presented alone w/out this in play would be summarily rejected?
Shrug.
Politicians talk a lot of shit about changing he Constitution.
It's just that, a lot of shit talking.
Which is what happens every time Trump opens his mouth.
People hit the panic button far too easily.
Trump says he's going to take away birthright citizenship?
Trump is full of shit.
Time to move on to real worries and to stop Chiken-Little-ing.
Hey, reason: Boring!
Alito destroyed the 4A for him and his own 'moral standards'.
It really isn't that far fetched.
...however this case specifically. Trump is actually completely Constitutionally right and the precedence is entirely wrong. There is an *AND* part in the Constitution about birthright citizenship (i.e. It is restricted).
That would be relevant if what came after the "and" had not already been decided by SCOTUS. US law applies to everyone, both citizens and non-citizens, residing in the territorial boundaries of the United States, as well as a US citizen who is outside the United States. In other words, in practical terms, there is no time when a person who was born in the United States, and who has citizenship as a result, is not under the jurisdiction of the United States Code. We can split hairs, of course, but there isn't a practical difference to fret over.
Trying to believe that immigration isn't a serious problem in the USA.
...is like believing you can build a new car out of a P.O.S. just by moving one part at a time from here to there as-is.
It is wishful thinking. Immigrants mentality is the very reason their nation is a sh*t-hole. It's nobody else's fault. It's their nation and it's a sh*thole. Some parts can be salvageable but most aren't.
"Ruling in Wong's favor, the Supreme Court held that people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when they are bound to obey its laws."
This flawed reasoning will be overturned in court. The entire world is bound to obey US laws.
Also of note: there are people born after the passage of the 14th Amendment, within the borders of our country and subject to its laws, who were not US citizens.
It's a ruling is at odds with all other existing precedents. To wit, all people in the United States are bound to obey its laws, and all United States citizens abroad are bound to obey its laws. As such, there is no time that a US citizen is not obliged to obey US law. The same is true of constitutional protections. All people in the US enjoy them, and all citizens abroad still enjoy them. The ruling is splitting a hair without a practical difference.
Trump should proposed a constitutional amendment to address this flaw. This will let you know pretty quickly which Republicans are part of swamp.
And since a Constitutional Amendment is never going to happen this story is a giant clickbait grabbing nothingburger.
Somehow I don't see Roberts, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett ruling against birthright citizenship. Thomas and Alito would have no problem.
Subject to the jurisdiction is about more than simply obeying the laws of a country. It also means that the person has the right to seek the protection of that country, and receive all benefits offered to citizens of that country.
The USA has the right to negotiate and get their citizens back from other countries. They are justified in their actions to protect their citizens. There are laws that show preference for citizens over non-citizens
Illegal Aliens do not have this same protection or right. Not only are they nationals from another country, they broke our laws to get here. Any benefit accruing from that act is unjust enrichment. They only have the right to seek protection and preference from their own nation. Thus they are not citizens based on the 14th amendment. Just like Dred Scott and Roe, the Wong decision was wrong.
The question isn't about illegal aliens, but children they have while in the US. You can't assume what is being debated to win a debate.
Thus they are not citizens based on the 14th amendment and nor are their children born on US soil.