POLITICS Trump Ending Birthright Citizenship?

Commonly referred to as “anchor babies”, whereby the US conveys immediate and automatic citizenship on any baby born in the US, even by an illegal immigrant. I think it also grants immediate rights to stay / fast track to citizenship to mom and dad, too, but I’m not at all sure that I’m correct in that belief.

Rumors that Trump is preparing to sign an EO which would end this practice, and no longer provide automatic citizenship to the babies of illegal immigrants.

 

I'm not a fan of using EO.

Make congress or the states do it if that's what the people want. I don't like ruling with a pen.

 

In which case, the 2nd amendment demands that you be in a militia to own a gun if we are going to play the comma/semantics game.

This has been ruled on for a VERY long time, and the 14th amendment is pretty clear that if you are born in the USA, you are a citizen. Full stop. I am all for changing this, as I think it is a bit archaic and the purpose of that Amendment has run its course. But an EO cannot override the Constitution that the President has sworn an oath to uphold.

And the "many legal scholars agree" is no different than Butch Jones' "many coaches" crap. Trump is the Butch Jones of Presidents.

 

The part I most respect about Trump are his thorough use of citations.

 

There’s a good argument to be made that the children of illegal immigrants (or those who are just visiting but aren’t legal residents of the United States) should not automatically be granted American citizenship. But an executive order should not be used to cancel or modify an amendment. This should have to be changed via a new amendment.

People may not like the amendment or feel as though the implications reflect the original intent, but I feel like the text used in section 1 of the amendment is quite clear.

 

Also, while I see people discussing this as if it just applies to illegal immigrants, most (if not all) of what I’ve seen from Trump lately doesn’t really specify that it would just apply to those here illegally. I could definitely be missing something, though.

 

Talk of EO is all political theater, imo.

But “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was included in that amendment for a reason. Otherwise it’d just say “all people born in the US are US citizens.”

 

Yes, it excludes children of diplomats and, at the time, Indians.

 

That would keep children of diplomats from being citizens of the USA.

Illegals in the country are definitely under the jurisdiction as they can be arrested, sued, etc.

 

I’d interpret that it excludes more than the children of diplomats.

 

How would you interpret it?

 

All this theater. The previous admin would have just released a new policy directive/interpretation if it wanted to change something it didn't like.

 

Elk v. Wilkins, for instance.

Elk was born on US soil, on an Indian reservation. He later renounced his tribal allegiance and claimed US citizenship by virtue of the 14th amendment. The court ruled that, even though he was born in the United States, he was not a citizen.

The Indian Citizenship Act later addressed this, but no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed that opinion.

Senator Jacob Howard, who served on the Joint Committee that drafted the 14th Amendment said:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The language regarding "foreigners, aliens" was in addition to those who belong to families of ambassadors, in my interpretation. I don't believe it was the framers' intention to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants traveling here for the purpose of giving birth.

 

Indians were considered to be a part of a separate nation, as jurisdiction is different now, as well, on reservations.

DC attempted to point out the comments of Howard, but I noted that, in the same discussion, a senator opposing the bill correctly noted that the language would include anyone born in the US because they are, in fact, under U.S. jurisdiction once they are on our soil.

 

So a person visiting on a visa is not subject to American laws? They cannot be arrested and tried and then put into prison? The framer should have used a bit better language if that was his intent.

I will admit, I am no legal scholar, and am not up on all of the discourses about these things as they were being voted on. But I can read the Constitution as it was written, and the language seems pretty clear to me.

I would like it changed, but it does seem that it will require an Amendment.

 

Are illegal aliens not considered to be a part of a separate nation?

 

But Elk was born on Indian land. Had he been born in New York City, he would have been a US citizen.

 

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

I agree with Norris re: who is or isn't subject to jurisdiction.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

IMO, in this writing, the "foreigners, aliens" referenced are specific to those associated with "the families of ambassadors ...". Why? Because this group is not subject to our legal jusrisdiction. Illegal aliens and their children are subject to our jurisdiction.

If this is to be changed, the amendment must be changed via the process our founding fathers describe not by a Presidential decree.

 

Presidential decree isn’t changing this. I don’t think anyone really believes it will be / could be.

But it’ll be litigated by the Supreme Court. And, economically speaking, it ought to be.