Trump EO eliminates Birthright Citizenship; 18 states and civil rights organizations sue to stop implementation, pointing to the 14th Amendment

[Bradskii]

The baby born in the US is still a US citizen, mother's visa notwithstanding.
Instead of Russia, look the Chinese.

My rather tongue in cheek point was that the mother wouldn't get a visa to get to the country to have the baby. And hey, the rain has stopped so you go check the same details for China.

But as per another thread, the US gives nearly 3/4 million student visas to the Chinese each year. Assuming half are female then maybe they could all get pregnant. Go research that and let me know. I've got wood to stack.

 

[QvQ]

so you go check the same details for China.

Chinese Birth Tourism is an industry, well documented.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yeah, I know you probably weren't serious, but I'm waiting for the rain to stop to clear some wood in the garden, so I had a few minutes to spare.

Off topic, but when it rains in OZ, does it fall up?

 

[durangodawood]

It will be intesting what the Court decides.
However, a Constitutional Amendment is the second and most lilkely option
People have been concerned about this issue for some time. Citizenship is a fuzzy concept in the US. That needs clarification.

Precedent is already entirely against this exec order. The order is a flat out violation of the constitution.

I think theres a good argument for an amendment. But if we can just flat out violate the constitution like this, then the next admin may as well just order all your gun be taken away

 

[BCP1928]

Who pays for the pregnancy clinic

The women did, but now that there is a maternity clinic in Puerto Palomas they stay there because good medical care is much cheaper in Mexico.

and the schools?

The people of Luna county don't seem to mind. Why should you?

This is a mess and hopefully it will get straightened out.

Trump has taken the first steps to clarifying this issue.
Right now for a few billion dollars, the Russians could fly every pregnant Russian into the US, have a US duel citizenship baby who could vote in 18 years. This is a mess.
IT is unfair, even to the siblings of those American born childen who can't go to school on the American side every morning.
Look at the larger picture.
I live on the border btw

How is it unfair? They can go to school in Mexico.

 

[QvQ]

I think theres a good argument for an amendment. But if we can just flat out violate the constitution like this, then the next admin may as well just order all your gun be taken away

There are many laws and executive orders passed to take guns away or restrict ownership.
All of those laws are subject to Supreme Court reveiw
All Executive and Legislative actions are subject to review by the Supreme Court

There is the naturalization clause in the Constitution Article 1, Secton 8, Clause 4, whereby Congress has the sole power over naturalizaon, which means Congress has the sole power to determine who may become a citizen and the process of obtaining citizenship.
That is limited by the 14th amendment so this should be interesting

In any case, it is very likely that birthright citizenship is going to end. IT is time as the entire issue is a mess.

 

[JSRG]

The baby born in the US is still a US citizen, mother's visa notwithstanding.
Instead of Russia, look the Chinese.

Yes, one interesting fact I discovered doing research on this topic was Congress changed the citizenship status of the Indians.
That means that Congress can use legislative instruments to define citizenship
May not even need a Constitutional Amendment.

Congress can't repeal a constitutional amendment by itself. In the case of the Native Americans, all they did was make citizens that weren't already made by the Constitution.

The Constitution declares "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Setting aside for the moment the proper interpretation of this, this cannot be revoked without a change to the Constitution itself. Congress cannot limit this by law.

Congress can, however, expand upon it. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing at all about people born outside of the United States, but congress has by law made it so children of US citizens born outside of the US are citizens. And Congress has also made it so Native Americans gain automatic citizenship upon birth. Congress can expand birthright citizenship beyond what is required by the Fourteenth Amendment, but they cannot reduce what the Fourteenth Amendment requires.

And Subject to the Jurisdiction in the case of American Indians was not whether they could be arrested for crimes on or off the reservation but whether they were or could be made to pay taxes.

No, whether they could be arrested for crimes on the reservation was part of subject to the jurisdiction. Them being arrested for crimes committed to another on the reservation was actually explicitly mentioned in the ratification debate. Indeed, it was noted as an example of how Indians on reservations weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States:

"If they [Native Americans] are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Would the Senator from Wisconsin think for a moment of bringing a bill into Congress to subject these wild Indians with whom we have no treaty to the laws and regulations of civilized life? Would he think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." -Senator Trumbull

Things get somewhat more confusing given that several decades later the United States did decide to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies (as well as rape and arson) committed by one Indian upon another on a reservation in the Major Crimes Act. The Supreme Court did uphold that law as within congress's power, though there has been considerable criticism of that decision in subsequent legal circles. This does bring up the question of whether this law did make the Indians subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore eligible for birthright citizenship... though the Indian Citizenship Act nowadays makes that moot.

Still, the issue of whether they could be arrested for crimes on the reservation was explicitly discussed in regards to the amendment. It wasn't just a matter of taxes.

 

[BCP1928]

And one of those kids could be sitting behind the Resolute Desk one day. Que bueno.

Right. Puerto Palomas is a cute bustling little town. We used to drive down there every so often and walk across the border to have lunch and do some shopping. The main street of the down is solid with doctors and dentists catering to US citizens, The main street of Columbus, on the other hand, is a dump. Villa's men burned most of it in 1916 and it hasn't changed since.

 

[QvQ]

Congress can, however, expand upon it. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing at all about people born outside of the United States, but congress has by law made it so children of US citizens born outside of the US are citizens. And Congress has also made it so Native Americans gain automatic citizenship upon birth. Congress can expand birthright citizenship beyond what is required by the Fourteenth Amendment, but they cannot reduce what the Fourteenth Amendment requires.

That is the question
The naturalization clause in the Constitution give Congress certain powers
Can Congress simply pass a law clarifying this muddle
But then
It may require a law or it may take an amendment.
It could even be the President has the power
That is entirely up to the Courts

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is the deal if they have been productive members of soceity and are willing to presue a path to citizenship it is notworth the time,, money OR damage to the economy to deport them.

Yes, you have stated that numerous times.

We disagree

Your fictional example does not circumvent law.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Actually, as the 14th amendment precludes that pretty sure that such an EO would not be enforceable.

Trump is out of is mind and his is just the beginning.,

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is the question
The naturalization clause in the Constitution give Congress certain powers
Can Congress simply pass a law clarifying this muddle
But then
It may require a law or it may take an amendment.
It could even be the President has the power
That is entirely up to the Courts

There is no "muddle". Not subject to the jurisdiction of the US meant at the time of ratification foreign diplomats (see diplomatic immunity) and "untaxed Indians" (ie. Native Americans living on reservations or outside treaty boundaries who were not considered US citizens in the first place. (Let us recall, that the apportionment clause counts all persons, except "untaxed Indians" and only 3/5ths of persons held in bondage. It's the same kind of reference.) What Congress has subsequently done is to grant automatic US citizenship to citizens of the Indian nations.

 

[Arcangl86]

Okay…let’s move this discussion along:

Let’s say Juan and Maria come to our shores legally, (they’ve waited for their turn and move close by their citizen/sponsors in, say, Dubuque Iowa.
Three years into their residency their get their “green cards”, and Maria becomes pregnant and out pops Juan Jr; is Juan Jr a citizen of our nation?

With the disclaimer that I'm discussing what this EO purports to do, yes as long as they have both gotten their green cards. But if Maria was still waiting to make that status Juan Jr wouldn't be a citizen. A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to miss that the order applies to most legally present aliens as well as those unauthorized.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Anytime a Foreign National is in another country, that person is subject to the Authority of that Country.
The Foreign National is under the Jurisdiction of the his own nation's embassy.
IF a foreign national is touristing in another country and his nation's embassy issues evacuation order, that national must obey.

The US has the Authority to arrest, detain and deport foreign nationals.
The US does not have Jurisdiction over a foreign national.

Big difference between internationally recognized "Authority" and "Jurisdiction"

wut?

None of that is true. You can go visit a foreign country and get arrested. People visit the US and get arrested. This happens all the time. That's how Brittney Griner got arrested in Russia. It's how Michael Fay got caned in Singapore. The federal government sentences thousands of non-citizens a year on other-than-immigration crimes.

What you're describing applies to a very small subset of foreign nationals, like diplomats, who are exempt from prosecution. That's why Russia and Iran can incarcerate tourists for spying, but not actual CIA operatives working through an embassy under the banner of the State Department. It's also why we can lock up foreign drug dealers, but not Erdogan's goons who beat up protestors in DC.

 

[Bradskii]

Off topic, but when it rains in OZ, does it fall up?

From your perspective...yeah.

 

[Bradskii]

Right. Puerto Palomas is a cute bustling little town. We used to drive down there every so often and walk across the border to have lunch and do some shopping. The main street of the down is solid with doctors and dentists catering to US citizens, The main street of Columbus, on the other hand, is a dump. Villa's men burned most of it in 1916 and it hasn't changed since.

Been to nearby Las Cruces. I wanted to drive down to El Paso after that but my other half had read that it had some problems, so...we headed off east via White Sands. Caught a missile test as well. Well, sonic boom and a chem trail was all. I asked a local cop who was there if we might see an actual missile. He said 'Yeah, you might. But only if something goes very seriously wrong...'

 

[rjs330]

I thinkbthere is a case to be made that if parents are here illegally and citizens of another country that the child shouldn't be a US citizen by virtue of being born here. The 14th Ammendment was created because slaves had no citizenship and the their children could be be refused citizenship making them children without a state. They would have no citizen rights anywhere. It was created to give them the right of citizenship. If one looks at the reasons for the Ammendment it's application for the time I think there's an argument to be made against illegals coming to give their babies citizenship.

But I'm no scholar and this EO was written fir the purpose of letting the supreme court take a look at it and make a ruling on it.

I actually don't think they will rule against any baby born here getting citizenship.

 

[BCP1928]

Been to nearby Las Cruces. I wanted to drive down to El Paso after that but my other half had read that it had some problems, so...we headed off east via White Sands. Caught a missile test as well. Well, sonic boom and a chem trail was all. I asked a local cop who was there if we might see an actual missile. He said 'Yeah, you might. But only if something goes very seriously wrong...'

We lived in Las Cruces for several years during Trump I while my wife was a late blooming grad student at NMSU. The biggest issue we had with El Paso was that it was always such a traffic jam. Every morning 10,000 people drive or bus across the border--Mexican Nationals and US citizens who live in Ciudad Juarez and work in El Paso and Mexican Nationals and US Citizens who live in El Paso and work in Ciudad Juarez. Every evening they go back the other way. Yes, there are problems--you just watch yourself, like any big city these days.

 

[Zaha Torte]

States, civil rights groups sue to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order​

Constitutional scholars said the president’s executive order would upend precedent and is unlikely to pass legal muster.

Birthright citizenship was established by the 14th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1868, which includes a clause reading: “All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

A coalition of 18 states, including New Jersey and New York, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts, saying the order violates the constitutional rights of thousands of children and imposes undue costs on local jurisdictions that would lose federal funding tied to Medicaid and children’s health insurance.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Lawyers for Civil Rights filed separate legal challenges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, respectively, on behalf of parents whose children would not be eligible for citizenship under Trump’s order.

The plan also faces significant logistical hurdles [in addition to constitutional ones]. The administration plans to enforce Trump’s order by withholding documents, such as passports, from people it deems ineligible for citizenship. But the administration hasn’t yet explained who — hospitals, health insurance companies, local or state governments, federal officials or some other authority — would review parents’ legal documents to assess whether their children could become citizens.

As a former CBP Officer - this change needs to be implemented.

 

[Pommer]

Off topic, but when it rains in OZ, does it fall up?

Duh, that’s why it’s mainly desert!