Trump says he can overturn the Constitution by executive order

[Danoh]

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.
Trump's vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Trump did not say when he would sign the order, and some of his past promises to use executive action have gone unfulfilled. But whether the President follows through on his threat or not, the issue joins a string of actions intended to thrust the matter of immigration into the front of voters' minds as they head to polls next week.
Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship - CNNPolitics

Tillerson was right. Trump thinks he's Kim Jong Il.

Actually, he also asserted that it's already in the works.

Trump immigration executive order: President to terminate birthright citizenship

 

[The Barbarian]

He threatened to abridge the 2nd Amendment, too. But when the time came to do it, he choked. My guess is that he'll choke again.

His pals Kim and Putin can get away with it, but he might find it a little tough in a free country.

 

[Yarddog]

Yes, I've hear a number of apparent legal experts say that that (underlined part) does not mean what you want it to mean.

I've heard several opinions but the opinion that means most is that which was included in the 1898 case which Barbarian spoke of.

 

[Albion]

Looks like a court will have to decide, doesn't it?

And that means that its not certain whether the move is constitutional or not--very much like what happened in the case of the ban on immigration from terrorist countries that was done by EO and okayed by the court.

 

[Yarddog]

Looks like a court will have to decide, doesn't it?

Maybe. This could all be posturing by Trump. It's hard to believe that he was told he could do this through executive order.

 

[The Barbarian]

Looks like a court will have to decide, doesn't it?

It did. In 1898. As to whether or not Trump can reverse that decision, I don't think there's much hope in that approach.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe. This could all be posturing by Trump. It's hard to believe that he was told he could do this through executive order.

I'm sure by now, several of his people have sat him down and explained the Constitution and and separation of powers to him.

Not that he'll retain it very long. But I expect he'll continue to bluff about it for a while, to keep guys guys like Robert Bowers stirred up.

 

[Danoh]

I'm sure by now, several of his people have sat him down and explained the Constitution and and separation of powers to him.

Not that he'll retain it very long. But I expect he'll continue to bluff about it for a while, to keep guys guys like Robert Bowers stirred up.

Trick or treat, Barbs - from the Donald himself...

Twitter

 

[The Barbarian]

Trick or treat, Barbs - from the Donald himself...
Twitter

Trump has no idea. Jus Soli is the primary form of citizenship in Anglo-Saxon nations, although Ted Cruz got in by a secondary form, which is also well-accepted in our common law:

First, jus soli may have been the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law before the Norman conquest of 1066, but it was not the sole principle of natural born subjectship at English common law when the U.S. Constitution was adopted centuries later. As historian James Kettner put it, “English jurists had noconscious attachment to the jus soli. . . .

Ancestry could also determine who was a ‘natural-born subject.’ In fact, starting in 1350, Parliament passed statutes bestowing subject status upon the foreign-born children of English subjects, thereby invoking the other great Western natural law birthright principle, jus sanguinis—the “law of blood” or parentage. Jus sanguinis was the Roman rule of citizenship, and it was long dominant on the European continent with its shifting borders and overlapping allegiances.

But, jus sanguinis penetrated England and then Great Britain, especially in its eighteenth-century mercantilist phase, by which time Parliament had long extended “natural born” status to the foreign-born children of British subjects in government service and of British fathers generally.
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1992&context=aulr

Trump, as as Rex Tillerson observed, is a (ahem) moron.

 

[sparow]

That's what he's threatened to do.



It lists the exceptions. Being the child of an illegal alien is not one of them.



Nixon did, too. Things have consequences. Ironically, if someone did that earlier, Trump's father would have been deported.

I am not familiar with the American constitution but I believe the part being discussed is an amendment, which suggests the original was wanting. I cannot imagine an exception except the child of an illegal alien; could you list the exceptions please?

 

[The Barbarian]

I am not familiar with the American constitution but I believe the part being discussed is an amendment, which suggests the original was wanting. I cannot imagine an exception except the child of an illegal alien;

There is no exception at all, unless the child is not under United States jurisdiction. That's the law of the land, as written. Historically, long before the Norman invasion, a person born in England was considered to be an Englishman, regardless of other circumstances. Jus soli was the standard among Anglo-Saxons, just as jus sanguinus (birth to a citizen) was generally the standard elsewhere.

The 14th Amendment codified what had always been the case in common law for us.

could you list the exceptions please?

Exceptions to the General Rule

Foreign Sovereigns, Foreign Diplomats and their Families

The general rule does not apply to foreign sovereigns, accredited foreign diplomats or their families since under International law they are not subject to the law of the foreign country which has received them. Accordingly, children born in the United States to such individuals are not entitled to United States citizenship. However, these children may be eligible for lawful permanent residence. The INS position is that such a birth in the United States creates only eligibility for permanent resident status, and that such status is abandoned if the children return to their native country. Such children may apply for the creation of a record of lawful permanent residence.

Foreign sovereigns are deemed to include only heads of a foreign state on an official visit to this country; they do not include those who are not visiting this country in their official capacity as heads of their government. Accredited diplomatic officials are only those with recognized diplomatic status and immunity, and include ambassadors, envoys extraordinary ministers planipotentiary, ministers resident, commissioners, charges d'affaires, counselors, agents, secretaries of embassies and legations, attachés, and other employees attached to the staff of the embassy or legation, as well as members of the Delegation of European Communities. The term also includes persons with comparable diplomatic status and immunity who are accredited to the United Nations or to the Organization of American States, and other individuals who are accorded comparable diplomatic status.

Birth in Certain United States Possessions or Former Possessions

The general rule of jus soli is not universally applied to persons born in United States possessions or former possessions including: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Swains Island, Canal Zone, Philippine Islands, the former Trust Territories (including Micronesia, The Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Northern Marianas). Birth in these possessions or former possessions does not guarantee U.S. citizenship in all cases. However, the law regarding U.S. citizenship in this area is too complex to discuss here. Please request a formal consultation in such a case.
U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently, all children born in the US are qualified to be permanent residents, even if they are children of foreign diplomats, according to the INS.

Any other person born in the United States is a citizen at birth, according to the Constitution. And no, neither an act of Congress, nor an executive order can overrule the Constitution. The only way to end that is to amend the Constitution.

 

[sparow]

Apparently, all children born in the US are qualified to be permanent residents, even if they are children of foreign diplomats, according to the INS.

Any other person born in the United States is a citizen at birth, according to the Constitution. And no, neither an act of Congress, nor an executive order can overrule the Constitution. The only way to end that is to amend the Constitution.

I am not an American but if I were a High Court judge I would disagree with you intensely and I would say the constitution does not infer any rights to illegals; if it does the constitution needs to be changed; the exception of diplomats is in the context that they are legal residents.

In that statement or interpretation that you included it says "if the child is born in the jurisdiction of the US". A High Court Judge would consider what jurisdiction means; for example, is the child born within the confines of US law or in the confines of the US national boundary where the law operates; but always the law is implied; maybe he constitution does need to be changed or legally clarified.

Today immigration has been made a weapon of war.

 

[Danoh]

Barbs, apparantly you forgot that Trump has supporters outside the U.S. Well, apparantly one of them has just succeeded in baiting you.

Nevertheless, your above posts were not wasted. I'm more than merely a bit well aware myself of many of the facts you based your posts to said individual on, you did a good job.

Watch your back next time, baiting by such is one of Trump's chief tactics, himself.

 

[sparow]

Apparently, all children born in the US are qualified to be permanent residents, even if they are children of foreign diplomats, according to the INS.

Any other person born in the United States is a citizen at birth, according to the Constitution. And no, neither an act of Congress, nor an executive order can overrule the Constitution. The only way to end that is to amend the Constitution.

I come from a position of not knowing what the constitution says; but even so constitutions are always subject to interpretation; you offer one interpretation which seems to be common and suits globalism, but I think Trump should test it and or change it if necessary.

 

[The Barbarian]

I come from a position of not knowing what the constitution says; but even so constitutions are always subject to interpretation;

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that it means exactly what it says. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States, born in the United States, is an American citizen. (basically, it excludes diplomats here on assignment). It's just a confirmation of what has been in English and American common law for hundreds of years.

you offer one interpretation which seems to be common

Since that's what it says, and since the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out in decisions that is what it says, there's a good reason people accept the fact.

and suits globalism

Who would have guessed that the 1898 Supreme Court justices were "globalists?" That's pretty funny, even without the Trump stuff.

but I think Trump should test it and or change it if necessary.

Here's how that works....
Constitutional Amendment Process
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Good luck on that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbs, apparantly you forgot that Trump has supporters outside the U.S. Well, apparantly one of them has just succeeded in baiting you.

He's been very useful in dissecting the issue. There are a lot of people in America who don't know how that works, too. A useful jester, um?

Let's look at another one...

I am not an American but if I were a High Court judge I would disagree with you intensely and I would say the constitution does not infer any rights to illegals;

You got that one wrong, as well. Illegal immigrants have all the rights of American citizens other than those that accrue to them as citizens. That is, voting,and a few other things.

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?
Politics Jun 25, 2018 5:08 PM EDT
On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented immigrants should be immediately returned “from where they came” with “no Judges or Court Cases.”

This, along with the administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy and the recent spike in family separations at the border — a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order — has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.

What rights do undocumented immigrants have to a court hearing, to an attorney or to free speech? What rights do their children have to education?

To answer those questions, we must start with a more basic question–does the U.S. Constitution apply to undocumented immigrants?

“Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”

Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.

As a result, many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and non-citizens. How those rights play out in practice is more complex.

Right to due process
The right to legal counsel
The right to be with your family
The right to education
Right against unreasonable search and seizure
What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

These all have a great deal of Supreme Court decisions to support them. What constitutes "due process" is a little different for non-citizens, but it must meet the standard in the Constitution.

Of course, no non-citizen has a right to vote. But it wasn't until 1926 that all states limited voting to citizens.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections, but a recent federal law does.

Thanks for asking.

 

[sparow]

He's been very useful in dissecting the issue. There are a lot of people in America who don't know how that works, too. A useful jester, um?

Let's look at another one...



You got that one wrong, as well. Illegal immigrants have all the rights of American citizens other than those that accrue to them as citizens. That is, voting,and a few other things.

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?
Politics Jun 25, 2018 5:08 PM EDT
On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented immigrants should be immediately returned “from where they came” with “no Judges or Court Cases.”

This, along with the administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy and the recent spike in family separations at the border — a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order — has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.

What rights do undocumented immigrants have to a court hearing, to an attorney or to free speech? What rights do their children have to education?

To answer those questions, we must start with a more basic question–does the U.S. Constitution apply to undocumented immigrants?

“Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”

Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.

As a result, many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and non-citizens. How those rights play out in practice is more complex.

Right to due process
The right to legal counsel
The right to be with your family
The right to education
Right against unreasonable search and seizure
What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

These all have a great deal of Supreme Court decisions to support them. What constitutes "due process" is a little different for non-citizens, but it must meet the standard in the Constitution.

Of course, no non-citizen has a right to vote. But it wasn't until 1926 that all states limited voting to citizens.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections, but a recent federal law does.

Thanks for asking.

Very interesting, but there is an inconsistency between what you are saying and what is happening. For example a woman can jump over the border with Mexico, have a baby which is an American citizen; a woman entering through an international airport will be asked if she is coming to have a baby and if she says yes her visa is cancelled and she cannot enter; another woman whose visa has expired will be hunted down, put in jail, and deported.

The issue is not as black and white as you suggest, else the controversy would not continue.

The Law of God never changes, but the law of man does and indeed would need to. the constitution is temporal and need to evolve with time.

The real issue is sovereignty verses globalism; Trump is a nationalist and the Democrats in particular, are globalists and all the arguments are meat in the sandwich.

 

[The Barbarian]

Very interesting,

Ah, Arte Johnson....

Loved that one.

but there is an inconsistency between what you are saying and what is happening. For example a woman can jump over the border with Mexico, have a baby which is an American citizen; a woman entering through an international airport will be asked if she is coming to have a baby and if she says yes her visa is cancelled and she cannot enter; another woman whose visa has expired will be hunted down, put in jail, and deported.

Yep.

The issue is not as black and white as you suggest,

Supreme court says it is. And that's what counts.

The Law of God never changes,

James Madison wasn't God. Sorry.

 

[sparow]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that it means exactly what it says. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States, born in the United States, is an American citizen. (basically, it excludes diplomats here on assignment). It's just a confirmation of what has been in English and American common law for hundreds of years.



Since that's what it says, and since the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out in decisions that is what it says, there's a good reason people accept the fact.



Who would have guessed that the 1898 Supreme Court justices were "globalists?" That's pretty funny, even without the Trump stuff.



Here's how that works....
Constitutional Amendment Process
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Good luck on that.

Globalism is a relatively new word and Jaron; did exist in 2000; a similar term is "new world order"; "world order" was spoken of and planned beyond 1844. In 1848 Karl Marx says the communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

I have no idea about what the Supreme Court justices 1898, would have thought about world rule; Marx refers to "useful idiots", who would be Professors, politicians and presumably Supreme Court Judges etc., not necessarily knowing how they were being used; although the conspiracy is called "open conspiracy". Take the Supreme Court Building, over it's entrance is a large triangle, in fact most court houses and public buildings of that era have that triangle symbol over their door, around most of the world, especially English speaking countries and Europe ; the White House has it; Buckingham Palace has three across it's front and they are found in the Vatican. Presumably this is the same building in 1898; so what does this symbol mean? Simplistically it means temple, the earliest example that I am aware of is at Petra.

I haven't determined if Trump is a good guy or not; if he fails it could assist the enemy greatly.