Topic: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship - page 3. (Read 1187 times)

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are c

itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

From reddit:.....
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.....

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

From reddit:

....
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant.  Get this through your thick skull.

O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?

Let's break this down into a couple of questions, because context is king:

**What's the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway?**

Basically, the rule is that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment states it pretty clearly. It begins:

>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.

If you're born in the USA, you have what's known as [*jus soli*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) citizenship: citizenship by place of birth, as opposed to [*jus sanguinis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) citizenship, which comes from blood (that is to say, from your parents' citizenship). (There are *some* exceptions to this, like for example the children of diplomats who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', but these are rare. Generally speaking, if you pop a sprog between Canada and Mexico, that kid has US citizenship by birthright.) This has been considered pretty much a settled question in jurisprudence ever since about 1898, in [*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark).

**Why's everyone talking about this now?**

Trump noted [in an interview](https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html) that he wants to prevent the children of people who aren't US citizens who are born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens themselves.

>* "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

>* When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

>* "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

>* "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

**Is that right?**

Not even close.

The problem, at least as far as Trump is concerned, is that he can't actually do that. Changing a constitutional amendment is *hard*. He's *claimed* it just requires an executive order, but you can't overturn the Constitution by executive order and so he's shit out of luck. (If you don't believe me, you can at least believe [Paul Ryan](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-trump-paul-ryan/index.html), or any of [these eleven legal experts](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts). If you think this is a bad idea, I'd urge you to consider how you'd feel if a given President felt he could overturn the First, Second or Fifth Amendments with a single, unregulated stroke of the pen, and then get back to me. Hell, what if a President felt that he could overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment and do away with presidential term limits entirely?) It's also important to note Trump's sneaky little lie:

>We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits

Yes, it is true that the USA is the only country in the world where a person is (not essentially but *actually and completely*) a citizen of the United States, but only because it'd be pretty strange if it were the case that being born in France, Rwanda or Equatorial Guinea could grant you US citizenship. About thirty countries, including Brazil and Canada, also have unrestricted *jus soli* citizenship. The USA is rare, perhaps, but by no means unique in that regard.

This also butts heads with another weird little quirk of US citizenship: if you're a US citizen, by *jus soli* or *jus sanguinis*, [you have to pay taxes to the US *even if you're not in the country*.](http://time.com/money/4298634/expat-expatriate-taxes-us-myths/) There's only one other country that taxes non-resident citizens in this way (and it's Eritrea, so if you guessed that ahead of time I'm very impressed). This has led to the situation where people who were born in the USA to foreign parents -- say, an early birth while on holiday -- are citizens of and must legally pay taxes to a country that they haven't been to since (and [also register for the draft](https://www.americansabroad.org/requirements-of-us-citizenship/)).

**Who told him he could do it?**

In the interview, Trump said, 'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.' Who are *they*?

Well, no one knows as yet. The person to look out for is probably Trump's immigration *doyen* (read into that what you will), [Stephen Miller](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/stephen-miller-family-separation/563132/). Most of the big Trump immigration policies have come via Miller's office, including the Muslim travel ban(s), the separation of children from their parents at the border, discontinuation of funding to 'sanctuary cities', and The Wall™. *Politico* has noted that this is an idea that Miller has been [involved with previously in the Trump Administration](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-949660), so several news outlets are suggesting his potential involvement. (This may become very interesting in the coming days, if the rumoured Trump post-election shakeup happens; if Miller *has* had a lot of influence on this policy decision, his continuance as one of the most prominent faces in the Trump White House may wax or wane depending on the result of the midterms.)

**So what's the big deal?**

I know, I know... at this point, 'Trump says he's going to do something he can't legally do' is a bit of a [dog-bites-man news story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism\)), but this is coming only a week out from an extremely important mid-term election in which the Republicans are expected to lose the House (unlikely also the Senate, but the odds of that are still higher than people were giving Trump of winning in 2016, so who even knows at this point?). Tough talk on migrants riles up the Republican base, and Trump needs that turnout to have any chance of legislative victories in the two remaining years of his term.

This dovetails nicely with the migrant caravan that is currently moving through Mexico and heading towards the United States. Trump and other Republican higher-ups are using the opportunity to stoke fear into the hearts of voters, claiming -- incorrectly -- [that this is an invasion](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056919064906469376) (hyperbole), [that Democrats want an open border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054354059535269888), [that there are gang members and Middle-Easterners using the caravan to sneak across the border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054351078328885248) (no evidence), and that people crossing in the caravan are doing so illegally. It's the last that's the most insidious, especially given that [he tried to pull the same shit when it came to the child detention debacle earlier this year](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8s3bfa/what_is_the_deal_with_the_kids_in_concentration/e0we6r5/); in short, the caravan are not behaving illegally *yet*. The expectation is that when they arrive in the USA, the vast majority of them will claim asylum from the dangerous conditions in their home countries, which is a right granted by the USA to anyone on the planet.

This push for fear with regards to the caravan is pretty much everywhere because it works to get Republican-leaning individuals incensed enough to take the time out of their days to head to the polls. (Voter engagement is expected to be one of the Democrats' biggest advantages in the midterms, which are not traditionally considered a particularly sexy election cycle.) However, notable breaks from the President's rhetoric include Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who said on Monday:

>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election — which is what all of this is about.

There is likely no better summation of the context of the story than that.

.....the wall that he hasn't built a single foot of yet nor is Mexico ever paying for it LOL nor is congress ever going to fund it LOL.

You are confused.  You are conflating the taxation system with the immigration system.

There is only legal immigration.  If you move and live in the country illegally, you are an outlaw.  Nothing to do with immigration.

Calling people who break the law immigrants you are insulting the real immigrants.

You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant.  Get this through your thick skull.

O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?

I'm very familiar with the immigration process as well as the dictionary. Immigrant is a person who moves to another country. A driver is a driver even if they're drunk and operate a vehicle illegally. BTW there was no "legal" or "illegal" immigration at the time when the 14th amendment was passed so this is particularly meaningless in the context.

Also "alien" doesn't mean "people who visit the country" like you were trying to imply, there is such a thing as a resident alien. You can use any cockamamie definitions you want, just cut this liberal snowflake pussy hat bullshit when someone uses the non-PC words you don't like (I'm kinda enjoying this, I might be a closet Republican).

This is very problematic because there are millions of Americans who will have no way to prove their parents citizenship.  It seems like it opens the door for people to be excommunicated for political reasons.

Nope.  Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions.

You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process.  Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant.  You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.

Easy just like the rest of the world...the nationality of your parents. That's how it works here in Europe...eeeexcept for France and they are happy about it Check those places called 'banlieues'.

I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent.

My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.

The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.

I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent.

My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.

The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.

Any child born in the US is a US citizen by the 14th amendment, neither parent even has to be a citizen... an executive order by Trump cannot change a constitutional amendment

Even if only 1 parent is a citizen and the baby is born in a foreign country, the baby is a US citizen, so long as the parent was physically present in the US or a US territory within the last 5 years

If you want to read more, feel free, here is a link:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html

I'm curious on your position on this situation tbh.  Would you consider the baby to be an American citizen if birth right citizenship was revoked?

Sounds like a pretty unique circumstance that could be interpreted by the courts if they were to go back to the original definition, or at least the definition that the author was trying to get across, as was stated before!

Good question though.

So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?