Birthright citizenship: bravo to President Trump!
Donald J. Trump now proposes to end birthright citizenship by executive order. He is well within his authority and must act to settle this once and for all.
Comments?
Comments?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The "loophole" the President is leaning on is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Some legal scholars point to that as relying on potential changes to immigration law. However, laws can't be imposed by executive order, as other presidents have discovered. Immigration law is the responsibility of Congress, and Senator Graham has stated he plans to introduce a law that "clarifies" the birthright citizenship issue to apply only to the offspring of legal immigrants.
To me the issue of the child's citizenship matters less than what happens as a result, which is unfettered chain migration well beyond immediate family. If Congress changes the immigration laws to restrict the chain to immediate family only, then the issue becomes less important.
While they're at it, Congress should restore the guest worker program, institute mandatory E-Verify, and tighten the vetting screws on the lottery immigrant system. There are probably a few more "tuning" changes to the immigration system that need to be done, but those I cited are a good start.
As for the wall, I have a proposal: Because some areas of the border have unique ecosystems that could be damaged by a non-stop wall. Deploy these systems with human detectors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyL... at the locations where a wall might cause problems.
The whole problem with citizenship concerns is the belief that the government must take care of the child from birth to death, caring for health, education, employment, protection, and everything else about its life. That is the only fear that causes concern about non citizens' children being citizens.
Forget the automatic citizenship thing totally. If you want to vote, you need to have some desire to be responsible with that vote.
Of course, Heinlein also figured the only way that could come about, would be after a total social collapse--in which the veterans would take over, set up vigilance committees, and allow no one to serve on those committees who hadn't served with them.
You would have to increase the size of the FBI greatly background check every 18 year old to find out whether they have all the attributes that you believe necessary for citizenship. Would have to be like the sign up for the draft at 18. Fill out a card and send it in, else, as a male, never get a job again for not sighing up.
An individual vote is meaningless unless the vote for or against is within one vote. So the fear must be that some person might vote whom you do not like. For some reason, it seems that those members of some group with certain ideas would like to vote themselves some goodies to be feared by other groups. The USA is not a democracy, so stop trying to get favors, goodies, and power over those you do not like. Laws can take care of the uncivil who use force against others. When did your vote ever determine anything other than the good feeling of "I have voted, so I am therefore good."
There is not tipping point leading to an Atlas Shrugged disaster. Some of those in the Gulch seem to believe that the USA is balanced on a precipice where a little unbalance will send it into an Atlas Shrugged world. Just read Atlas Shrugged for the philosophical ideas and stop getting alienated by trying to emulate, and failing to do so, the heroes of the novel. Being lost in a novel will reap only bitter fruit.
The whole idea of living in a neighborhood or a country is that you are surrounded by people who think like you do. It’s like living in a large gated HOA with certain agreed on rules
For that to be meaningful, you need borders and agreed on rules (values).
You can want no borders and unfettered immigration of people of different cultures if it makes you feel good. I just don’t want to live in such a place
In case you haven’t noticed, AS May have been written as a novel, buts turned more into a dicumejtary
For those who live by me, I want anyone who keeps his ways of pleasuring himself, physically including his music, partying, and arguing and fighting , on his own property.
All the HOAs that I am familiar with were done by developers. There are associations which are ways to get money from property owners for some community projects such as roads or water and sewer. Why be limited to a set of rules on how your property can be used, how you can paint your house, what roofing it must have, how often to mow your lawn, what landscaping you can have, when you are free to come and go through the gate, etc. Why would you want to live in a situation where you can be voted into selling your property requiring moving somewhere else. The HOA security officers will have to keep close tabs on you. If there is trouble with the current laws, what is the chance that they can be repealed and that more comfortable laws will spring into existence?
There are two main ways to become under the command of a dictatorship: Divide and conquer with being in the wrong division, and unite and rule. There can be also the one from Atlas Shrugged of 'sanction of the victim' where one's thoughts can end in being leashed to society in a subservient way.
Why limit yourself to those who think like you? Kind of a limited way to live.
Nowhere have I Indicated not wanting any borders. A border is nothing but a set of laws which one has to obey within that geographic area to which the laws apply. Law requires some agent of force to administer it, private government or some other form like the US government. One is stuck with laws which may even be inhuman such as in North Korea or to a somewhat lesser extent in china where a small amount of Capitalism has freed the lives of some of the people a little.
The laws of the government controlled areas must be obeyed within the area after crossing the border. Immigration laws applicable to those who cross the border may or may not be applied. Laws of citizenship and permission to vote can be made to control those who cross without permission and want to stay. There is a large range, from death to welcoming anyone, in border laws. Those of the USA are fairly lax, with birthright citizenship and very inclusive to citizenship of children born out of the country to citizens of the USA.
Do birthright children, say from Mexico, have dual citizenship with Mexico or do children of USA citizens have dual citizenship with the country in which they are born? I would like it to be that citizenship depends upon the country in which one lives though law would visa or passport would be needed to return to one's other country. That implies that one is not free to travel without government permission. Within a country various subsets of laws are usually relax enough for travel without specific permission from the laws, though the laws of the country must give permission or not legislate in any way about travel freedom.
I would say that anyone living under the laws of a country is a citizen of that country. Whether one will be permitted to vote will depend upon certain conditions of the life of the citizen, such as, ability to provide for oneself or be provided for by private charity, not being a criminal or violating non criminal law, etc., depending upon the laws. Whether the laws are rational or not is another matter. I would say that it is not too strict to require that a visa be required and then working to be a voting citizen. That may even leave out the majority of citizens. Citizenship does not necessarily imply permission to vote for representatives for the constitutional republic, the
USA.
If a mob of people want to come on my property, they need to get my approval BEFORE they are allowed in ( the way we protect ourselves from thieves and murderers).
If there is a group of people who get together and agree to put a wall around their respective houses, I propose that to enter the group compound, you need to get the approval of the inhabitants who put the wall up and own the properties.
If people use violence to just enter my property, I can tell you what will happen to them, and they most likely will never do that again.
I said nothing about freedom of speech, so I dont know why you are bringing that issue up. I am talking about physically occupying my property.
How about lame coot.
I do not see Trump as a conservative but certainly do not see him a fool. I suspect this is his way of getting Congress to talk about the issue and to force them to get off their asses on this subject.
Sometimes when you just don't know what's Constitutional or not, because courts haven't decided, you just do it and let someone sue you. Then and only then will the courts even have something to decide.
This is one of those times.
Even so, a law, any law, requires Congress to alter, append or repeal. There is a process in place and it was put in place for reason (checks and balances)
I will never support the violation of the Constitution or a POTUS's attempt to violate his oath of office. Again, I do think this was to get people talking and congress acting.
When I said cite the case on point, I mean there is no case on point. Donald Trump has no way of knowing whether his act is constitutional or not, until he tries it. The only time you'd have an argument would be if Trump actually flew in the face of a case on point.
In any event, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is working on an act of Congress that would back Trump up completely.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/585600424...
You may want to look into who I am and what I've done before you chastise me. I have a long and and public history here and elsewhere that you can verify, if you look.
Now me dino thinks of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPeP...
Not that I think Arnold is an anchor baby who can exploit his citizenship here later on. Me dino read long time ago that he came over the correct way as an adult..
As for The Evil Dead, it was scary the first time I saw it. Now I laugh at it. Watched more Hannity than Carslon for some reason. Harrumph!
It is not saying "Illegal aliens".
Big difference.
Article I of the Constitution discusses the enumerated powers of Congress, among which are the express control of immigration and naturalization. ANY executive branch position which attempts to usurp or override this needs to be smacked down hard and I think this alone was grounds for impeachment of President Obama.
Here's why: if the Supreme Court limits the powers of the Presidency and Executive Actions by declaring Trump's well-meaning but unConstitutional action void, it also by the same ruling nullifies DACA and implicates the Democratic Party's open-borders policies as being anti-American. It also puts the onus back on Congress to make the necessary changes to our immigration laws and policies via the proper/Constitutional channels. To me, it's a lose-win-win scenario.
Just as Obama was violating the Constitution to impose DACA on the United States via Executive Order, it would be just as unConstitutional for President Trump to unilaterally declare immigration policy - even if that policy is well-intended. The better policy is for the Legislative Branch to do its job and pass immigration reform (and I believe that several Republicans have offered legislative answers).
1) Revise the 12th Amendment and eliminate party-line balloting for President and Vice President. Return the Vice President vote to be the runner-up in the election for President. This should encourage third parties. Just as competition is good in the marketplace, I think competition is good in politics. I would love to see a real Libertarian Party, a real Consitution Party, a real Green Party, a real Blue Dog Democrat Party because I think that in and of itself would reduce the logjams. I think this would also put some teeth back into Impeachment threats of Executive players.
2) Repeal the 17th Amendment and return to having State Legislatures appoint Senators.
3) Increase the size of the House of Representatives dramatically. Currently, there is one vote for about every 1 million citizens. This ratio is WAY too uneven. I'd like to see the House revised to represent no more than 200,000 citizens per district. This would do much to combat gerrymandering and reduce the effectiveness of outside influence/money in House elections.
4) Pass a campaign finance reform package stating that unless you are a member of that particular voting district, you are barred from donating money to a candidate running for office in that district. Representative government only works when those elected actually represent the interests of that locality - not special interest groups across the country. PAC's are similarly restricted: only members (and their monies) residing in a locality are allowed to air ads or participate in political activities.
5) Restrict Cabinet positions to State (foreign diplomatic/intelligence gathering efforts/military), Treasury (taxation and spending), and Interior (FBI, national guard, parks, etc.). All others are disbanded immediately.
#1- That would mean Hillary would be VP. Talk about hatred and obstruction !!! Trump would give her nothing to do, and she would constantly campaign against Trump. If we are going to have a president, let him do his job, I thinnk.
#3. Actually, I think you'd see the election costs drop sharply - especially if Senate elections were by State Legislatures. Why are they willing to throw so much money at a single position? Because of the concentration of power. Dilute that power and you remove the incentive by diffusing the power base.
#2. Because of the 17th Amendment, both Senators and Congresspeople are popularly elected, meaning that they are subject to mob rule. This has also largely eroded State sovereignty because now there is no one in the Federal Government looking out for the individual interests of the States. There is no better way to reign in the Federal Government than to have the Senate returned to the hands of the States.
#1. Any Executive Branch position can be Impeached. The primary benefit is to give third party candidates a legitimate shot at a position of power. How much of the rhetoric during the last election was all partisan? How many times did you see the "a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary" and vice-versa. Let's allow people to actually vote for who they want - not just vote against who they don't want.
Furthermore, it makes the threat of Impeachment actually carry some weight. Currently, power doesn't change hands. That was the Republicans primary excuse for not impeaching Obama - that Joe Biden would then become President.
What powers exactly does the Vice President have? The main one is to preside over the Senate and break ties. But you can't think about past elections in terms of what happened, because this would only affect new elections in the future.
"If we are going to have a president, let him do his job, I thinnk."
The primary duty of the President is to protect the nation against all enemies - foreign and domestic. THAT is the President's job, NOT legislating with a "pen and a phone". We need to get people OUT of the habit of treating the President like a king or emperor. Once the Executive is pared back, who gets in there becomes less of an issue.
#3. Good point but my response to #3 would work better I think
Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy
On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with
Not disputing this, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We can't limit the government without getting the right people in there in the first place - people who actually represent their districts and not those halfway (or more) across the country. While I would love to have an Article Five Convention of States, that solution seems stalled.
"Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy"
Assuredly. But if you start limiting what the President is able to do by EO, not only do we start back on the road toward the Founders' notion of the Executive but the bureaucracies then lean toward being extensions of legislative will rather than political tools of the Executive. I don't deny that there are far too many bureaucracies, but I view an imperial executive such as that envisioned by Woodrow Wilson to be a greater threat to our sovereignty. Case in point: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
"On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with"
I don't think they are nearly as entrenched as you think. The rise of the Tea Party movement only a decade ago was completely grass roots (before it was co-opted and destroyed by the Democrats). It gained national prominence in a very short time because it resonated across the nation. And it upended many RINO's in the elections. I also see the rise of the Libertarian party just this past election as further evidence that there is a large portion of voters who would welcome alternatives to the two-party system. I consider myself one of those disenchanted by both major parties.
There is also a substantial element of administrative overhead as well in the two major parties. Look at how Chairmanships are handled: you effectively pay to play by guaranteeing a certain amount of fundraising to get the position. And that money is for the Party - not the candidate! You can bet that competition here would force some dramatic changes.
The last point I would make is that given communications in today's age, there are no longer the needs for the bloated bureaucracies of Party mechanisms. It's far more important to have people willing to text their friends than voter mailing lists.
I agree with this much: an Act of Congress would be a semi-permanent solution, that would outlast this President. Therefore Senator Graham's announcement is more than welcome.
1) an explicit end to granting citizen based on place of birth rather than nationality of parents.
2) an explicit end to guest citizenship where a person can bring in and patriate members of their family. Citizenship must be evaluated on an individual basis.
3) a denial of all federal funds and services to persons in the country illegally, whether that be from overstayed visas or whatever else.
4) a denial of all federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" - those who make it a policy to harbor illegal immigrants, including interfering with legitimate legal functions such as raids, etc.
5) en explicit end to all asylum programs. See sponsorship below.
6) a repeal of any policy which prohibits the separation of illegal children from their parents. Each individual crossing is to be treated on their own merits - not their familial connections. Children of parents attempting illegal entry will be sent directly to the nearly consulate or embassy of the appropriate nation.
Additional items I think would help:
1) a sponsorship program. If you want to claim asylum, you must have a sponsor who is a US citizen or group of US citizens in good standing (meaning that they have never been convicted of a felony) to sponsor the applicant. Sponsorship means total responsibility for that individual's actions for a period of 10 years. Sponsors are responsible for paying for medical needs via insurance, housing, etc. and finding the person gainful employ. The individual would still be assayed by immigration officials according to current policy as to their fitness to enter the country.
If the applicant commits a felony in that ten years, the sponsor is responsible for the penalties and fines and the asylum seeker is immediately deported with no chance of re-entry into the country ever. The sponsor is also prohibited from sponsoring any new applicants permanently. A sponsor may only sponsor a single applicant at a time.
2) Build the wall. There is nothing like a physical barrier.
3) Repeat offender laws. If you are caught in the United States illegally after having already been deported, you are put in a labor camp to work there for ten years, after which you are again deported and barred permanently from re-entry. If you commit a violent felony and are deported and then are caught again in the United States, you are summarily executed without possibility of probation or appeal. If you commit any other felony, are deported, and then caught in the US illegally again, you are sent to the labor camp for ten years and then deported and barred from re-entry.
Emmerich de Vattel defined one class of citizen whose loyalties are without question. He called them natural-born citizens. And contrary to everyone's assumption, a natural-born citizen is not only born in-country (or on a diplomatic or military station) but also has two citizen parents. That is, the parents must each be citizens at the time.
Under the Constitution, only such a person is eligible to the office of President.
Thomas Jefferson had a temporary exception made: "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." Every other person contemporary with him, who became President, was recognized as a natural born citizen. If you were a colonial to begin with, you became a citizen when the colonies became "free and independent States."
Chester A. Arthur skated on the NBC requirement. He hid his mother's Irish extraction from the Republican National Convention in 1880. That's the only reason he got elected Vice-President and took over as President after the assassination of James A. Garfield.
And Barack Obama skated on that, too. His father was a British colonial subject. And his birth certificate from Hawaii is an obvious, and amateurish, forgery. I studied the PDF myself.
John McCain was still a natural born citizen, because his parents were "on station" at the time of his birth.
We almost nominated non-NBCs in 2016. Marco Rubio's parents didn't get naturalized until Marco was five years old. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father, a Cuban national, didn't get naturalized until Ted was an adult--if ever. Donald J. Trump is a natural-born citizen. His mother had been duly nationalized before he was born.
John Jay (first CJOTUS) considered the NBC requirement central. He made sure Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations (1780) was available to all his fellow Framers.
I, too, believe that it is critical to have a natural-born citizen as President of the United States. In my opinion, it should also be a requirement for all House and Senate Electees and appointees to the Supreme Court as well.
I have seen a different interpretation of natural-born citizen, however, one in which at least one parent was a citizen and the original birth certificate stating origin is the defining feature. In such cases, however, the citizen must be born in the nation to which one applies to be a citizen. Anyone born outside the US to parents both of US nationality would retain US citizenship rights - such as John McCain. Anyone born outside the US of only one parent, however, is not a citizen of the US automatically, but must submit an application to Immigration officials. (This is obviously waived for children of diplomats or members of the armed services while deployed.) My understanding is that it is under this interpretation that at least Cruz applied, but I could be mistaken. If neither of Rubio's parents were US citizens at the time of his birth, I would consider him ineligible.
I also think that unless you are a US citizen or a legal resident, u are not subject to minimum wage laws or other workplace remedies like unemployment insurance or workers comp. No welfare benefits or any kind, and no social security.
"I also think that unless you are a US citizen or a legal resident, u are not subject to minimum wage laws or other workplace remedies like unemployment insurance or workers comp. No welfare benefits or any kind, and no social security."
Agreed. As you do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, neither can you appeal to such for protection. You must be referred to your consulate or embassy.
Trumps tariffs are a way to artificially increase the value of the chinese yuan, with the excess funds just going into the rabbit hole of the USA treasure
That's the same line of reasoning Woodrow Wilson advocated for a century ago, and it is as wrong now as it was then. An Imperial President - one who can create law - is the most dangerous threat to Constitutional liberty which exists, because it undermines and eradicates all the careful checks and balances of our system.
Yes, it is. The only Constitutional role of the Executive is to carry out the laws as passed by Congress. If clarification is necessary, they should be going back to the Legislature to clarify - not simply inventing things on their own. That they have been doing it and were substantiated in this through the Supreme Court's "Chevron deference" ruling doesn't make it Constitutional.
"the executive still cannot escape the obligation to set policy"
Article II of the Constitution is very explicit regarding the duties of the President, and they include the following (and only the following):
- Commander-in-Chief
- Oversight of executive functions (cabinet positions, etc.)
- Power to engage in treaties (subject to ratification by the Senate)
- Power to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for" (subject to ratification by the Senate)
- Power to fill vacancies in the above positions during Senate Recess
- Give Congress information on the State of the Union
- recommend measures (but not institute them)
- Convene joint sessions of Congress
- Receive ambassadors and other public ministers
- Commission all Officers of the United States (meaning the Armed Forces)
- "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
As the Constitution was very carefully crafted to bestow a set of limited privileges and express activities to players in the Federal Government, anything not explicitly granted falls outside the Constitutional jurisdiction of that individual, branch, or body. Nowhere in Article II does it grant the President any policy-making, rule-making, or law-making authority. Constitutionally, any such activities beyond recommendations to Congress are prohibited.
The policy of granting birthright citizenship was actually the result of an erroneous Supreme Court decision which flies in the face of the 14th Amendment AND violates the separation of powers just like your proposed remedy except that it was the Supreme Court creating immigration law rather than the Executive Branch.
"In this case, Trump must either adopt a government policy of not recognizing "birthright" citizenship, or continue the policies of previous administrations and recognize "birthright" citizenship. There is no third alternative, it's either/or."
And actually in both cases it is wrong, because NEITHER are law as passed Constitutionally by the Legislative Branch of government - the ONLY branch of government with the authority to set immigration law/policy/rules. Previous Presidents who allowed birthright citizenship allowed the Supreme Court to dictate policy contrary to the Constitution - and did nothing about it.
I actually WANT Trump to set a rule and force a Constitutional crisis to resolve the issue. Congress has sat on their hands on this issue for 40 years and done nothing. That needs to change, but the change needs to be performed through the proper channels - not simply by executive fiat. Anytime one starts arguing to go down that road they are following Woodrow Wilson in agitating for an imperial Presidency. That is the road to tyranny.
The process is deliberately slow to prevent any one branch from becoming tyrannical. An EO is not the proper solution for changing the law.
And in this case we have neither statute nor prior case, and (contrary to the belief of, I would estimate, half the commenters here) no explicit provision in the Constitution that says, or implies, that the government must recognize "all persons born," regardless of circumstances, as citizens.
"Historically, executive orders related to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules and overseeing the administration of public lands. More recently, presidents have used executive orders to carry out legislative policies and programs. As a result, the executive order has become a critical tool in presidential policy making. For example, President john f. kennedy used an executive order to eliminate racial discrimination in federally funded housing (Exec. Order No. 11,063, 3 C.F.R. 652 [1959–1963], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1982 app. at 6-8 [1982]); President lyndon b. johnson acted through an executive order to prohibit discrimination in government contractors' hiring practices (Exec. Order No. 11,246, 3C.F.R. 339 [1964–1965], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 28-31 [1982], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,375, 3 C.F.R. 684 [1966–1970], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,478, 3 C.F.R. 803 [1966–1970], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 31-33 [1982]); and President richard m. nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment (Exec. Order No. 11,615, 3C.F.R. 602 [1971–1975], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,617, 3 C.F.R. 609 [1971–1975], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,627, 3 C.F.R. 621 [1971–1975])."
Added: I shared this link below, its pretty useful
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...
You seem to want Trump to act because Congress hasn't, ignoring the fact that in order for Trump to act, he must violate the Constitutional separation of powers. I want to expose the practice of EO's as unConstitutional - because I believe they are. I want to expose the majority of the bureaucracies as unConstitutional, because they are.
The Constitution was set up with a clear delineation in which branch of government had the responsibility to act in certain areas, and we've become desensitized to recognizing these lines and being open and vocal when they are crossed. We've had 100 years or more of Presidents legislating in seemingly small and simple things which overstepped their bounds. And so now that there are major policy decisions coming from the President's desk, no one bats an eye. DACA was clearly unConstitutional and President Obama admitted as much when he drafted it. I want President Trump to reverse DACA and then challenge the Legislature and Courts to defy him, because the only way to return to a Constitutional government is for the Judicial Branch to admit that it overstepped its bounds 30 years earlier in its rulings and demand that the Legislature properly do its job.
This is a case where the only way to get back to the rule of law is to break the law and expose the contradictions which have become part of the system. It is not that those actions wouldn't be well-intentioned, but intention is not what defines legality.
Furthermore, this controversy will do nothing to “expose the practice of EO's as unconstitutional.” Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not. The constitutional status of bureaucracies, and of executive orders in general, will not even rise to the level of a blip on the general public’s radar.
In my opinion, it is the only recourse available. I didn't say I liked it, but I don't see any way to confront a broken system except by forcing the problem out into the open. I do favor restricting each branch of government to its specific role, but there are so many things broken with our current implementation that I could go on with an extensive list. Nothing is going to get fixed unless we're willing to confront and admit there is a problem in the first place, however.
"Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not."
That all depends on the Court (and the original lawsuit). With a majority of Constitutional jurists now, they may address the larger point about the Constitutionality of such EO's in the first place. That would be my hope.
I dislike sounding like a broken record (one of the strategies of assertive interaction). But I still say:
Cite the case.
Cite the case.
Cite the case.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Legislative power is the power to make law. According to the Constitution, it very clearly reserves lawmaking power to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. If the President is making law, he is abrogating his duties and infringing on the prerogative of the Legislature. This is made even more egregious when talking about immigration/naturalization laws, which are specifically delegated as per Section 8 of Article I to the Legislature thus:
"The Congress shall have Power...
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
You keep asking for a court case, but the proper mechanism for adjudication is already in place: Impeachment. It should have happened to Barack Obama, but the Republicans were too spineless to do it. The other difficulty is that the Supreme Court has typically dodged these kinds of cases for exactly that reason, saying that if the Legislature wants to do something, it should - not merely gripe.
Of course, this is the first time in nearly 80 years when we have a majority of actual Constitutionalists on the Bench. The Supreme Court has been distinctly leftist for much of that time. That's one of the reasons I WANT this to go to the Supreme Court at this time: so that such actions can be Constitutionally argued and decided.
The other major problem I have is the approach - that somehow we must be forced to bow before the Judicial Branch in order to limit the Executive. This is also a false ideal. The Framers intentionally created the Legislative Branch to be by far the most powerful, and the Judicial the least. A reliance on Supreme Court precedent instead of an actual reading of the Constitution is incredibly dangerous.
Constitutional law is what follows from the plain text of the Constitution, by any reasonable interpretation.
Case law is what judges have decided in controversies that came before them.
Natural law is that law which proceeds from the very nature of nation-states and their citizens and subjects.
Now: you maintain that under the current state of the law, where the stork drops you, you are a citizen by birth.
And I am asking you to cite the statute, the case, or the Article (or Amendment), Section, and Clause of the Constitution that so says.
And I rely on Emmerich de Vattel, who treated natural law in The Law of Nations, to say that citizenship depends on lawful residency of the parents.
If no one professes to know how a President may act, then he is well advised to act, and say to his opponents, "So sue me." That's the only way to get a court to decide.
If you think you can cut that short, then cite statute, case, or Constitutional provision.
If you read my previous comments, I agreed with you that citizenship depends on the lawful residency of the parents. You held that both parents were necessary while I stated that I had read legal opinions stating that only one parent was necessary. But I think you are gravely misinterpreting my comments to mean something other than that. I have never held that so-called "birthright" citizenship is a proper interpretation of any citizenship clause - let alone the Fourteenth Amendment.
I adhere to the British common law notion - the same which the author of the 14th Amendment used - in that the 14th Amendment only holds jurisdiction over those who are in the United States but over whom there are no other jurisdictional claims. That was only the case for the freed slaves in the 1860's. No people since can claim that necessary zero jurisdiction - not even the Native American Indians, because they were treated as their own sovereign nations - and still are in many cases. Foreigners have zero claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for protection not only according to my opinion, but according to the explicit words of the author of the 14th Amendment: Jacob M. Howard of Michigan. He explicitly explained that in a speech on the Senate Floor. (This article was the best I could find on short notice https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ba...
I was talking about how to define natural-born citizens, of the type John Jay should have the exclusive privilege of eligibility to the office of President.
A person can be a citizen-at-birth without being a natural-born citizen. The distinction of this: a natural-born citizen is a citizen-at-birth of one place only. A person can be a citizen-at-birth of two different countries, and free to choose. The Law of the Soil might say one thing (if the parents were domiciled on that soil), while the Law of the Blood says another.
I was talking strictly about the illegal-immigration case. Too many Presidents have in the past acquiesced in granting citizenship-at-birth to all children born in this country, regardless of circumstances. Donald Trump now refuses. Time, he believes, does not sanction all or even any presumptions upon the Constitution or on statutory or case law.
Now you know what I mean by "cite the case."
BTW - if you are looking for Supreme Court precedent on giving illegals rights, you should check out Justice Brennan's decision in Plyler v. Doe. I don't doubt that this case is one of the reasons some of our Presidents have punted. This decision is one more example of how disastrous it is to rely on Supreme Court precedent for such things when Congress has the Constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility to act.
I'd be hesitant to suggest any past President, because nearly all of them had problems. If you want to consider solely Andrew Jackson's military leadership and his willingness to stand up for his values and defy Congress (irrespective of what those values were), I can understand the appeal.
One note, however: Andrew Jackson got very close to being Impeached. We already have a current Democratic Congress which is willing to Impeach Trump just for being of the opposite party. I'd be careful about what you wish for.
Like it or not the 14th Amendment is law and does have rulings for and against the current fallacious interpretation.
I'm thinking DT kicked this ball into motion and, as long as he doesn't believe its a power he possesses, its a good thing.
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...
There is separation of powers for a reason. As for "setting policy in absence..." The Amendment, as the article would show, was reactionary for specific reasons. Policy since 1890 was anyone born in the US was citizen, but as we all can plainly see that is not what the intention was when the reconstruction Amendments were created. Even so, changing the law is outside the scope of even the highly exaggerated authority of the POTUS today.
Citing a case is moot as since 1890 the policy has been the problem we see today. I'm no lawyer to search case law (any more than a google search). In the article it does clearly show that the intent was ignored but that doesn't change the process to correct it.
People were furious when O use EOs beyond the authority given to the Executive but now its okay?
https://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...
The POTUS has no authority to issue EO which alters Law. By misusing EO's Trump is no different than O except by degrees of severity. Whether he did so to help the nation or harm the nation the end result is the same, the degradation of the structure of the Constitution and the lessening of one branches power by the seize of that power by the other (executive).
I left the Tea party for their inability to see this rationale. You don't break the law to make the law, it can only be corrosive.
--But one way to prevent "anchor babies" might be to simply prohibit the entry into this country of a pregnant woman (unless she is already a citizen). Of if a legal resident alien becomes pregnant, require her to leave the country temporarily, until after she gives birth or has a miscarriage.
Demonstrably it does not refer to the child of an invading or occupying soldier. (If the child is a product of a relationship between said soldier and a local citizen, that's a different thing, and would be NSFW to discuss.)
If an invading or occupying soldier is a robber, then an illegal immigrant is a burglar. The distinction between the two makes no difference.