General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump to Terminate Birthright Citizenship
https://politicalwire.com/2018/10/30/trump-to-terminate-birthright-citizenship/Trump to Terminate Birthright Citizenship
October 30, 2018 at 6:44 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trumps hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting anchor babies and chain migration. And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trumps power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.
no_hypocrisy
(46,202 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)....Buy a severely overpriced tRump* condo, get a long-term resident visa, and then have your Russian/American anchor baby in the US to secure it's US Passport.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)Goddam stupid motherfucker. Enough
bitterross
(4,066 posts)The Russians are yuge baby-tourists. Won't go over well with his Russian oligarch friends.
Raven123
(4,872 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,369 posts)... all four "Democratic" justices will vote him down, as will Roberts. Thomas and Kavanaugh may be the only ones dumb enough to uphold his stupid executive order.
In It to Win It
(8,285 posts)That should be grounds for impeachment. They are purely unqualified to do the job.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)eShirl
(18,504 posts)A DAY IN THE LIFE
(88 posts)"Under the Jurisdiction." Any person born in the US must be under the jurisdiction of the US and not a foreign nation. It is thought that with Congress' wide powers to regulate immigration, they have the authority to define "Under the Jurisdiction."
If Trump does it by executive order, then he does violate the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1888. But Congress may be able to pass a law redefining birthright citizenship.
I find it interesting that European countries do not have birthright citizenship.
unc70
(6,121 posts)That is a RW talking point that has no credence at DU.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)person living in the United States would not be subject to our laws and therefore "under the jurisdiction."
Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)Mariana
(14,861 posts)Those people are are not immigrants, by definition. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, have no diplomatic immunity and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that of the state in which they reside.
Amishman
(5,559 posts)US v Wong Kim Arc in 1898 addressed this and might be the basis of their attempt
The majority ruling in that case interpreted the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as being required to obey the laws of the United States. I see potential to try and weasel an argument that this does not apply to those in the country without authorization as their presence is in noncompliance with US law.
I don't agree with this, but I can see the gap they might try to exploit.
TomSlick
(11,109 posts)There is a historical discussion that goes on for pages.
To me, the bottom line appears to be that the only persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" are "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State." I think an argument can be made that if the parents have not established domicile in the US, e.g. Russian medical tourists in the country only for the purpose of child birth, the child might not be citizens but I think it a weak argument.
It seems clear to me that if the parents are in the US with the intent to remain - have established domicile - any children born in the US are citizens.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)They already parse the 2nd amendment out of all meaning.
Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)It's less about what's constitutional than what the extreme RW SCOTUS judges want.
European countries also have no 2nd Amendment. For better or worse, we've got both the 2nd and the 14th.
Raven123
(4,872 posts)This assumes another country clams/admits jurisdictional authority. What if it does not?
GoCubsGo
(32,095 posts)Anything that occurs within the borders of the United States of America, its territories, military bases, and other properties is under its jurisdiction. Period. The End. It doesn't mean that foreigners are still held to the laws of the country from where they came. There is no "loophole" there. If you visit Canada, you are under their jurisdiction, not that of the US.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)In European countries, people don't generally have the right to keep and bear arms, either. Is that equally interesting? How about the limits some of them have on free speech? Do you find their established, tax-supported churches interesting, too?
luvtheGWN
(1,336 posts)Here's an example: Canada's new cannabis law applies only to Canadians or those resident in Canada. Those who have been convicted of marijuana possession are going to receive pardons. However, if they try to cross the border into the US, apparently only the conviction is recognized and not the pardon and they will be denied entry. That is according to the "law of the land" (the US).
dchill
(38,546 posts)Brett Kavanaugh is a jurist. "Jurisdiction" is whatever Brett Kavanaugh says!
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)Response to A DAY IN THE LIFE (Reply #6)
zanana1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
pazzyanne
(6,558 posts)My cousin was born in Newfoundland while her dad was in the military. She had dual citizenship until she was 18 and then she had to choose one.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)And the phrase is actually "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."
This was intended to exclude children of diplomats who are indeed not subject to our jurisdiction, and Native American tribes who were recognized as separate nations by treaty and did not pay taxes to us.
If a diplomat commits a crime here, they are not subject to our criminal laws. They can at most be expelled, and tried in their home country according to their laws.
At present, all other immigrants and visitors are subject to our laws. If an undocumented immigrant is caught committing a crime here, he or she can be arrested, put on trial, and sent to a state or federal prison or jail to serve time. So they are very much subject to our laws.
I suppose this loophole could be exploited by conferring diplomatic immunity upon entire classes of immigrants. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Yes, it is interesting that some European nations do not have birthright citizenship. I believe that this is to their detriment, and contributes to social problems. Independent of the constitutional question, I argue that birthright citizenship is good public policy, as it gives those living and working here for the long term more of a stake in the success of the nation.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)Maybe not, if the Kavenaugh Court decides it.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)Did they have their "papers?" Given the family's long history of avoiding compliance with the law, Don's own citizenship might be at risk. Melania reportedly fudged her visa, working when she wasn't supposed to. Does that negate her eventual citizenship? Are Junior, Eric, Ivanka and Barron stateless? Trump might be the white Aryan he seems to worship, but the whole clan might have to go if he figures out how to end birthright citizenship on his own.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Vinca
(50,310 posts)The whole lot of them might be "illegals." (Hate that word, but it's theirs, not mine.)
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)I also wonder about her immigration status when he was born.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That's all this is (besides being disgustingly unconstitutional).
VOX
(22,976 posts)The U.S. is sorta built to NOT do whatever ones whim is at any particular moment.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,595 posts)In this case, since the Repugs in Congress are co-conspirators with Donnie Two Scoops in his attempt to remake the country in his own image, we can only rely on the SCOTUS. Since the five conservatives claim to be "constitutionalists" who interpret the Constitution only as it was written, I'm sure they'll look at the plain language of the Fourth Amendment and knock the EO down.
And pigs can fly.
This is the first president in my lifetime whose character, morals, judgment and loyalty to my country I question on a daily basis. With Dubya, I seriously doubted his character (40 years of "youthful indiscretion" ) and judgment (the Iraq War), I never found him to be immoral, petty or hateful. And while I considered Dubya's puppet master, Cheney, to be mean (he shot his friend in the face and the man apologized for being in the way, for chrissake!), I never considered either of them to be traitors.
malaise
(269,186 posts)Fuck off fascist.
Wednesdays
(17,412 posts)After Kavanaugh, nothing is off the table anymore.
VMA131Marine
(4,149 posts)Is the terminology used to exclude the children born to foreign diplomats and consular personnel, who are in the US with diplomatic immunity and therefore not subject to its jurisdiction. It would also apply to the children of foreign military in the US.
lostnfound
(16,191 posts)Im in my mid 50s and my memory is failing..my dad was born over a hundred years ago in another country.. slipped across the border 100 years ago with his dad and mum and brother.. a chain migration since my Aunt Margaret came first. With his madre and padre, y Guillermo y Marguerita...
The Canada route... is that okay then? Wait, from Ireland before that, maybe a problem?
MaryMagdaline
(6,856 posts)spanone
(135,884 posts)Liberal In Texas
(13,580 posts)It would be an illegal executive order, and other members of the government should not obey it.
GoCubsGo
(32,095 posts)in Florida will have to stop doing so?
Initech
(100,104 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Of course.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)The Grifter in Chief is trying to play us all yet again.
Really clear in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
"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."
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)malaise
(269,186 posts)The US is not the only country in the world that grants citizenship by birth.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 30, 2018, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Attention major news organizations: At this point, it should be clear that Axios and Trump are both playing you. The story is more: Trump floats illegal, unconstitutional immigration proposal; News organization vying for ratings feeds Trump an idea and he bites
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Watch the clip. @jonathanvswan leads Trump into the birthright citizenship answer he wants. Im sure Trump wants to do it, but Ive sat through a lot of interviews and Im hard pressed to remember a reporter leading an interview subject more blatantly than Swan does here.Adam Jentleson 🎈 added,
getagrip_already
(14,838 posts)Nothing to see here citizen. Pay no attention to the racist, anti-Semitic, drooling creature screaming on the front lawn. There is a squirrel in the back yard!
study war no more
(73 posts)He thrives on it. Don't give him what he wants.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)My daughter was born while I was living overseas. Her birth certificate reads "American citizen born abroad." Her father was not a US citizen.
My daughter's father lives in the US now--naturalized. He married a foreign-born woman and adopted her daughter. The whole family's at risk, if I'm reading this right.
Maybe I'm just being a big alarmist, but this scares me shitless.
I'm stupidly grateful that my daughter's current love interest has ties to Australia. I just want them to hurry up and GTFO.
marmar
(77,091 posts)... All that fascism talk no longer sounds like hyperbole.
Bob Loblaw
(1,900 posts)If he can pass the new citizen's test. Fat chance.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)How would this work? I don't get it.
Would we all need to petition at age 18 for citizenship? If we don't pass, where do they deport us to?
This is ridiculous!
unblock
(52,331 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)But...but...but... what if one of my parents is a US cit. and the other has a green card? For example.
unblock
(52,331 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)We can do so November 6th.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This is just a rallying cry to rile up the racists before the election.
There is WAY too much case law against him.
bucolic_frolic
(43,311 posts)the guy is obsessed with this issue
vlyons
(10,252 posts)to fuel his Fascist base. Yet again, he has kidnapped the conversation and gotten the media to talk about Trump, HIS agenda, HIS issue, HIS chaos. Meanwhile we are not talking about our issues - healthcare, gun control, raising the minimum wage, climate change, prison reform, voter suppression etc etc
Zorro
(15,749 posts)AJT
(5,240 posts)an investigation into whether Melania was here legally and if not then Barron should not be allowed citizenship.
PatrickforO
(14,592 posts)come to his hotels to give birth so their children can be US citizens...
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)If he does it, a future justice department should prosecute him for civil rights violations, whether or not he is removed or leaves some other way.
hatrack
(59,593 posts)Good luck, asshole.