- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Primer on US Citizenship, with an Emphasis upon Birthright Citizenship
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:41 pm
Most of the debate over the last few days has focused upon whether the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to “anchor babies.” While that debate is academically fascinating, I think that it is missing the point, vis-s-vis President Trump’s proposed Executive Order.
The simple fact is that the Constitution (whether in the 14th or elsewhere) does not define all boundaries of US citizenship. It sets only the minimums. Congress can expand upon those minimums any time it wishes, but it cannot NARROW the right to citizenship beyond the minimums set forth in the Constitution.
We can probably all agree that the Constitution does not guarantee US citizenship to every left handed midget born on the planet Earth. Nonetheless, Congress could (should it wish to do so) pass a bill tomorrow granting US citizenship to every left-handed midget on the planet. Assuming that such bill became law (whether by presidential signature or overriding a veto) every left-handed midget on the planet would become a US citizen.
Anchor babies are the left-handed midgets in this scenario. Regardless of what the Constitution says (certainly an academically interesting question) regarding birthright citizenship, there is a statute on the books which DOES grant “birthright citizenship.”
Should President Trump issue an executive order in contravention of that statute, the SCOTUS would not likely even reach the question of whether the constitution guarantees such citizenship. SCOTUS would likely rule on the much narrower issue of whether the President can issue an executive order in direct contradiction of an existing statue. Put simply, he cannot. The decision would almost certainly be 9-0 against POTUS, if such an executive order were ever issued.
The only way that SCOTUS actually reaches the constitutionality issue is found in a completely different scenarios. Congress would have to pass a law repealing the current, statutory idea of “anchor baby“ citizenship. THEN the Supremes would be compelled to address the question of whether the new statute inappropriately narrowed the concept of “citizenship” beyond the constitutional minimum.
The simple fact is that the Constitution (whether in the 14th or elsewhere) does not define all boundaries of US citizenship. It sets only the minimums. Congress can expand upon those minimums any time it wishes, but it cannot NARROW the right to citizenship beyond the minimums set forth in the Constitution.
We can probably all agree that the Constitution does not guarantee US citizenship to every left handed midget born on the planet Earth. Nonetheless, Congress could (should it wish to do so) pass a bill tomorrow granting US citizenship to every left-handed midget on the planet. Assuming that such bill became law (whether by presidential signature or overriding a veto) every left-handed midget on the planet would become a US citizen.
Anchor babies are the left-handed midgets in this scenario. Regardless of what the Constitution says (certainly an academically interesting question) regarding birthright citizenship, there is a statute on the books which DOES grant “birthright citizenship.”
Should President Trump issue an executive order in contravention of that statute, the SCOTUS would not likely even reach the question of whether the constitution guarantees such citizenship. SCOTUS would likely rule on the much narrower issue of whether the President can issue an executive order in direct contradiction of an existing statue. Put simply, he cannot. The decision would almost certainly be 9-0 against POTUS, if such an executive order were ever issued.
The only way that SCOTUS actually reaches the constitutionality issue is found in a completely different scenarios. Congress would have to pass a law repealing the current, statutory idea of “anchor baby“ citizenship. THEN the Supremes would be compelled to address the question of whether the new statute inappropriately narrowed the concept of “citizenship” beyond the constitutional minimum.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:42 pm to AggieHank86
Wow, did you spend a lot of time writing that?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:43 pm to The Maj
quote:Depends on his GWAM typing rate.
Wow, did you spend a lot of time writing that?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:45 pm to The Maj
quote:
Wow, did you spend a lot of time writing that?
I give the guy credit for posting his original thoughts instead of a jjdoc-style copy and paste job that he didn’t source.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:46 pm to The Maj
I dictate for a living. It didn’t take long.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:47 pm to AggieHank86
This. Citizenship isn’t just for Americans anymore it’s for illegals too
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
whether the President can issue an executive order in direct contradiction of an existing statue. Put simply, he cannot. The decision would almost certainly be 9-0 against POTUS, if such an executive order were ever issued.
The USCIS falls directly under the executive branch Hank.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:48 pm to AggieHank86
Dude.... Stop saying left handed midget
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I dictate for a living.
You work in a truck stop parking lot and have a speech impediment?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
there is a statute on the books which DOES grant “birthright citizenship.”
I don't believe that is accurate.
8 USC 1401 only repeats, verbatim, the standard under the 14th Amendment for jus soil citizenship.
8 USC 1401:
quote:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
As with the language in the 14th Amendment, the SCOTUS has never interpreted what that means.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I dictate for a living.
This explains everything.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:51 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
You work in a truck stop parking lot and have a speech impediment?
Gaucho, that is the funniest post you have ever made on TD. Congrats.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:52 pm to AggieHank86
This birthright citizenship issue is just a way of trying to change the news cycle.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:55 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Fascinating. Please expound upon how this assertion relates to my post.
The USCIS falls directly under the executive branch Hank.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I dictate for a living.
How dat dic tate?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:56 pm to MizzouBS
Is it not a relevant policy discussion that should have taken place by now?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:57 pm to AggieHank86
Even if it doesn't "work"...."at least it started a conversation".
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:58 pm to Antonio Moss
The statue define “subject to the jurisdiction“, which is really the crux of this entire constitutional question. As such, the statute does something which the 14th amendment does not do
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:58 pm to AggieHank86
This type of well thought out post will not be tolerated on TD. This type of posting leads to you being called a CUCK or even worse a liberal.

Posted on 10/31/18 at 2:02 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:I mentioned it in the other thread, and since you're a lawyer, I thought maybe you could address this better:
8 USC 1401 only repeats, verbatim, the standard under the 14th Amendment for jus soil citizenship.
The section of the US code that we're discussing provides enforcement authorities for almost every single section (naturalization, immigration), and has additional sections that further expand those authorities, but I couldn't find anything that even touches upon enforcement authority regarding natural born citizens. The only area that related to it at all, was in regards to acquiring documentation from customs.
So maybe I missed it, but if not, what do you take that to mean if there is no enforcement authority regarding Birth Citizens?
Popular
Back to top


19






