re: Trump to sign Executive Order ending birth right citizenship for kids of illegals on Day 1

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am not sure he has that authority.

---

frick 'em. See you in SCOTUS, anchor babies.

---

SCOTUS likes to rule narrowly, they would likely rule solely that a Presidential EO does not cover this.

What really needs to happen is an Amendment defining a birthright citizenship as someone born of at least one parent who was an American citizen at the time of their child's birth.

I don’t want EO. We need permanence

Can he make it retroactive going back to 2021? Why not 2016?

quote:

---

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

---

He was implying a recent Supreme Court ruling gave Trump more power as the executive to use EOs (as best I can tell). So I was curious what THAT ruling was, exactly.

quote:

---

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the arguement.

---

The Supreme Court, starting with Won Kim Ark, has been pretty consistent about this. Illegals are subject to our jurisdiction (see: ones serving time in our prisons for crimes committed here).

quote:

---

The issue has been ruled on in lower courts, but never at the SCOTUS level.

---

This is incorrect.

quote:

---

The proper legality of the residence was the crux of Ark’s case. By that very reasoning the children of illegals would not receive the same.

---

You need to read the case and the actual words in their hyper textual and historical analysis of the 14A.

As another poster said

quote:

---

Moreover, originalists and textualists will have difficulty overturning the case because the SCOTUS examined the meaning and use of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" at and prior to the founding of this country. Specifically, the phrase was meant to exclude only: (1) children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and (2) children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State:

---

quote:

---

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

---

Illegal immigrants are neither, "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State"

quote:

---

Even a Scalia type would probably strike this down since it's made so clear in the Constitution that anyone born here can be a citizen. But what the hell. They do it. Playbtheirnstupid games, too and see what happens.

---

_____________________________
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.

One hundred years ago, on June 2, 1924, the United States government conferred citizenship on Native American people by passing the Snyder Act, also known as the Indian Citizenship Act. Prior to that time, Native Americans had been explicitly denied citizenship—first in the United States Constitution and, later, through the 14th Amendment.

_______________________________

If what you say is true then why were the Native Americans not given instant citizenship when the 14 Amendment was ratified in 1868? I guess between June 1868 and June 1924 there were no Native Americans that were born on American soil. You are wrong and the USSC will likely take this into account as to the historical meaning as to what the 14 Amendment actually was meant to accomplish. Not the changed meaning the liberals decided to use.

Hope we can pass this through congress as well. This would totally change the landscape and make it much less attractive for any illegal to come here permanently

quote:

---

I am not sure he has that authority. I have no objection, I just thought it would require act of congress.

---

DJT has a pen and a phone.

I was told that was enough.

quote:

---

Beautiful pen. Solid gold. It's got a good heft to it. Love signing things with this pen. And a great phone. Most terrific phone they make. Nancy Pelosi wishes she had a phone like this.

---