Politics TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
PtldPlatypus said:
Has the Supreme Court ever actually weighed in on whether being born in the US necessarily makes a person automatically "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? I couldn't find a case that covered that.
Click to expand...

Yeah let's let the bullshit begin.... They're so good at their jobs... We need to start impeaching some of them...
 
dviss1 said:
Yeah let's let the bullshit begin.... They're so good at their jobs... We need to start impeaching some of them...
Click to expand...
I'm confused by this post. All I was saying was that when someone says, "This is how SCOTUS sees the amendment", that seems like an incomplete statement because I don't think they've ever weighed in on it (past court or present).

Whether or not some of the 9 current justices are competent or worthy sounds like a completely different question.
 
e_blazer said:
This is the most cogent argument in favor of Trump's proposal that I've seen. I know, Fox News...blah, blah, blah, but read the article. Even assuming you don't agree with Trump, it's good to understand the opposing position:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional
Click to expand...


This is an interesting argument, and the crux on the matter is that they are under "complete jurisdiction" if we look at jurisdiction as "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments". Of course, if we argue that the US does not have jurisdiction over these people - it has no right to kick them out either since it does not have jurisdiction.

It is a catch-22. You can't have one without the other...

(*) I am not a legal expert in any kind of way, but if we are using mathematical logic - this argument does not hold water as shown.
 
e_blazer said:
This is the most cogent argument in favor of Trump's proposal that I've seen. I know, Fox News...blah, blah, blah, but read the article. Even assuming you don't agree with Trump, it's good to understand the opposing position:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional
Click to expand...

This really boils down to - if Trump does it by EO, it goes to the supreme court, and the supreme court can do whatever it wants, so it might well support Trump, given the partisan nature of the court.

The court is always free to interpret the constitution however it wants, even if it overturns precedent, years of practice, and/or original intent.

It's a bit of a stretch, though, to think that nobody ever really considered what the 14th amendment meant before, until the great legal scholar Donald Trump came along and revealed the true meaning.

barfo
 
andalusian said:
This is an interesting argument, and the crux on the matter is that they are under "complete jurisdiction" if we look at jurisdiction as "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments". Of course, if we argue that the US does not have jurisdiction over these people - it has no right to kick them out either since it does not have jurisdiction.

It is a catch-22. You can't have one without the other...

(*) I am not a legal expert in any kind of way, but if we are using mathematical logic - this argument does not hold water as shown.
Click to expand...
I think that's where Westphalian "sovereignty" comes in. They may not be able to have "legal power and judgements" (to use your look at the definition), but they absolutely have the sovereign right to not let people in who they don't want. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights says so in Article 13:
1) Everyone has the right of freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state; and (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it state (for it likely would never be adopted) that anyone has an unfettered right to cross into a country other than his/her own. As the concepts of "citizenship" vary from country to country, and therefore aren't an international norm (or law), it seems that the logical conclusion would be that the US government has every right (if it chooses to--as stated, probably a constitutional amendment) to restrict both immigration and citizenship.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I think that's where Westphalian "sovereignty" comes in. They may not be able to have "legal power and judgements" (to use your look at the definition), but they absolutely have the sovereign right to not let people in who they don't want. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights says so in Article 13:

Nowhere does it state (for it likely would never be adopted) that anyone has an unfettered right to cross into a country other than his/her own. As the concepts of "citizenship" vary from country to country, and therefore aren't an international norm (or law), it seems that the logical conclusion would be that the US government has every right (if it chooses to--as stated, probably a constitutional amendment) to restrict both immigration and citizenship.
Click to expand...

You really want to interpret the constitution based on UN resolutions? Because I am certain this will open a floodgate of all kinds of interesting things. I would love to hear Mr. Trumps response to this - I suspect it will be very entertaining.

Again, if we are going strictly by the language of the constitution's amendment, the standard dictionary definition of jurisdiction and mathematical logic - there is a clear catch-22 there.
 
andalusian said:
You really want to interpret the constitution based on UN resolutions?
Click to expand...
No. Only Chapter VII cases are binding. I was merely stating that even the UN does not take the position of what you're talking about. This isn't a Chapter VII UN case, and therefore isn't binding.
Because I am certain this will open a floodgate of all kinds of interesting things. I would love to hear Mr. Trumps response to this - I suspect it will be very entertaining.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that your position that because we don't have jurisdiction and therefore can't kick them out has zero basis in law, national or international, or normative frameworks--whether or not it seems mathematically logical. In fact, both say the opposite. That's all. :dunno:
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm confused by this post. All I was saying was that when someone says, "This is how SCOTUS sees the amendment", that seems like an incomplete statement because I don't think they've ever weighed in on it (past court or present).

Whether or not some of the 9 current justices are competent or worthy sounds like a completely different question.
Click to expand...

There are many laws and regulations that the Supreme Court has never ruled on and many times it's because it wouldn't change anything and be a waste of time. Trump has had many of his self imposed policies ruled unconstitutional already and thrown out. there are procedures in place because of a president like Trump who thinks he is above the law and the constitution.
 
barfo said:
This really boils down to - if Trump does it by EO, it goes to the supreme court, and the supreme court can do whatever it wants, so it might well support Trump, given the partisan nature of the court.

The court is always free to interpret the constitution however it wants, even if it overturns precedent, years of practice, and/or original intent.

It's a bit of a stretch, though, to think that nobody ever really considered what the 14th amendment meant before, until the great legal scholar Donald Trump came along and revealed the true meaning.

barfo
Click to expand...
Except for Trump admitting that people told him he could do this.....
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm confused by this post. All I was saying was that when someone says, "This is how SCOTUS sees the amendment", that seems like an incomplete statement because I don't think they've ever weighed in on it (past court or present).

Whether or not some of the 9 current justices are competent or worthy sounds like a completely different question.
Click to expand...

Jussayin the SCOTUS is a joke. That is all.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Has the Supreme Court ever actually weighed in on whether being born in the US necessarily makes a person automatically "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? I couldn't find a case that covered that.
Click to expand...
Apparently they did with Barack Obama.
 
dviss1 said:
Why is no one complaining about the million or so undocumented EUROPEANS in our country...?

We know why...
Click to expand...
I think the fact that Russians (and Chinese) have been singled out as some of the worst violators of these, partially because they can afford a fancy vacation to Trump Tower in Miami, (and Trump himself saying since his campaign that he wants to get rid of it), would blow up this argument. I wonder why you feel no one is bringing that up...we know why. :cheers:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Hmm...not quite the same thing, but good effort, dad.
Click to expand...
The courts ruled that the cases filed saying that Obama was not a citizen because he wasn't born here, were not worthy of being heard. I think this settles that issue.
 
Lanny said:
The courts ruled that the cases filed saying that Obama was not a citizen because he wasn't born here, were not worthy of being heard. I think this settles that issue.
Click to expand...

Because there was documentation that he was, in fact, born here. Not the same issue at all.
 
e_blazer said:
Because there was documentation that he was, in fact, born here. Not the same issue at all.
Click to expand...
That's my point, he was born here, hence the 14th Amendment.
 
Lanny said:
That's my point, he was born here, hence the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he had an American mother and was a permanent legal resident, so not the same thing at all as birth tourism or the children of people here illegally. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump will lose this legal battle the same way he's lost most of the other ones. That said, there is certainly a legal case to be made to support the notion that citizenship was not meant to be bestowed in such instances.

Do you think it's a coincidence that he brings this up immediately after Kavanaugh is seated as a Justice?
 
e_blazer said:
Yes, but he had an American mother and was a permanent legal resident, so not the same thing at all as birth tourism or the children of people here illegally. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump will lose this legal battle the same way he's lost most of the other ones. That said, there is certainly a legal case to be made to support the notion that citizenship was not meant to be bestowed in such instances.

Do you think it's a coincidence that he brings this up immediately after Kavanaugh is seated as a Justice?
Click to expand...
I believe the requirement used to be that you had to have two U.S. citizen parents when born abroad to be considered a U.S. citizen. I seem to recall that requirement was changed to one parent after Obama was born.


INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH (1952)
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375
 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
Yes, but he had an American mother and was a permanent legal resident, so not the same thing at all as birth tourism or the children of people here illegally. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump will lose this legal battle the same way he's lost most of the other ones. That said, there is certainly a legal case to be made to support the notion that citizenship was not meant to be bestowed in such instances.

Do you think it's a coincidence that he brings this up immediately after Kavanaugh is seated as a Justice?
Click to expand...
Also, Trump will sign an E.O. and it will be immediately appealed and may end up in the Supreme Court.

Every other court can rule like Lanny said if they want to use that reason. Then the Supreme Court can decide to hear it or not.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Also, Trump will sign an E.O. and it will be immediately appealed and may end up in the Supreme Court.

Every other court can rule like Lanny said if they want to use that reason. Then the Supreme Court can decide to hear it or not.
Click to expand...
I think they already had a say on the issue when they refused to hear the allegation that Obama was not a citizen because he was born abroad and only had one U.S. citizen parent. Now, he only had one U.S. citizen parent which means he could only be a citizen if he was born here and the court agreed that being born here made him a U.S. citizen. I'm almost certain that the requirement that you needed both parents as U.S. citizens for a child to be a citizen was changed to only one parent after Obama was born.
 
Lanny said:
I don't have anything to do with Fox News, the least trusted television news organization.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your views on that, obviously. I do a mix of news outlets so I can get a broad range of viewpoints. The article that is linked isn't by Fox News. It's a guest opinion piece on this specific issue. It has, from what I can see, a very good analysis of the legal position that would be used by the Trump Administration. I found it to be interesting and enlightening and far more helpful than the CNN/MSNBC bluster on the topic [OH MY GOD, HE CAN'T DO THAT!!!!]
 
Lanny said:
I think they already had a say on the issue when they refused to hear the allegation that Obama was not a citizen because he was born abroad and only had one U.S. citizen parent. Now, he only had one U.S. citizen parent which means he could only be a citizen if he was born here and the court agreed that being born here made him a U.S. citizen. I'm almost certain that the requirement that you needed both parents as U.S. citizens for a child to be a citizen was changed to only one parent after Obama was born.
Click to expand...

The Court did not hear the issues that will be brought in this case. They may or may not hear it, but if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that this is not without some constitutional merit.
 
e_blazer said:
You're entitled to your views on that, obviously. I do a mix of news outlets so I can get a broad range of viewpoints. The article that is linked isn't by Fox News. It's a guest opinion piece on this specific issue. It has, from what I can see, a very good analysis of the legal position that would be used by the Trump Administration. I found it to be interesting and enlightening and far more helpful than the CNN/MSNBC bluster on the topic [OH MY GOD, HE CAN'T DO THAT!!!!]
Click to expand...
Then, why not go to the horse's mouth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top