Why not re-think this. Regardless of the merits of your position regarding birthright citizenship it would be dangerous for congress to let such an E.O. go unchallenged. * There is a better way. A California District judge ruled that even children born to illegals are citizens by birth. This is a straight reading of the constitution. I haven't read the opinion, but it would seem to ignore the way children born to foreign diplomats while they are stationed in the U.S. are treated. I think that on appeal the district courts ruling would likely be overturned. Particularly considering the courts present make-up. Any such order E.O. by Trump, however, must be immediately challenged by Congress. The California District Court ruling should be moved through the appeals court to the Supreme Court to settle this issue. I am confident that the California court's decision will be overturned as it makes absolutely no sense. More difficult is the question of citizenship for a child born to one legal and one illegal parent. There my guess is that the child would be found to be a natural born citizen. Regardless we are in grave danger if we allow the president to set a new precedent of interpreting our constitution via tweet and E.O. We must absolutely not allow that. ______________________ *I imagine this is no different than the other outrageous things Trumps says he will do but doesn't follow through on. I can't imagine that White House lawyers would not put a stop to such an order.
I don’t dismiss this. I’m totally open on this issue. I think Trump is going uphill in it but there is a case of merit here.
By one of the few you mean one of 34 For the record, the following countries recognize jus soli(Birthright Citizenship): 1 Antigua and Barbuda 2 Argentina 3 Barbados 4 Belize 5 Bolivia 6 Brazil 7 Canada 8 Chile 9 Cuba 10 Dominica 11 Ecuador 12 El Salvador 13 Fiji 14 Grenada 15 Guatemala 16 Guyana 17 Honduras 18 Jamaica 19 Mexico 20 Nicaragua 21 Panama 22 Paraguay 23 Peru 24 Saint Kitts and Nevis 25 Saint Lucia 26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27 Trinidad and Tobago 28 United States 29 Uruguay 30 Venezuela Also US is one of few with electoral college, why not eliminate it as well? Oh, no?
This is a very flimsy interpretation. The subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that all persons born are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It doesn't mean other otherwise imply that persons not subject to the jurisdiction thereof who then go on to have babies means their babies aren't subject and therefore citizens. Sorry, but I disagree.
I don't think Trump can abolish or change the 14th amendment by EO, nor do I think he should. Beyond the obvious challenges in the courts, EO's aren't permanent enough. The 14th amendment absolutely needs to be amended. The "anchor baby" non-sense needs to go. Congress should address this, but never will, gutless cowards that they are. We're stuck with it. Better idea and more do-able to come up with a immigration policy that actually gets enforced. Of course, that'll take some guts too, something which is lacking in D.C.
We dont really know. This issue has been hands off and untouchable for so long that there is not sufficient case law to even flesh some of this stuff out. For example, if I were to accept as true your argument, then I would then be arguing that the children of foreign diplomats are automatically deemed citizens which- my belief anyway- is that they are not based on congressional action or congressional acceptance of international law. But if "jurisdiction" simply means being born here and their right flows directly from the constitution, then by what authority does congress deny them citizenship? Apparently because Congress believed that "jurisdiction" requirements are not met simply by being born here. Congress undoubtedly has the right to grant citizenship in more circumstances than the constitution specifies, but it does not have the authority to deny citizenship where given by the constitution. Where it is "given" or not remains to be defined.
But as discussed earlier, it is not clear that his actions are a changing of the constitution or merely the implementation of the proper interpretation of it. That remains to be seen.
Like I said this is an uphill climb for your side because it is so long standing as understood buuuuuuuuut I think the proper argument in this case is congress has set the parameters for jurisdiction through the various immigration laws it has passed. So the argument is not whether the 14th amendment grants citizenship but what are the parameters of the jurisdiction and does congress have authority over those parameters. Also, this would have to take into account all of the various non discriminatory laws that apply as well.
Try looking at it from an angle of who can regulate the jurisdiction in question, not the citizenship.