Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

NateH said:
The Supreme Court has never once in American history issued a ruling on birthright citizenship.

Let's see what the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue. It's long past due.

Well you are right that the SC has never ruled on birthright citizenship but there is a case that already went to the SC 

SC decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 when it ruled 6–2 that "14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ... including all children here born of resident aliens." 

What would get contested if Trump wanted to go down this route is whether the President can make a change to the amendment with an Executive Order.  I am all for having the amendment clarified so its not ambiious but I will be damned if I want any President to make any changes using an Executive Order.  



Around the Network

Does anyone really want to give the President unilateral authority to amend the constitution via executive order?



melbye said:
Birthright citizenship is dumb, you should not be able to claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to. But i don't think one person should be allowed to make an unilateral decision to change the constitution of a country.

Being born and raised (as they likely will be) in a country = no real connection to it?
Then what is a real connection to it?

Last edited by Hiku - on 31 October 2018

LiquorandGunFun said:
Machiavellian said:

What are the examples where the left or even the Dems has looked for the executive office to make changes with an executive order.  It's one thing to want change, its another to allow the president to change it without due process from the other branches and the states.

obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed.

as far as king barack, since you brought it up.

there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.

This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.  

As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.  

As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process.



Hiku said:
melbye said:
Birthright citizenship is dumb, you should not be able to claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to. But i don't think one person should be allowed to make an unilateral decision to change the constitution of a country.

Being born and raised (as they likely will be) in a country = no real connection to it?
Then what is a real connection to it?

At the moment of birth when parents are not citizens and just visiting or illegal means you have no real connection to that country



Nothing to see here, move along

Around the Network
Locknuts said:

Lol I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the children of those who come in illegally. Also, I don't think Trump can change the constitution with a swipe of his pen. 

Just like abortion, it was never really supported or unsupported by the constitution. It was just interpreted that way. The Supreme court could essentially vote on their interpretation of the 14th amendment and make it where if your parents are here illegally and have a baby it won't become u.s. citizen automatically.

This has proven to be a strain on the U.S. economy and the middle class, but Democrats don't care as long as they get more votes.



melbye said:
Hiku said:

Being born and raised (as they likely will be) in a country = no real connection to it?
Then what is a real connection to it?

At the moment of birth when parents are not citizens and just visiting or illegal means you have no real connection to that country

I'm not talking about the parents. If offspring's citizenship is dependent on their parents, then none of the children born from the people who came to colonize America and murdered the original inhabitants would be valid.
And that's not answering the question.
If being being born and raised in a country is not 'a real connection to it' then what is?

Last edited by Hiku - on 31 October 2018

Hiku said:
melbye said:

At the moment of birth when parents are not citizens and just visiting or illegal means you have no real connection to that country

I'm not talking about the parents. If offspring's citizenship is dependent on their parents, then none of the children born from the people who came to colonize America and murdered the original inhabitants would be valid.
And that's not answering the question.
If being being born and raised in a country is not 'a real connection to it' then what is?

Maybe it's because i am still not feeling well, but i really don't understand what you are trying to say



Nothing to see here, move along

CuCabeludo said:
SpokenTruth said:

But that's not really the issue here.  It's the notion that a president believes he can overwrite the Constitution regardless of the law he's changing.

 

he doesn't actually, there is nothing in the constitution granting illegals instant citzenship.

The 14th amendment says all person born in the US is a citizen.  Unless you are claiming that illegals aren't people.  

The whole concept of illegal citizens would be foreign to the founding fathers.



the-pi-guy said:
CuCabeludo said:

he doesn't actually, there is nothing in the constitution granting illegals instant citzenship.

The 14th amendment says all person born in the US is a citizen.  Unless you are claiming that illegals aren't people.  

The whole concept of illegal citizens would be foreign to the founding fathers.

There are no such thing as illegal citizens.  You are correct to simple say that people born here regardless of legal status citizens per plain text understanding of the English language.  It is quite hard to convincingly make it mean anything else.  If they only meant freed slaves they would have said that.  Therefore they meant what they said and nothing more or less. However the biggest benefactor of this law are the enormous number of immigrants that came to america from countries in Europe and whose children were auto citizens.  Legal status can not be taken as an interpretation because the amendment does not specify.  Case closed.