Birthright Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Assuming the legality of it holds up (and that's a big IF)....I 100% stand behind and support ending birthright citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that this cannot be done by executive order. It must be done by a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President has no role (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution):

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Agree it can’t be done by executive order. But the other option is a scotus ruling that the language of the amendment doesn’t support birthright citizenship on the basis of illegal parents not being subject to the jurisdiction (for example, illegals can’t be drafted and are subject to deportation etc).

Yep. It is not settled law that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof - they cannot get SSNs, be drafted, get identification, work, etc. Being subject to criminal statutes is only one aspect of jurisdiction.

The draft no longer exists in our laws, so it’s weird that’s where you draw the line. Literally no one can be drafted.

People who don’t get birthright citizenship for their kids do work and get licenses here.

You are flat out wrong. Men are legally required to register with SSS at age 18 for the purpose of a draft if needed.

[Anonymous]

Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that this cannot be done by executive order. It must be done by a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President has no role (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution):

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Agree it can’t be done by executive order. But the other option is a scotus ruling that the language of the amendment doesn’t support birthright citizenship on the basis of illegal parents not being subject to the jurisdiction (for example, illegals can’t be drafted and are subject to deportation etc).

Yep. It is not settled law that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof - they cannot get SSNs, be drafted, get identification, work, etc. Being subject to criminal statutes is only one aspect of jurisdiction.

Trump didn’t do this EO thinking it would stand but rather to force SCOTUS to address the merits of this claim. And I think it’s a 50 50 chance he will win.

There’s no reason for the government to appeal it to the Supreme Court with the latest ruling on universal injunctions.

It will still work its way up the courts because of conflicting districts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

The Constitution doesn’t provide for any mechanism to conduct a national referendum on this or any other issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Because constitutional amendments require more than a majority.
The process is laid out in the constitution.

With that said, this ruling only affects universal injunctions, it doesn't address the merits of the case.

It is silly to have a system where a single judge in texas can hamstring every democratic administration and a single judge in san francisco can hamstring every republican administration.

The judiciary is not meant to be able to singlehandedly usurp the executive (or legislative) perquisites of other branches.

It wasn't right when they did it to oabma and it isn't right now as a matter of procedural law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Because constitutional amendments require more than a majority.
The process is laid out in the constitution.

With that said, this ruling only affects universal injunctions, it doesn't address the merits of the case.

It is silly to have a system where a single judge in texas can hamstring every democratic administration and a single judge in san francisco can hamstring every republican administration.

The judiciary is not meant to be able to singlehandedly usurp the executive (or legislative) perquisites of other branches.

It wasn't right when they did it to oabma and it isn't right now as a matter of procedural law.

Great can not wait to take gun ownership away!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Before you put THAT issue on the ballot, start with the following issues that a majority of Americans agree on but that a minority of Americans has successfully fought against for years.

Common Sense Gun Policies:
Universal background checks for gun purchases (around 80-90% support).
Red flag laws to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk (around 70-80% support).

Access to Abortion:
Legal abortion in at least some circumstances (around 60-65% support, with stronger support for first-trimester access).
Exceptions for rape, incest, or health risks to the mother (over 80% support).

Climate Change Action:
Government action to address climate change, like reducing carbon emissions (around 60-70% support).

Affordable Healthcare:
Expanding access to affordable healthcare, including protecting pre-existing condition coverage (around 70-80% support).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class action suits incoming.

Yes, round up all those pregnant illegals, tourists and foreign students and file those lawsuits demanding citizenship and benies for their anchor babies.
Their big back door America plans are on the line.

Yesh!

What about you? How are you going to claim birth rights?

All 20+ countries who ceded Citizenship by birth did not do it retroactively. They made it a law or change and had an imminent start date.

The newborn then takes the parents’ citizenships, dna tests are given for any fraud, and the parents or kid can apply for American citizenship in a few years after good standing.

So there would need to be DNA tests for the baby and the baby daddy if claiming citizenship through the father?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that this cannot be done by executive order. It must be done by a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President has no role (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution):

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Man you guys sound like a broken record. Trump uses EO, Congress refuses to do anything and SCOTUS approves it. That means it is legal.

No that means there is no more rule of law in the US. We are not a democracy anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Because constitutional amendments require more than a majority.
The process is laid out in the constitution.

With that said, this ruling only affects universal injunctions, it doesn't address the merits of the case.

It is silly to have a system where a single judge in texas can hamstring every democratic administration and a single judge in san francisco can hamstring every republican administration.

The judiciary is not meant to be able to singlehandedly usurp the executive (or legislative) perquisites of other branches.

It wasn't right when they did it to oabma and it isn't right now as a matter of procedural law.

But Obama went through the proper procedures. He didn't unilaterally try to change the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Is this retroactive? If all babies born to non citizens would be the nationality of the mother then neither Ivana or Melania were us citizens when their children were born. So, Tiffany is Trump's only bona fide US citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Um. . . because there is a process for amending the Constitution and that isn't it.
Guessing you are the child of US citizens because any naturalized person has to pass a civics test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't we put this on a ballot and let the people vote?

End birthright citizenship - yes/no.

Majority wins.

Because constitutional amendments require more than a majority.
The process is laid out in the constitution.

With that said, this ruling only affects universal injunctions, it doesn't address the merits of the case.

It is silly to have a system where a single judge in texas can hamstring every democratic administration and a single judge in san francisco can hamstring every republican administration.

The judiciary is not meant to be able to singlehandedly usurp the executive (or legislative) perquisites of other branches.

It wasn't right when they did it to oabma and it isn't right now as a matter of procedural law.

But Obama went through the proper procedures. He didn't unilaterally try to change the Constitution.

One would hope that in the case of a president whose actions are as egregious as this president's, Congress wouldn't put up with it and would impeach and convict him. Turns out all you need is a part in power that doesn't give a shit.

Even if the country isn't destroyed by this administration it is clear that some future bad faith administration will finish the job. I don't see how that does not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming the legality of it holds up (and that's a big IF)....I 100% stand behind and support ending birthright citizenship.

Un American fool