Birthright Citizenship

[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.

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).

Yup! A vast majority of Americans support these Dem policies. Stop minority rule!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of” is firmly settled law. It is a legal concept in English Common Law, and was addressed by the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago in the Wong Kim Ark case:l, an consists of :
“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. . . .

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. “

There is a third class of cases- Indian tribes. Congress passed a separate law conferring citizenship. Somehow this group that was residing and seemingly subject to the jurisdiction did not have automatic citizenship.

[Anonymous]

My neighbors who are both citizens (but naturalized originally from other countries) had their brother and pregnant wife visit.

They came in early January. I only saw the wife once walking and when I met the brother I said hello introduced myself and asked how long they were staying. He said they were leaving in a couple weeks.

Saw neighbors again a few weeks later and brother was still there. Neighbor told me how the wife was pregnant but they were keeping it secret because of Trump. Brother and wife were not US citizens and from India. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

They had a baby in late spring and baby has US citizenship and Indian citizenship. They left a couple weeks after baby was born.

This to me is totally wrong. They lied and so did my neighbors (who are wealthy and have graduate degrees including PhDs).

I am not pro Trump but I was alarmed by the way this was handled by all of them.

My sibling lived in another country (years ago) and knew of countless people who came to the US so their baby could also be a US citizen. They knew to come not right when close to due date either. I thought my sibling was exaggerating until I saw what happened with my neighbors.

Something needs to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem to be open ended. How many generations do we go back? Did my great great great grandparents come here legally? How does one prove that in a court of law that is over seen by a radical supreme Court?

If you can take birth rights away from a first generation person you certainly can take it away from an 8th generation person.

Once you cross the Rubicon of taking birth rights away there is nothing stopping republicans from stripping birth rights from any US citizen.

It will not be retroactive. And once it goes through, if and however that may be, it will not be retroactive.

There are several European and UK case precedents of devices countries seating citizenship by birth this way and it was fine. They set a near date and then going FW from that date it ceases. Your kid gets the citizenship of their father and mother, and can apply for U.S. citizenship later.

How do you know if it will be retroactive or not. The constitution is very clear that birthright citizenship applies to pretty much everyone (except for the children of foreign diplomats). If the government can magically revoke the constitution then there are no safeguards that this will not apply retroactively. The constitution has basically been destroyed, the President has almost unlimited immunity, and courts can no longer issue universal injunctions for blatantly unconstitutional actions. It doesn’t matter if your family has been in the US for 3 generations at this point. Most people will be unable to protect their rights if the government decides you are not a citizen. You will be expeditiously shipped off to a foreign prison to never be seen again.

[Anonymous]

Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do folks not want more citizens? Our birthrate is declining. Immigration can save us from the grey spiral. Do folks not look around? Look at Europe and Japan (even China now). Their declining broth rates are going to destroy their economies. We have (had) hope with immigration.

Really getting tired of the narrative of 'If you don't see things my way, things will be destroyed'.

Our birthrate is declining because people see things aren't sustainable and are down shiffting. Some populations that come here through mass uncontrolled immigration don't get that same signal/feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My neighbors who are both citizens (but naturalized originally from other countries) had their brother and pregnant wife visit.

They came in early January. I only saw the wife once walking and when I met the brother I said hello introduced myself and asked how long they were staying. He said they were leaving in a couple weeks.

Saw neighbors again a few weeks later and brother was still there. Neighbor told me how the wife was pregnant but they were keeping it secret because of Trump. Brother and wife were not US citizens and from India. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

They had a baby in late spring and baby has US citizenship and Indian citizenship. They left a couple weeks after baby was born.

This to me is totally wrong. They lied and so did my neighbors (who are wealthy and have graduate degrees including PhDs).

I am not pro Trump but I was alarmed by the way this was handled by all of them.

My sibling lived in another country (years ago) and knew of countless people who came to the US so their baby could also be a US citizen. They knew to come not right when close to due date either. I thought my sibling was exaggerating until I saw what happened with my neighbors.

Something needs to change.

What makes you claim that the baby has dual citizenship? India does not allow dual citizenship. They would have to get a visa for the baby to travel to India, or apply for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), which is kind of like a Green Card in India. It takes longer than a "couple of weeks" to process an OCI card.

[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.

Yes 347,215,306 US citizens must apply for US citizenship. End it today!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is holding a news conference. Help me understand what's happening.

Nothing is happening.

We all want Citizenship by Birth to go away because it’s rampantly being taken advantage of by illegals, foreign tourists, foreign students, etc.

Foreigners do it to have an anchor baby or 18 yo child file 10+ family sponsor pull-ins from other countries. It’s a handy call option for the rich to move to America and it’s a sob story to tell Immigration Control once caught.

Problem is there is mainly one almost impossible mechanic to get it cleaned up. And senators want to tie other proposals to it for their vote. So it’s a serious matter but constantly used as a pawn by legislature.

I wish a president had the balls to put it to the house and senate as a standalone vote.

[Anonymous]

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!

Sadly true. What a laughingstock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem to be open ended. How many generations do we go back? Did my great great great grandparents come here legally? How does one prove that in a court of law that is over seen by a radical supreme Court?

If you can take birth rights away from a first generation person you certainly can take it away from an 8th generation person.

Once you cross the Rubicon of taking birth rights away there is nothing stopping republicans from stripping birth rights from any US citizen.

It will not be retroactive. And once it goes through, if and however that may be, it will not be retroactive.

There are several European and UK case precedents of devices countries seating citizenship by birth this way and it was fine. They set a near date and then going FW from that date it ceases. Your kid gets the citizenship of their father and mother, and can apply for U.S. citizenship later.

A constitutional amendment is harder than you are wishing. Sorry hon.

What senators and congresspeople are against it as a solo item vote and amendment? I’d like a list.

[Anonymous]

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.

Guess we’ll have to wait until things get even worse state by state or come up with a more practical way to change it.

Or you’re missing something and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is holding a news conference. Help me understand what's happening.

Nothing is happening.

We all want Citizenship by Birth to go away because it’s rampantly being taken advantage of by illegals, foreign tourists, foreign students, etc.

Foreigners do it to have an anchor baby or 18 yo child file 10+ family sponsor pull-ins from other countries. It’s a handy call option for the rich to move to America and it’s a sob story to tell Immigration Control once caught.

Problem is there is mainly one almost impossible mechanic to get it cleaned up. And senators want to tie other proposals to it for their vote. So it’s a serious matter but constantly used as a pawn by legislature.

I wish a president had the balls to put it to the house and senate as a standalone vote.

No “we” don’t, just you and your punching down cohorts that need to feel special by always having someone beneath you.

[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.

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).

Which is true.

Its intent was for the slaves and their children to be citizens. And for settlers pushing west and their children to be citizens. And fight out mother Spaniards and the French.

Those days are over in our continent.

[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.

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.

More.

Lots of precedent and changes in other developed countries when they got rid of it - for the same serious reasons as we need to.