President Trump is taking action on immigration due to decades of failure by Congress. He plans on issuing an Executive Order to remove citizenship for babies born within the US border by non-citizens or illegal aliens known as "anchor babies." This action is guaranteed to be challenged in Federal Court and could be a watershed moment for the 14th Amendment and the nation.
What are your thought? Should anyone be allowed to step across our borders and give birth to a "citizen"? What kind of prerequisites should there be under a modernized rule?
My first reaction is I don't have a problem with changing the law to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship, as long as it is done in a constitutional manner.
"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." - https://www.archives.gov
Yes. For a sitting president to just say they'll circumvent the words of the founding fathers by executive order is either ignorant, careless, or both.
An attorney friend tried to explain this to me. It is something that will be slugged out by legal heavy weights. To me, it's complicated. Here's an article recommended I read.
"A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/ … stitution/
And then there is the opposite opinion.
'The only way to avoid this straightforward understanding is to misread the 14th Amendment’s text, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as an exception that swallows the jus solis rule. Some originalist scholars, such as John Eastman and Edward Erler, argue that this language must refer to aliens, who owe allegiance to another nation and not the U.S.'
http://www.aei.org/publication/settled- … amendment/
Thanks for supplying both sides of the legal argument. As a former legal editor of 30 years, I was able to relate to the argument that boiled down to a couple of commas and kind of get a good laugh. However there seems to be a difference in just reading the law and taking into consideration the legal history behind it.
Personally, I think we should reconsider bestowing citizenship on incidental births in this country, especially aliens who cross the border illegally or temporarily. Seriously, if a couple who are prominent citizens of Mexico cross the border to eat Texas barbecue, aiming afterward to return home to Mexico, have the good fortune of mama going into labor and the baby born North of the border, why should that child automatically be a citizen of the U.S.? I'm sure the framers of our Constitution never thought about that then nor in the 1860s after the Civil War.
That is a good point. I was not born in the United States. Both of my parents are citizens of the United States so I am automatically a citizen. I do have a cousin who was born when both of his parents were here on a green card. They are now citizens. So, his situation was intentional and not an accident. If we change the 14th amendment, in his situation, he would not be a citizen? I have relatives who have been here a few years and some that have been here since the early 1900s. Like I said before, this is something the legal heavy weights will have to argue.
It does need to stop. If we listen to those who have come here legally and established themselves as productive citizens they say the "anchor baby" method of citizenship is wrong on many levels.
It does seem like something that needs to be changed, especially if it motivates people to come here illegally.
Just as an aside, what happened to conservative respect for the Constitution? I mean, if we start changing the Constitution, what's next, the 2nd amendment?
I can give you one perspective on that crankalicious, because I thought about that aspect when considering my first opinion.
I see it this way; I only think of the first ten amendments as part of the original Constitution, so to my mind, altering later amendments is not the same as altering our original Constitution. We aren't altering the Framer's vision, we are either adding or altering ours.
That sounds suspiciously like someone who is parsing Constitutional amendments based on personal preference.
Really? I thought it was an honest answer. No parsing. Understanding that the first ten amendments were understood to become a part of the Constitution when it was proposed for ratification. That they were a subject the Framers discussed and considered. I don't see any parsing. I see the reality that all amendments after those first ten were not part of the original constitutional proposition.
Do you see it differently? Do you think that viewing any amendment as part of the Constitution qualifies it to be considered as equally 'original' as the only ten the Framers considered?
It's just a perspective promisem. Of course you are welcome to your view of it, but I think such a view would be well served by an understanding of the perspective offered. I don't see that in your comment.
I really doubt the framers considered prohibition much. Or it's repeal.
I didn't see a justification of your view in the comment other than an originalist preference for the Framers, which is why I responded the way I did. My reply had nothing to do with the honesty of your answer.
What I did read in the comment is that later Amendments have less value than the original ones based on who wrote them.
As you know, Amendments are extraordinarily difficult to pass and also extraordinarily difficult to repeal. They have a compelling reason to exist because of their overwhelming support.
Their purpose, even if imperfect, has survived decades and even centuries of challenges and interpretations. Nothing in any of them has been problematic enough to compel the country to repeal them, other than prohibition.
You have it almost right promisem. I do have an "...originalist preference for the Framers..." Constitution, but rather than say I think later amendments have "less value," I would say I see them as having less of the 'automatic' authority of the Framer's vision.
In short, some later amendments do match, (by my thinking), the authority of the Framer's work. I think ones like the 13th and 15th Amendments, (not exclusive), are examples that I think illustrate the foundational structure the Framer's intended for our nation's Constitution.
Whereas your example of the 18th, and ones like the 12th, 16th, or even 17th, are more "process" related - as I see them, than nation defining.
Mess with any of the first ten, and I would most probably be against it. As I would be against messing with many of the later amendments, like the 15th. But... I would probably just shrug with regards to messing with the 20th Amendment.
All that to explain my answer to the query about Conservatives being against messing with the Constitution. Whether you agree with that or not, can you see the rational I am trying to illustrate?
I like that Trump is talking about this. The change needs to be made as long as it's constitutional to do short of an amendment, and I suspect that if he goes through with the executive order, we'll see challenges, and it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court.
Careful what you wish for.
If that happens through an EO, and SCOTUS rule in favor, then the 2nd amendment can be dealt with the same way by a future president, no?
Once you repeal any Amendment, all of them become in play. But the reality is it's highly unlikely any of them get repealed.
That doesn't stop our President from proposing something unrealistic for the sake of appealing to his supporters.
I don't expect the President to try to repeal the Amendment. What he is doing is forcing Congress to finally act on immigration. Our system has been abused for far too long and it goes far beyond one Party or the other - All Americans are being hurt by the volumes of illegals coming, unvetted, to the country. Diseases we have controlled with proper hygiene and medical attention are now once again evident. Crime is also rising.
Sounds great for his base. But it violates the 14th Amendment. What's the point other than playing to the crowd?
Okay, spoke with another attorney on the matter. Here what was pointed out to me.
Here's the 14th Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the the challenge, he believes will be based on this line in the 14th Amendment.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This is a requirement they be subject to the laws of the United States. If they enter the country illegally, they have not subjected themselves to the laws of the United States. They've broken the laws. So, that will be the argument. Since you have not subjected yourself to the laws by being here illegally, you will not be considered a citizen if your parents were here illegally. I'm sure they will claim this line from the 14th Amendment supports their position.
So, it will be interesting to see how this will unfold. My friend does teach Constitutional law. I thanked him for his time and providing some insight into the topic. The anticipated approach to eliminate birthright immigration seems interesting to me.
He believes it will ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. I agree.
Again, careful what you wish for.
If illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of US law, then anyone in the country illegally would be free to break US law with impunity, because the law simply would not apply to them.
In fact, technically the law that makes them an "illegal" immigrant would not be applicable either (you can't be outside the jurisdiction of US law and subject to it at the same time) so they would just be . . . an immigrant.
I'm not sure that's what you want to achieve.
"If illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of US law, then anyone in the country illegally would be free to break US law with impunity, because the law simply would not apply to them. "
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction, do they still enjoy the rights and protections of the constitution? "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" comes to mind - can anyone take what they have or even kill them with impunity?
"Can anyone take what they have or even kill them with impunity?"
You should probably ask Readmikenow as he's suggesting illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of US law.
But no, you could not take what they have or kill them with impunity, because although they would not be subject to US law, you are.
In contrast, a person with such status could commit any crime without fear of prosecution, because US laws would literally not apply to them.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereo"
Your Interpretation gets you low marks for reading comprehension. This is a quote from the 14th amendment. This is NOT something I made up. So, now, what does this mean? This is complicated. Here we go.
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/re … isdiction/
The 14th amendment does NOT deal with who and who is not subject to the laws of the United States. It deals with CITIZENSHIP. Do you see how it is in reference to this single issue and no other?
How any of you responded like you did amazes me.
If you feel unable to respond to a comment without being rude or insulting, I suggest you do something else for a while. I could always share my own opinion of your reading and comprehension skills, but I don't want to be rude, so I won't. So let's just keep things civil shall we.
Thanks for the link, but I don't rely on "The Federalist" for my understanding of the Constitution. I prefer to form an understanding from direct sources.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines "jurisdiction", within the current context, to mean: "[a] government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory "(1).
On that basis, being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means being subject to the authority of the US government.
Being subject to that authority is not dependent on a person's citizenship, immigration status or allegiance. A foreign tourist (someone with no allegiance to the US government) must still observe US laws, because they are within the jurisdiction of the US government.
Likewise, being subject to that authority is not dependent on complying with it. A criminal cannot exempt themselves from federal arson laws by setting fire to something. Likewise, an immigrant cannot exempt themselves from immigration laws by entering the country illegally.
That whole notion is, frankly, idiotic.
So those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US government includes the majority of people within the territory of the United States, regardless of whether they have broken any law or who they owe allegiance to.
So who does the jurisdiction clause exclude?
People who are legitimately immune from US law. Such as: foreign diplomats who, despite their presence within US territory, have diplomatic immunity; lawful enemy combatants, who would have lawful combatant immunity, even if they were within US territory etc; at the time it would also have included children born within Native American tribes that were deemed to be "separate sovereigns". The children of people with such a status would not have been (or be) automatically conferred US citizenship by birth.
But what of Congressional intent for the 14th amendment? Birthright citizenship is based on an English common law principle, jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).
The Supreme Court effectively repealed jus soli with the infamous Dred Scott decision. So with the 14th amendment, Congress not only overruled Dred Scott, but also elevated jus soli to Constitutional law.
The Senate debate from May 1866, provides some insight into Congressional intent. Senator Howard introduced the amendment:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."(2)
In case you're tempted to quibble about the placement of commas etc, the Senate debate around the 14th amendment makes clear that the Senators understood the amendment to be applicable to the children of foreigners. So much so that some Senators objected to it on those grounds.
Senator Cowan complained that it would confer citizenship rights and status on people who:
"owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none," as well as people who commit "trespass" within the U.S(3).
Senator Conness responded to that with:
"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States"(4).
So there is no real debate here. If there were, the contemporaneous Senate debate on the 14th amendment would simply make no sense. Both the meaning of the amendment, and Congress' intent are clear.
Any confusion or ambiguity is the result of a wilful misreading of it.
(1) Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edn, 2009, p.927-8)
(2) https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenshi … e_2890.pdf
Don w, Good to see you read what I wrote this time.
If you ever feel the need to be rude to me I welcome it. I can take it. Give it your best shot. Others do all the time. It doesn't bother me.
There are many legal scholars who would disagree with your "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpretation.
Many believe just as I previously stated and there are many who believe it means the following
"The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power."
Now there are many political leaders lining up to challenge how it is currently implemented. This is their belief.
"Because the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mandate automatic birthright citizenship, the Congress can pass a law to correct the current misguided and incorrect policy of automatically granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants."
So, it doesn't matter if you or I believe a debate on the 14th amendment would make no sense, it is going to happen. Trust me. As far as the meaning and the intent of the amendment being clear, that will be determined by the Supreme Court.
What do you think will happen there?
Being rude to people when you feel like it is easy. Not being rude to people, even when you feel like it, takes some character. QED.
You used this quote:
"The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power."
First, please attribute the quote so I can check the source. I assume, based on your previous comments, it's a biased source, but on the slim chance it's not there may be additional information there I find useful. The only source I can find for that quote is the site of Republican Congressman Steve King(1). I hope you don't consider that to be a reliable, objective source of truth. It's possible King is quoting it from elsewhere though, so source please.
Second, please provide examples of the "history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment" which that quote refers to. You have quoted it, so I assume you fully know what it refers to. Specifically what aspect of that history does it mean?
Third, I said "the contemporaneous Senate debate on the 14th amendment would simply make no sense". Contemporaneous means "existing at the same time". In other words, if there was any doubt about the meaning of the 14th amendment at the time it was written, the debate they had about it in 1866 would have made no sense.
The fact that some Senators objected to the amendment on the grounds that it conferred citizenship to children of foreigners, indicates that Senators understood it to mean exactly that. That is called Congressional intent.
As I said, confusion about that is due to wilful misreading, ignorance of the historical record, lack of understanding or a combination of all three.
Any objective, unbiased, non-partisan court would rule against such an EO. It is yet to be proven whether the current court is any of those things. I strongly suspect it might not be. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
(1) https://steveking.house.gov/media-cente … -amendment
My point is there are two different sides to the issue. Two different ways of looking at it. I imagine Congress will enact a law or President Donald Trump will sign an executive order and then it will go to the Supreme Court. I believe the current court will uphold the executive order or congressional law. We will see.
I think if extending birthright citizenship was stopped for people who come here illegally, many of our problems with illegal immigration would also stop. I think the motivation to get here illegally would decrease significantly.
You seem to have misread what I have asked and what I have said.
1. Please provide a source for the quote you provided.
2. Please explain which aspect of the "drafting of the 14th Amendment" supports your claims.
3. I agree, there are two different ways of looking at it.
One way is based on the historical record and the contemporaneous debate in the Senate, which indicates Congressional intent.
The other is based on a combination of wilful misreading, ignorance of the historical record, lack of understanding, or a combination of all three. And would undermine the Constitution and everything it stands for.
There is no balance or equivalence here.
I don't care if you think ending citizenship birthright would end problems with illegal immigration. Firstly, no it wouldn't. Secondly, the integrity of the Constitution is more important. The end does not justify the means.
If a Democratic president were proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment with an EO, just because he believed SCOTUS was currently biased and partisan enough to rule in favor, I'd be just as critical, even though I despise firearms. There is no reason you can give that justifies undermining the Constitution. Not one. It's too important.
Look forward to see that source, and your explanation of what that quote is referring to.
We could go back and forth on this for a long time, but why? I'm into the facts of a story. Here are the facts.
1. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of individuals whose parents are in the United States illegally based on the citizenship section of the 14th amendment.
2. President Donald Trump will issue an Executive Order banning automatic citizenship to those whose parents are here illegally. This will only happen if Congress fails to provide a law doing the same. It has been tried before. "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" would have accomplished this, but it was never debated in Congress and never brought up for a vote.
3. It will then go to the Supreme Court who will interpret the constitutionality of the Executive Order or law.
Here is my opinion.
The current Supreme Court will rule in favor of denying automatic birthright citizenship to those whose parents are here illegally. At that point, it will be the law of the land.
I don't see what we would need to go back and forth. I've asked you two simple questions. You just need to answer them.
1. What's your source for this quote: "The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power."
2. Exactly what aspect of the "history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment" supports that misreading of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
I think those are both reasonable questions. I assume you're a reasonable person, so I look forward to the answers.
Its not a bad idea at all - except when a potus insists he can change a constitutional amendment all by himself; and is really using this talking point as yet another stunt to stoke his base - which, it is obviously working. It is what Trump is good at. Division, Diversion, and Refocusing.
What he is good at is bringing longtime problems into the light, and point the finger at who is at fault for not working on solving them. It is very clear that when the president points out a problem there is a part of the population that just don't want to hear it...Sweep it under a carpet, and let it grow. I needed no "stoking". I only had to consider that our deficit is 21 trillion, and most of that money owed is to us, due to the bigger debt was borrowed from our SS. There is one simple fact many don't even consider into the equation. At this time we can't afford to add new citizens that are not adding funds to our coffers but taking from our coffers... We are a caring country, and give billions each year to help our neighbors. It's time to face reality, we need to fix our immigration problems. Perhaps instead of just buying into the narrative, our president is dividing, it time to look at the reality of what he is doing with his rhetoric. He is bringing attention to a problem that is serious and has come to a head on his time... I realize many hope to have open borders, but many of us hope to have strong borders, and immigration laws that benefit the country, not burden it.
When you speak of division, it's apparent there is a division. However, I wonder if the division was brewing for a very long time. You see many of us truly hope some of our longtime problems get solved. This is the reason Trump won and would win again today. He is solving problems. Yes, he is like a bulldozer, but problems that have piled up over many years due to being ignored need a bulldozer.
I am just pleased we have a president that is bringing up this problem. Hopefully, Congress will do their job. If not I guess it will end up in the Supreme Court. We badly need to revisit all of our immigration laws. I stand with the president when it comes to fixing our immigration laws. It's long overdue. The best way to handle the problem is to take it to the doorsteps of our lawmakers. Lindsey Gram has put out a statement that he will introduce legislation on birthright citizenship as he did in 2010. Maybe this time Congress will face the problem.
Agreed - there are some problems which should rise above partisan politics and immigration is one of them. Unfortunately it's being used as an emotional trigger to elicit sympathy votes.
Correct. True immigration reform has been needed for a long time, however, we don't need the kind of 'reform' that upends immigration law.
I think we need to end the birthright system, go to primarily merit based immigration, and set limits on both immigration by choice and asylum (refugee immigrants).
And, of course, put some teeth into the laws and ensure they are enforced.
Wilderness, I think most Dems I know would agree with what you're proposing. That makes perfect sense to me and I would support it.
Here's the thing I haven't seen in the forums - Republicans (I'm using this term loosely here because most business people are Republicans) like open borders. Why? Businesses like cheap labor. And we have a cheap labor shortage in this country.
I think there's got to be some kind of path to citizenship for people who serve this purpose and are hard-working, contributing members of society.
Outside of your implication that a small minority of republicans are useful in describing the bulk of them I agree.
Right up until the notion of blanket, or near blanket, amnesty is offered. I fully support a DACA program (for kids, not for families or extended families), but would absolutely fight giving another amnesty program. We did that at least once, with a completely negative result.
Plus, businesses like illegals because they don't have to pay them even minimum wage. Make them citizens that that goes away - all that cheap labor disappears into the pot of Americans.
Fair enough. Let's just say "business leaders" are generally in favor of illegals being around because it provides cheap labor. We don't need to classify them as Republicans or Democrats. However, they do tend to and have held sway over politicians. There are lots of business lobbyists fighting to keep the borders open.
I wouldn't classify it as amnesty, but a program to accelerate citizenship for those who have established working lives here. Though I imagine that probably happens anyway if you establish a good work history.
I admire your willingness to provide good pay for citizens and eliminate cheap labor, though I wonder if average Americans are willing to pay $10/pound for strawberries, among other things. The result of eliminating cheap labor is that prices will go up for everyone most likely.
That said, I will acknowledge that liberals have been promoting a $15 minimum wage and that Republicans have been saying that prices will go up (though I'm sure some liberals are saying this too) as a result. The benefit of fair wages is that more people have more money to pump into the economy and make it grow. Inflation could be the result though.
That's basically where I'm going.....no amnesty, enforce current laws and curtail immigration from third world countries.
What is your opinion on the DACA kids? I would support "amnesty" for them (but not their families); it is my feeling that our greed for cheap labor is a good part of why they are here, and to send them to a land they don't know, with a language, customs and laws they don't know, seems out of line. IMO.
That has always been our stance on the right , of course amnesty will be a large part of the ending of free immigration. But this craziness and inactivity by congress has to end .That's why we have a wall coming?
I'm in the same corner on with DACA children. They were brought here, and need to be allowed to become citizens seeing as they've grown up in the US.
Their parents who brought them here came into the country illegally, and therefore should not be given citizenship - no amnesty for them. Sadly, there are a few DACA radicals who are pushing the Democrats to pass legislation that would allow them to sponsor their parents once they're citizens - that would be even worse a move than the 80's amnesty.
And with parents come siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles.
If DACA kids don't want to live in a different country than their parents they are welcome to go home with them. I believe all countries grant citizenship based in parentage.
The 14th amendment was created to ensure that the children of emancipated slaves would receive citizenship upon birth.
That purpose no long applies, and it has become little more than a popular method of circumventing the intent and words of immigration laws. As such it needs repealed and should have been years ago.
"Circumventing the intent and words of immigration laws" is indeed the very purpose of "anchor babies". One of the questions we need to ask is who in government supports this circumvention. Taking an honest look at those people, their supporters, and their goals is an eye-opening look at what they want to do with the Constitution.
You could start by looking at these cities, and the states they occupy:
Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle
All formally sanctuary cities, that will do what they can to also circumvent immigration laws.
Maryland is 'achanging' Wilderness. Our Republican Governor has done well by our state, and seems to be a shoo-in for re-election.
His policies are also affecting the direction of our Democrat controlled legislature. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Baltimore is an anomaly to most of the rest of our state. That situation I lay entirely at the feet of the mayor and City Council. But, if they lose the state legislative support they have been used to, as we are hoping for next week, their hands might not be so free to act on such a liberal agenda.
Just a little 'local' new for you. ;-)
Wilderness, I agree with you that off-spring of slaves was on the mind of the 14th Amendment authors, and I agree that the 14th Amendment needs revision.
I would not have a problem with an Executive Order, (EO), leading the issue into the courts.
I think that, as those advocating it, the "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." does open the door to an EO, and, a successful court challenge.
Admittedly, I have not looked into the all possible unconsidered consequences of complete repeal, but as a basic tenet I support it.
[EDIT ADDED] An afterthought occurs... what about green card holders on the naturalization path?
Afterr thought - I am insufficiently familiar with naturalization to even guess. Are minor children automatically included or does a 2 year old require separate paperwork, vetting, etc. Is it hassle to get them citizenship? Might be zero problem, might be a big one.
But let me ask another: my daughter-in-law has dual citizenship, US and Britain. Her father moved here, married, had children and continues to live here, legally, without ever becoming a citizen. All of his children thus have dual citizenship. Does that even make sense? I always thought you could only have one citizenship, but I was wrong.
I am also unfamiliar with the intricacies of the example you give, but, shooting from the hip - dual citizenship, particularly in your example, seems reasonable to me.
It just surprised me. I had never considered the possibility; what happens if we go to war with Britain? Where do loyalties lie? Could she have voted on Brexit, never having lived there and no plans to ever do so (I don't think so, but don't know)? I just assumed that a person could never be citizens of two different countries.
I wonder if that duality is another unintended result of the 14th. Is there any other way to get it, anywhere?
Your last question is a good one, Wilderness. Here is the oath the naturalization candidate must take. Please note that there is an exception that the person can request. I haven't checked into that yet:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/na … es-america
Ah, but I have never taken such an oath. Neither has she; she was automatically a citizen because she was born here and automatically a citizen of the UK because her father was.
Does that give rise to the possibility of a person with three citizenships? One from each parent and one from being born in the US? I certainly don't know - just wondering and thinking out loud.
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth. Or, an individual having one nationality at birth may naturalize at a later date in another country and become a dual national.
U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. However, persons who acquire a foreign nationality after age 18 by applying for it may relinquish their U.S. nationality if they wish to do so. In order to relinquish U.S. nationality by virtue of naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Intent may be shown by the person’s statements and conduct.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.
U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport to travel to or from a country other than the United States is not inconsistent with U.S. law.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel … ality.html
It is my understanding that, not withstanding the "nationality", a person immigrating to the US and wishing citizenship must give up their citizenship in the other country. I've been told that one reason the father of the woman in question never became a citizen was that he would have to give up his UK citizenship.
But the woman does not (I've been told) have just dual nationality, but dual citizenship. I may have been misled, but I don't think so.
And apparently it is not uncommon:
Acquiring Dual Citizenship
A person in the United States may acquire dual citizenship in one of several ways, including:
Being born in the United States to immigrant parents.
Being born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen, and another parent who is a citizen of another country.
Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen while maintaining citizenship in another country.
Regaining citizenship in a country of origin after having become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizen … nship.html
I've never heard of anyone holding triple citizenship, but that doesn't make it not so.
3 Passports for 3 Continents
"The idea of citizenship and national identity is a complex one. Recently, I became a citizen of three countries on three different continents. I can now claim passports to the United States, the United Kingdom and Taiwan."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/3-passpo … _b_5212222
Wilderness, first let me say that I am in agreement with most of the voices on this one, a birth shouldn't guarantee automatic citizenship. It is my understanding that a child of an alien has to wait until the age of 18 and then go through the naturalization process himself/herself. Maybe an exception to the children of adults being naturalized should be added to the law. I am on the naturalization committee of my DAR chapter (Daughters of the American Revolution), so I will ask about this. We attend naturalization ceremonies in our city and hand out brochures to the newly naturalized citizens.
I've known several naturalized citizens, including an aunt in my own family who was brought to this country at the age of 16 when she married my uncle, a U.S. serviceman stationed in her country. Unfortunately, I never asked her if she had to wait until she was 18 to become a citizen. She passed away last year, but I do know that she held dual U.S. and Icelandic citizenship.
I would think that anyone in the legal immigration channel would not be hurt by the EO - I'm betting the Trump team does an end-around by making it legal to "denaturalize" anyone who specifically comes to the United States (legally or illegally) with the intent of providing citizenship for an unborn child. He doesn't need to change the Constitution. This fixes the Chinese problem as well as illegal entries.
RJ, I am still 'shooting from the hip' here. I have not researched this, so it is only my gut opinion.
I am not sure about the "de-naturalizing" thing. I am thinking that if someone is a naturalized citizen, then their children should have the right to be citizens.
Naturalization is a long and purposeful process, so maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I also don't know how the "naturalization" thing applies to a "Chinese" problem. What's that about?
GA, Mike provided two links, and the "Chinese problem" was explained in one of the stories. I forget which one, but it was enlightening.
I'll try to clarify what I said. There is a huge population of Chinese that come to America just to give birth https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010 … ies-china/
The President can create an EO which states that anyone who comes here explicitly to gain citizenship for an unborn child is guilty of a crime and thus the child (even though born here) would lose that naturalization & the parents not allowed to ever apply for citizenship. By illegally skirting our immigration laws, the parent(s) would show intent and therefore the court case would be relatively easy.
I'm not sure of the legality of this theory, but it feels like it would have teeth, especially since it's focused on anyone coming here (not just singling out a specific group) for the intent of illegally obtaining citizenship.
Other searches have now informed me about this "Chinese Tourist Baby" problem RJ. I do think it is also a problem that should be addressed, but from what I have read it is not a "huge" problem comparable to the illegal immigrant baby issue that has forced this focus.
It has been noted that it should be relatively easy to put a big dent in this "tourism baby" problem just by monitoring these brokers and companies that are putting those 'baby' packages together. It is a crime to lie about the reason for a visa request. So those caught doing so - signing up for these "tourism baby" packages could have their baby's naturalization revoked. No executive order needed. Just enforcement of the law.
It might be interesting to note that Canada also has this problem and has also seen efforts, or at least calls, to address this problem.
Why do an executive order that is highly unConstitutional and condemned by both right and left politicians as a waste of time?
And that is your researched opinion? (remember, mine wasn't, I stated I was 'shooting from the hip')
regardless of the feasibility of my thoughts concerning an Executive Order, I am still in favor of a change to, or a repeal of, the 14th Amendment - with respects to the "anchor baby" perspective.
Yes, it is my researched opinion based on everything I have read from legal experts on both the right and the left. Even Republican party leaders are dismissing it.
It is a thorough waste of time for the country to get sidetracked by such a weak political ploy.
You of course have a right to favor repealing the 14th Amendment to benefit a conservative political policy. But I'm surprised you as a conservative want to open that can of worms.
Once you get the country into a mode of changing Amendments, they all are fair game, including cherised conservative ones such as the 2nd.
Quite a few people including myself would love to change that one.
No more a waste of tax dollars than the Mueller investigation and the countless numbers of investigations the Democrats have planned if they win the House.
I don't think 30+ indictments including a former National Security Advisor, Trump campaign manager and Trump personal lawyer are a waste of tax dollars.
Indictments that have led to what Promise? How many people are in prison over it and what restitution has the United States received from it? What is the ROI on the spend from Mueller?
Sounds like you might be measuring wins on a political scoreboard; Trump this, Trump that, Here a Trump, There a Trump, Everywhere a Trump Trump.....
I think its an excellent thing to be forwarded as an EO.
This would bring it into the spotlight for the 2020 election.
It has been disheartening these past few weeks, to see otherwise intelligent, rational human beings devolve into these slanderous mechanisms that label anyone who would support Trump or the Republicans as racist, anti-Semite, sexists.
Natalie Frank wrote an interesting Hub 'Increasing-Narcissism-in-College-Students' and you know, I understand the viciousness and insensitivity of young people, they have little experience, and have had even less discipline in their lives, so its no surprise they resort to shouting down and insulting anyone that stands out from their 'group think'.
But when I see people who I know are over 50, and who came up in an era where discipline and respect was abundant, when one could not function in society without it... going full blown name calling, baiting and hating against those that have differing opinions, its a sad statement of where our country is headed.
… Yes GA, an EO is the best way to go, so that it can be easily rescinded when the next President takes office. We are moving to a borderless world, its not a matter of if, its a matter of when... had the 'intellectual elites' and 'driving powers' who are behind the globalization efforts had more respect for 'the masses' and taken the time to educate and explain to the people the reasons for it, rather than shoving it down their throats and politicizing it, it wouldn't even be an issue, we would be in support of it.
Because deep down inside, despite the rhetoric of so many during this mid-term hysteria, despite the horrible acts of a handful of ignorant individuals, the overwhelming majority of Americans are good, decent, and compassionate people.
They are just led astray by corrupt politicians and inflammatory media sources.
Good luck repealing a Constitutional amendment.
Just because YOU interpret it to mean something, does not make it so. Hence the EO would force the Judicial system to review and rule on the meaning, clarifying the matter.
Give me a break. Since when has anyone in the entire history of the country repealed an Amendment other than prohibition? What President has changed the Constitution or its Amendments on his own through EO?
I for one read history books.
Not a fan of Trump, but it's a good idea as long as it is moving forward from a point and not trying to remove people already born. It won't happen though. Just a nice calculated move.
It appears that President Donald Trump is NOT the first politician to suggest an end to birthright citizenship. Democrat Harry Reid suggested it back in 1993. Interesting!
"But Trump is far from the first American politician to suggest an end to birthright citizenship. A bill introduced by then-Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada in 1993 sought to end birthright citizenship. The measure would have no longer allowed those born in the U.S. to parents who were in the country illegally to obtain automatic citizenship. If the newborn's parents were in the U.S. legally, then birthright citizenship would have been granted. GOP Congressman Steve King of Iowa also proposed similar legislation in 2017, which received the support of 48 Republican co-sponsors."
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-end-birt … ll-1193897
I don't know if you've noticed, but you are not seeing much (any?) opposition to this idea from people in this forum. I'm fine with the idea. If legislators would do this as a standalone change (not adding a bunch of contentious conditions), I think most people would support it.
You are right. I'm into the details of a story. I think its history is interesting as well as how the legal challenges will unfold. I believe there will be some serious opposition to this. I'm waiting to see how the media handles it.
You can bet your bottom dollar that it will be decried as racism ten seconds after it is written.
You're too generous. Just knowing that it is being worked on will be enough to play the card.
Sure it will. I've heard far left commentators suggest that Republicans won't accept that the country is changing color. Really???
Certainly there are some racist elements involved in the idea - people simply don't want more Hispanic people in this country, so it's just flat-out untruthful to suggest that some of the motivation isn't race.
However, if it applies to everyone who isn't a US citizen, then that's just simply not racist. The policy would not be based on race. But just like you know somebody will play the race card, somebody will also get caught on tape or social media saying something to the effect of "Finally! Fewer spi*s!"
I must be dense this morning because I'm unsure of your meaning. Are you saying you'd give your citizenship if you could?
Here is an article that explains how you can renounce your US citizenship.
It's not complicated. If you want to renounce your US citizenship there is no reason not to do it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to- … hip-2018-8
Not in our case (Puerto Ricans).
Here is some advice from a Puerto Rican. You can renounce your US citizenship, but, it appears you will also lose your citizenship to Puerto Rico.
Carmen Ines Hernandez Rosich,
My husband’s uncle tried to renounce to his American citizenship. This happened on July 11th, 1994. He went to Venezuela, to the US embassy to do this. The problem was, and he knew this, was that he wouldn't have any other legal citizenship. His mission was to test a technicality in US citizenship law, where the person who renounced his/her citizenship is deported back to his country of origin. The US recognized his renunciation. This was eventually challenged in the courts, and the conclusion was that if he renounced his US citizenship, he had to do the same with his PR citizenship. Since he was still living in Puerto Rico, he was still a US citizen. In order to be able to renounce his citizenship, he needed the citizenship of another country, but Puerto Rico is not recognized as such.
Yup. I'm aware. There was a relevant case in the 90s of a public figure, Juan Mari Bras. Some people followed suit.
So, I guess there is no such thing as only simply "Puerto Rican" citizenship. If you're from Puerto Rico, you are a citizen of the United States and Puerto Rico, you can not renounce one without renouncing the other. I wonder if it is the same in other American territories such as American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc. Interesting aspect to this discussion.
But American Samoans are not US citizens.
"Despite American Samoa’s status as a U.S. territory, the people who are born there aren’t technically U.S. citizens. They’re called U.S. nationals, a status that means they pay American taxes but cannot vote, run for office, or serve on a jury. They also have special passports that declare them nationals, but not U.S. citizens."
Wow. So much interesting about this. First, nice job posting some Twitter post from what looks like a 13-year-old girl. How many of those do you follow on Twitter? Not that some 13-year-old girls can't have reasoned opinions about the Constitution and Socialism, but generally I'd probably seek my expertise elsewhere on those two issues. Second, what does Socialism have to do with abolishing the 1st and 2nd amendments? Third, show me any links to anyone, anywhere in this country legitimately trying to abolish the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Otherwise, completely awesome meme.
Like all of the liberal party's group love , The party is all out for the group like kids ........ until they are not anymore .
You both need to read , really read that amendment .
Trump and the courts have a lot of wiggle room in the wording .
But you know that too.
by ga anderson 6 years ago
The controversy over birthright citizenship, (aka `Anchor babies`), seems to one of interpretation.Specifically, the 2nd hurdle to citizenship the 14th Amendment included; that the mother must be; "...subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." It appears that there are two...
by William R. Wilson 11 years ago
He wants to gut the 14th amendment, and get rid of the 16th, 17th, and 26th.He also discussed taking away voting rights for non property owners. They keep showing their stripes: racists, working for the rich. They make it so obvious - how people can continue to support them is beyond...
by Doug Hughes 11 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall...
by dutchman1951 11 years ago
...Title should say Raise the Debt, not Deb.. sorry.A facinating Article below. From Huffington Post. Is it a real possibility that President Obama could, or should Bypass and Ignore Congress, If Negotiations fail?Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling?...
by rhamson 6 years ago
In America of course. If you go to a foreign country either legally or illegally and stay there, is it right to expect citizenship be awarded to you? The term "Anchor Baby" is now offensive to the PC crowd because of why? It speaks the truth! Many come here ready to drop a baby or through...
by Leslie McCowen 8 years ago
A Bill, “H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012,” legally binds America to a “Jewish” state.The Resolution was passed under a procedure called “suspension of the rules” typically reserved for non-controversial topics requiring little debate and allowing for a...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|