Capping the 14th Amendment

[RoyBacon]

With regard to birthright citizenship. When I heard this I thought it was ridiculous of Trump. Or maybe a ploy.

This could be a huge Constitutional case if Trump actually pursues it.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

This is where the indians come in. The country, congress and authors of the 14th did not want Indians to become citizens even though they were born right here in the good ole US. It would be a half a century more before Indians became citizens.

So are illegals who give birth, are they like the Indians?

Here is where it gets tricky.

The 14th specifically does not grant birthright to a person who has parents that belongs to another country. Indians were considered from another country. A half a dozen states did not grant state citizenship to "transient aliens" no matter if they were born in the state. They were never found to be unconstitutional, in fact those words were written by an earlier Supreme Court case.

An act of congress allowed Indians and only Indians to become citizens if born within the US. It did not change for anyone else.

Could be a close case.

[15805]

The overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. Over the past few decades, many countries that once did so — including Australia,
Ireland, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, & Malta,
have repealed those policies. Other countries are considering changes &
the USA should wise up!

With the new make up of the Supreme Court & Trump in charge,
it seems like the right time to end this absurd practice.
Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens. 14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship
Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors
temporarily present in the United States.

Even Democrat leader Harry Reid stated:: "No Sane Country" Would Permit Birthright Citizenship"

[khicks26]

[d2bets]

With regard to birthright citizenship. When I heard this I thought it was ridiculous of Trump. Or maybe a ploy.

This could be a huge Constitutional case if Trump actually pursues it.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

This is where the indians come in. The country, congress and authors of the 14th did not want Indians to become citizens even though they were born right here in the good ole US. It would be a half a century more before Indians became citizens.

So are illegals who give birth, are they like the Indians?

Here is where it gets tricky.

The 14th specifically does not grant birthright to a person who has parents that belongs to another country. Indians were considered from another country. A half a dozen states did not grant state citizenship to "transient aliens" no matter if they were born in the state. They were never found to be unconstitutional, in fact those words were written by an earlier Supreme Court case.

An act of congress allowed Indians and only Indians to become citizens if born within the US. It did not change for anyone else.

Could be a close case.

No serious legal scholar without an agenda thinks there is any doubt here.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), in unanimously finding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to illegal aliens, the SC held that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

There has never been a serious question about this.

If the "President" doesn't like what the Constitution says, there is a remedy for it, and it's not by wasting resources on a clearly unconstitutional executive order.

[d2bets]

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2018/10/30124312/Birthright-Statement.pdf

[chico2663]

Do you understand that trump is blowing smoke up your arses? Trump has been making a mint off russians giving birth at trump properties in miami florida.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens

[guitarjosh]

No serious legal scholar without an agenda thinks there is any doubt here.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), in unanimously finding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to illegal aliens, the SC held that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

There has never been a serious question about this.

If the "President" doesn't like what the Constitution says, there is a remedy for it, and it's not by wasting resources on a clearly unconstitutional executive order.

Get 5 supreme court justices to say it's a living breathing document that gives Trump has the power to revoke the citizenship of millions of people?

[RoyBacon]

No serious legal scholar without an agenda thinks there is any doubt here.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), in unanimously finding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to illegal aliens, the SC held that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

There has never been a serious question about this.

If the "President" doesn't like what the Constitution says, there is a remedy for it, and it's not by wasting resources on a clearly unconstitutional executive order.

For starters it was 6-3, not unanimous. Secondly it was a narrow decision that dealt with education and did not overturn either Elk v. Wilkins or United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

So maybe Trump is right and it's worth a SCOTUS challenge. Test the ole judge as written and intended camp. It's clear from the Indian situation the founders and the 14th did not consider everyone born on US soil an American. Here's a quote from the amendment author on the senate floor;
Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens from other nations as well; they enter into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa.
Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed (sounds like the intent was NOT to allow birth right citizenship to aliens)

[chico2663]

For starters it was 6-3, not unanimous. Secondly it was a narrow decision that dealt with education and did not overturn either Elk v. Wilkins or United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

So maybe Trump is right and it's worth a SCOTUS challenge. Test the ole judge as written and intended camp. It's clear from the Indian situation the founders and the 14th did not consider everyone born on US soil an American. Here's a quote from the amendment author on the senate floor;
Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens from other nations as well; they enter into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa.
Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed (sounds like the intent was NOT to allow birth right citizenship to aliens)

this was for the blacks in 1868. Talked to classmates son who is constitutional lawyer and a jag officer for this country. It is what he said. Also in wash post george conway another constitutional lawyer wrote in the wash. post stated it can't be done. Paul ryan said it can't be done. It is sort of like when obama decided he could do certain things with obama care and was told nah baby nah.

[rkelly110]

Butwhatabout reagan giving amnesty to millions? He circumvented the 14th amendment. The past indicates the future.

[RoyBacon]

Butwhatabout reagan giving amnesty to millions? He circumvented the 14th amendment. The past indicates the future.

I'd have to refresh on that but I remember that being an act of congress.

What's clear, and what I didn't realize, is the 14th does NOT automatically give citizenship to folks born on US soil. In fact, the authors made it explicitly clear that it did NOT.

That's why a half of century later Indians, through an act of congress, were given citizenship if they were born on US soil, but ONLY the native Indians. No other class.

Trump is on decent ground in this debate. The 14th authors intended the parents of illegals to come in legally and renounce any and all allegiances BEFORE any of their offspring could be considered US citizens. The SCOTUS relaxed the sworn allegiance part in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Even so, it's clear the parents had to be here legally.

[chico2663]

roy you are wrong again. The 14th ad was about blacks and the ability to vote. The indians were NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE until 1925. Here is the article that proves this point . It comes from tulane law. By the way I hate making you look like you don't know what you talking about.....NYET!

https://employment.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment

[chico2663]

The Snyder Act of 1924 admitted Native Americans bornin the U.S. to full U.S. citizenship. Though the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, granted all U.S. citizens the right to vote regardless of race, it wasn't until the Snyder Act that Native Americans could enjoy the rights granted by this amendment.

[chico2663]

poor roy bacon his ass out of his own thread

[RoyBacon]

poor roy bacon his ass out of his own thread

Everything I said is factual little amigo. Try reading the posts again. Remember what happened last time you thought you knew what you were talking about re the Supreme Court.

[d2bets]

Everything I said is factual little amigo. Try reading the posts again. Remember what happened last time you thought you knew what you were talking about re the Supreme Court.

No, most of what you said is your opinion. And most scholars believe your opinion is wrong. People end up debating endlessly over this stuff and bottom line there is no right or wrong answer, unless the SC decides the case, and then people just disagree with the opinion and say it's wrong.

I don't believe there is any serious doubt, but that's my opinion.

[15805]

No serious legal scholar without an agenda thinks there is any doubt here.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), in unanimously finding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to illegal aliens, the SC held that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

There has never been a serious question about this.

If the "President" doesn't like what the Constitution says, there is a remedy for it, and it's not by wasting resources on a clearly unconstitutional executive order.

I’m in good company in thinking this is subject to reinterpretation: Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit of Appeals also believes the idea of birthright citizenship is “nonsense” and could be done away with by Congress (Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620 [7th Cir. 2003]).

Birthright citizenship has been abandoned by the U.K., France, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and India as immigration has increased over the last 30 years. Outside the developing world, it remains the law only in the U.S. and Canada.
And Canada with 1/10 our population only 30,000,000 people probably can use an illegal immigrant or two.
We have more illegals here than Canada has people so we have no need for any more.

[chico2663]

Everything I said is factual little amigo. Try reading the posts again. Remember what happened last time you thought you knew what you were talking about re the Supreme Court.

you decided you won, suspended my account for a day , made me pay you 100 points, told me you weren't letting me come back but when i mentioned another site then you switched to one day. Is that what you are talking about sbr forum? No, you are wrong. I just showed you the act that allowed blacks to vote. A black republican also agreed with me. Yes i know it is like a leprechun but it is the truth.

[chico2663]

History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment

The Civil War ended on May 9, 1865. Just more than three years later, on July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. This amendment and the 13th and 15th amendments were a part of the Reconstruction Era of the United States, which focused on civil rights and rebuilding the war-torn nation. The 14th Amendment states that every person born or naturalized in America is a citizen of the country as well as their state of residence.
Some southern states began actively passing laws that restricted the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, and Congress responded with the 14th Amendment, designed to place limits on states' power as well as protect civil rights. To be readmitted to the Union after the Civil War, southern states had to ratify the 14th Amendment. Initially, Native Americans were not granted citizenship by this amendment because they were under the jurisdiction of tribal laws. It was not until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted Native Americans citizenship rights as well.
The 14th Amendment has five sections. The first section introduces the citizenship law for all people born in the country or naturalized. This section also covers the limitations of state laws, which cannot supersede federal laws that govern citizens. States cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process of law means that legal proceedings have to be fair and that citizens need to be given notice and a chance to be heard before any rulings are made. When originally passed, the 14th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship rights to African-Americans, and it states that citizenship cannot be taken from anyone unless someone gives it up or commits perjury during the naturalization process.
In 1787, delegates of the Constitutional Convention had reached a compromise for determining the number of representatives each state would have in the U.S. House of Representatives. Called the three-fifths compromise, this agreement stated that every five slaves would be counted as three people when determining population for the number of representatives and taxes owed. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment removed this law from the Constitution, giving freed slaves full weight as citizens. The only adult male citizens who were denied the right to vote were those convicted of crimes.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment focuses on rebellion, prohibiting anyone from being elected or appointed to a state or federal office after engaging in rebellion or treason. The houses of Congress can vote to override this if two-thirds of the votes are in favor. Section 4 serves to legitimize the public debt that Congress appropriates. This section was put in place to prevent the Confederacy's war and emancipation debts from impacting the reunited country.
The power of enforcement is outlined in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. This clause gives Congress the power to pass appropriate laws to enforce all of the provisions of this amendment. Debate and controversy have been high regarding the scope of power given to Congress by this section. In 1879, the Supreme Court gave Congress significant authority. Since this time, however, decisions have been more conservative, giving Congress less authority in regulation. Congress does not have the power to regulate the private conduct of citizens, but it can regulate actions by state and local governments. Congress has the authority to stop or resolve rights violations that have a legal precedent, but the remedies have to be proportionate to the violations.
Learn about the 14th Amendment, its history, and its impact by visiting the following websites:.Now this is from the tulane law site.
If you go on the site they have a live operator. You may actually get someone that is smarter than you. Scratch that you will. Now just cause you are getting that shit off fox doesn't make it right. Just like you are worried about that caravan but shep smith actually stated they wouldn't get here until after thanksgiving.

[RoyBacon]

No, most of what you said is your opinion. And most scholars believe your opinion is wrong. People end up debating endlessly over this stuff and bottom line there is no right or wrong answer, unless the SC decides the case, and then people just disagree with the opinion and say it's wrong.

I don't believe there is any serious doubt, but that's my opinion.

Nearly all of what I posted came from the architects of the 14th and what was said when it was passed in the senate.

Trumbull(14th Amendment author) “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'”

We know if you are in the US you are partially subject, correct? Criminal code, ect. But if you are here illegally you are not subject to the jurisdiction with respect to voting, working(legally), being drafted into the military, running for office and nearly everything else.

Otherwise I agree with your post. My point is this may not be as open and shut case as it first appeared. Migrants, like Indians before them, are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the US and obviously have allegiances to where ever they are citizens thereof.

[chico2663]

only roy could think he is right when there was an actual act 40 years later that gave indians the right to vote. Problem is roy is that i read history of our country. I know this an no matter if you are a moderator. they can't change the history for you. but thanks for being an ass and telling everyone you being the beetch you are suspended me for a day.

[RoyBacon]

only roy could think he is right when there was an actual act 40 years later that gave indians the right to vote. Problem is roy is that i read history of our country. I know this an no matter if you are a moderator. they can't change the history for you. but thanks for being an ass and telling everyone you being the beetch you are suspended me for a day.

Try reading slower amigo, you will learn something.

Indians, and only Indians were given birthright. The Act did not grant any others including migrants automatic citizenship. Only Indians.

[chico2663]

Nearly all of what I posted came from the architects of the 14th and what was said when it was passed in the senate.

Trumbull(14th Amendment author) “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'”

We know if you are in the US you are partially subject, correct? Criminal code, ect. But if you are here illegally you are not subject to the jurisdiction with respect to voting, working(legally), being drafted into the military, running for office and nearly everything else.

Otherwise I agree with your post. My point is this may not be as open and shut case as it first appeared. Migrants, like Indians before them, are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the US and obviously have allegiances to where ever they are citizens thereof.

roy any indian that remained on tribal land didn't have the right to vote. The only way they could vote was to move off land and start paying taxes. You once again are taking things out of context. I showed you where it was about blacks. If you read the whole thing on turnbull he is stating that indians couldn't vote while living on tribal land. My god you need to learn to read. It was till the act 40 yrs later that idians living on triballands could vote. The reason is indians don't pay taxes

[chico2663]

also roy the author of the 14th adm. was jacob howard from michigan. By the way royyyyy... the indians didn't get citizenship until 1924.It is called the indians citizenship act of 1924. but somehow you will figure out you were right

[chico2663]

so roy how can this be about indians when they didn't get citizenship until 1924?

[RoyBacon]

so roy how can this be about indians when they didn't get citizenship until 1924?

Did you read my posts???

Promise to read the following slowly......here we go;

The 14th DID NOT give automatic citizenship birthrights as we have today. I proved that. Even after the 14th if you were an alien traveling and had a baby that baby WAS NOT a US citizen.

New York by 1857 had already a code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, will become citizens".

The above law was found to be constitutional. Sabe?

It's as D2 states, the Supreme Court will have to decide. It's not exactly settled law despite what tards think/hope.

[Nitrogen]

Trying to imagine the reaction if a liberal POTUS starts exploring executive orders to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

[chico2663]

Did you read my posts???

Promise to read the following slowly......here we go;

The 14th DID NOT give automatic citizenship birthrights as we have today. I proved that. Even after the 14th if you were an alien traveling and had a baby that baby WAS NOT a US citizen.

New York by 1857 had already a code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, will become citizens".

The above law was found to be constitutional. Sabe?

It's as D2 states, the Supreme Court will have to decide. It's not exactly settled law despite what tards think/hope.

just like you to change the tangent of the argument when we were discussing indians voting rights. But carry on.

[RoyBacon]

Trying to imagine the reaction if a liberal POTUS starts exploring executive orders to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

Uhhhhh....huh?

How about we just let the SCOTUS tell us how to interpret it? Then it will be settled. I think that's how our Republic works.

[d2bets]

Uhhhhh....huh?

How about we just let the SCOTUS tell us how to interpret it? Then it will be settled. I think that's how our Republic works.

Right. And the 2nd amendment talks about well-oranized militias. So I guess you're cool if a president issues an EO banning guns for everyone not in a well-organized militia. That is less of a stretch than this.

[guitarjosh]

Right. And the 2nd amendment talks about well-oranized militias. So I guess you're cool if a president issues an EO banning guns for everyone not in a well-organized militia. That is less of a stretch than this.

The left wants the Supreme Court to do that. Would you be okay if the current SC did that regarding the 14th Amendment?

[d2bets]

The left wants the Supreme Court to do that. Would you be okay if the current SC did that regarding the 14th Amendment?

In either case, if it's going to be tested, it should be tested by an act of Congress, not by EO. Despite what you might think, Obama never issued executive orders on such a fundamental issue.

[RoyBacon]

In either case, if it's going to be tested, it should be tested by an act of Congress, not by EO. Despite what you might think, Obama never issued executive orders on such a fundamental issue.

DACA.

I agree it should not be an EO however, like Obama with DACA, it's the only way to get anything done. At least with an EO it will relatively quickly get to the high court.

[rkelly110]

Even if the amendment was for indians, it went to blacks and latinos born here. In law, what was done in the past
translates to the future. That's why there are tons of books on past law. Trump can yell until he has an aneurysm.

[d2bets]

DACA.

I agree it should not be an EO however, like Obama with DACA, it's the only way to get anything done. At least with an EO it will relatively quickly get to the high court.

DACA doesn't violate any fundamental right in the Constitution. The challenge is over esoteric separation of powers issues, because certainly Congress could effectuate what DACA does. This is a situation where (most believe) Congress can't do it either. (Most believe) it directly violates the plain text in the Constitution.

Again, it would be analagous to banning guns for everyone not in a well-organized militia.