Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

[JoeMorgue]

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections

Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion, I have zero idea if from a Constitutional level this is something would actually fall under Executive Orders, and if Trump actually means to follow through with this or is just spouting off his normal nonsense for attention.

But having said all that I've always had a real hard time with Jus Soli as a concept. It's just... weird.

And it's something, I feel the need to point out, that none of the amazing, perfect European Utopias the American Left will not stop creaming themselves over how we should be more like have.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah I saw that a few minutes ago.

I don't know if automatic citizenship at birth is a good idea or not, but isn't that a constitutional right? How can he just exec order it away?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Political stunt. The 14th amendment is quite clear about birthright citizenship. Any attempted enforcement of this order would not survive the judicial system.

I'm sure this kind of posturing plays very well for the anti-immigrant base though.

I could easily see Trump mulling it over in public for an extended period of time simply to gin up his base. It doesn't really matter if it is destined to fail, it's performance, not policy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sure this kind of posturing plays very well for the anti-immigrant base though.

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?

to some degree...
but the difference is that the US is and has always been a country made up of immigrants and their descendants, a fact the Constitution acknowledges
- unlike Trump or Republicans.

 

[Cavemonster]

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?

Many of them are, or at least have very vocal anti immigration factions.

There are at least two separate discussions to be had between whether birthright citizenship is a good policy and what it means for Trump to make this announcement now.

You can't pretend that they're the same question and the latter should be considered devoid of the legal reality of a constitutional amendment, the history of citizenship rights in our country and in particular Trumps history and motives.

The comment you're replying to is addressing that latter question but you're treating it as though its the same thing as the former.

 

[Crossbow]

Trump making his own changes to the US Constitution via an Executive Order reminds me think of all of those stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who so often criticized Obama as being an "Imperial President".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?

It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.

i don't know how the law works in Europe, but I would suggest that a policy that would create multi-generational populations of stateless, illegal aliens with little chance of becoming legal, full citizens a bad piece of public policy. I'm going to hazard a guess that such a policy is not the situation in most of these countries, otherwise they would be in a state of crisis.

Frankly, Europe's history of immigration policy is irrelevant. The US's legal history of this is quite clear and a change would be a radical shift.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion...

 

[Belz...]

Trump making his own changes to the US Constitution via an Executive Order reminds me think of all of those stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who so often criticized Obama as being an "Imperial President".

It was wrong when the black man did it.

 

[Cavemonster]

[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/f59d48f20907d137a3c6aaba9ab31f7e/tenor.gif?itemid=3495399[/qimg]

I mean, do you want to talk about Trumps statement divorced from what it means in context?

If you would like to talk about birthright citizenship in the abstract you could just say so.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/f59d48f20907d137a3c6aaba9ab31f7e/tenor.gif?itemid=3495399[/qimg]

CaveMonster said it best. There's no point in talking about the actual policy of birthright citizenship in this context because Trump is not seriously attempting to engage in policy discussion. His announcement could not have the effect of changing this policy. Surely all of the tremendous legal resources available to the President have informed him so. It's purely cynical political theatre.

I am actually curious about discussing such a policy, but given the above, doing so here would be woefully off-topic.

There are at least two separate discussions to be had between whether birthright citizenship is a good policy and what it means for Trump to make this announcement now.

You can't pretend that they're the same question and the latter should be considered devoid of the legal reality of a constitutional amendment, the history of citizenship rights in our country and in particular Trumps history and motives.

The comment you're replying to is addressing that latter question but you're treating it as though its the same thing as the former.

 

[Thermal]

It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.
i don't know how the law works in Europe, but I would suggest that a policy that would create multi-generational populations of stateless, illegal aliens with little chance of becoming legal, full citizens a bad piece of public policy. I'm going to hazard a guess that such a policy is not the situation in most of these countries, otherwise they would be in a state of crisis.

Frankly, Europe's history of immigration policy is irrelevant. The US's legal history of this is quite clear and a change would be a radical shift.

It smacks more of dictator signalling than virtue signalling. This is the kind of thing that empowers his base with that good ol' fascist approach to governance that they seem so enamored of.

 

[ahhell]

OMG, Trump said something stupid that he can't legal do in an interview. There is no way that trump could do this legally without congress and probably now way they could do it without an amendment.

Here's what the constitutions says on the matter:

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.

There are some folks who think the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit means the children of illegals are not actually citizens, that's a minority opinion to be sure. It seems like it was clearly meant to address the children of diplomats and what not.

I think you could probably make an argument against jus soli for the children of illegal immigrants that isn't just being a dick. It would be pretty hard to argue against jus soli for the children of legal residents.

It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.

Never discount shear ignorance when Trump is concerned. Its absolutely possible he hasn't spent 2 minutes trying to see if he could do this and just spouted of in an interview.

 

[varwoche]

If they make it retroactive and toss Michelle Malkin out, I can live with it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If Trump issues an executive order and the USCIS goes along with it jumping up and down going "But... but... you can't do that! It says so right here!" won't do anything.

At this point we should be realizing that Trump can do anything he wants if nobody stops him.

 

[phiwum]

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html



Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion, I have zero idea if from a Constitutional level this is something would actually fall under Executive Orders, and if Trump actually means to follow through with this or is just spouting off his normal nonsense for attention.

But having said all that I've always had a real hard time with Jus Soli as a concept. It's just... weird.

And it's something, I feel the need to point out, that none of the amazing, perfect European Utopias the American Left will not stop creaming themselves over how we should be more like have.

The principle is apparently common in both Americas, where almost every nation supports jus soli without restriction. (Trump has claimed that only the U.S. has such a policy.)

See the wikipedia article on "jus soli" for a map of nations with unrestricted jus soli.

In any case, I'm flummoxed who has told him that an executive order could override the 14th Amendment, unless maybe someone thinks that the use of the word "persons" means citizens or something.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If Trump issues an executive order and the USCIS goes along with it jumping up and down going "But... but... you can't do that! It says so right here!" won't do anything.

At this point we should be realizing that Trump can do anything he wants if nobody stops him.

The moment it negatively impacts someone with a birthright claim to citizenship, it will go to court and be reversed. I can't see the SCOTUS, or even any federal court, ruling otherwise.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If Trump believes it is the correct interpretation, it would be a violation of the oath not to do it. He has an oath to the Constitution. He can't enforce laws he knows violates the Constitution.

 

[phiwum]

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?

A policy to get rid of jus soli by executive order appeals to anti-immigrant sentiments. That doesn't mean that all nations who don't have jus soli are anti-immigrant (though it does mean that their citizenship policies are more restrictive in this respect).