Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose you could argue that, but you would lose. You might as well say foreign combatants or a foreign government can set a base up on our soil, using your example above, but we have no right to deport them.

That's just silly season reasoning.

- Doc

Foreign combatants aren't diplomats. That's just a silly comparison.

I didn't compare foreign diplomats to foreign combatants. I was juxtaposing X's argument with an equally absurd example.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

Wait. Are the children of diplomats and foreign ministers granted citizenship on the basis of being born here?

- Doc

No, because they are not subject to US jurisdiction.

but the service staff of diplomats are subject...so, obviously their kids qualify under your cursory knowledge of the issue, correct?

[Guest]

So, if the matter hasn't been resolved at the Supreme Court leve, Congress hasn't amended the Constitution to clear up the matter, then it seems to me the President can, in fact, issue an executive order to solve the problem until a court wants to decide the matter.

What's the problem here with an executive order?

eta: RI makes an excellent point about the Native American issue and presumably how the court system could set precedent.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's another question that I don't know the answer to. President has stated that we pay the these gov'ts (Honduras, etc.) huge amounts of money and they aren't doing anything for us in return--I guess like making their country safe for their own residents or holding folks back in more manageable numbers or whatever he means.

What exactly are we paying these gov'ts FOR?

The reason I'm asking is previously I wondered why the US couldn't pressure these gov'ts to make improvements. Now I hear that we're paying them money for something. I want to know what we're paying them for and why in the hell can't we withdraw the funding to hold their feet to the fire to effect change in their own country?

Is that not kosher to do or something?

[_Jersey Girl]

So, if the matter hasn't been resolved at the Supreme Court leve, Congress hasn't amended the Constitution to clear up the matter, then it seems to me the President can, in fact, issue an executive order to solve the problem until a court wants to decide the matter.

What's the problem here with an executive order?

- Doc

Nobody here really knows and the arguments are all BS because there's no relevant or comparable legal precedent. Short story.

[_Kevin Graham]

but the service staff of diplomats are subject...so, obviously their kids qualify under your cursory knowledge of the issue, correct?

You're the dumbass who just said diplomats are subject to our laws because nothing can stop a cop from putting a ticket on their windshield, and you want to talk about my "cursory" knowledge of the issue?

Keep running those goal posts back subs.

[_Kevin Graham]

So, if the matter hasn't been resolved at the Supreme Court leve, Congress hasn't amended the Constitution to clear up the matter, then it seems to me the President can, in fact, issue an executive order to solve the problem until a court wants to decide the matter.

What's the problem here with an executive order?

eta: RI makes an excellent point about the Native American issue and presumably how the court system could set precedent.

- Doc

Um, it has been resolved at the SC level, which i'm sure was covered here like 7-8 pages ago.

[_Kevin Graham]

First, if Trump actually did issue an executive order purporting to revoke birthright citizenship, it would never make it to the Supreme Court. Why not? Because Congress passed a statute that recognizes birthright citizenship. So it's a slam dunk loser at the District court. A slam dunk loser at the Court of Appeals. And a cert denied at the Supreme Court.

What could get to the Supreme Court is a bill passed by Congress that amends existing law to eliminate birthright citizenship. Whether it would depends on whether the Supreme Court has four members willing to rewrite the actual words of the 14th Amendment. So, even this is a "could" rather than a "will."

Second, Sub's whole "subject to the jurisdiction" argument is exactly backwards. Someone being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States doesn't make them a citizen. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Otherwise, they could never be prosecuted for federal crimes. If what Sub said were true, ICE could never arrest a person present in the U.S. illegally because they wouldn't have the jurisdiction to do so. Likewise, courts would dismiss any action to remove people here illegally because they wouldn't have any jurisdiction over them.

There is clear history on who is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction: foreign ambassadors. The 14th amendment's grant of citizenship does not apply to them.

Third, Sub's entire argument is based on the claim that Congress can take away a right specifically granted by the Constitution. That, again, is 100% backwards. The Constitution expressly extends citizenship to all persons born here. Congress can't change that by passing a law -- any law.

We have a Constitution that specifically says that the rights of citizens are not limited to those listed in the Constitution. When the Supreme Court held that the rights of citizens included a right to privacy, conservatives lost their ____ and accused the Court of making legislation, even though it had acted completely consistent with what the Constitution says.

Now, the proposition is that Conservative Justices are going to literally change the wording of the Constitution from "All persons born" to "All persons except those born to parents not legally present in the United States..." If that actually happens, we might as well stop pretending the Constitution means anything.

RI nailed it above.

[_EAllusion]

So, if the matter hasn't been resolved at the Supreme Court leve, Congress hasn't amended the Constitution to clear up the matter, then it seems to me the President can, in fact, issue an executive order to solve the problem until a court wants to decide the matter.

What's the problem here with an executive order?

eta: RI makes an excellent point about the Native American issue and presumably how the court system could set precedent.

- Doc

The matter doesn’t need “clearing up.” The meaning is well understood and court precedent exists on top of it. The president can’t issue unconstitutional orders. Or rather, the presidential can, but he is then acting unlawfully.

Inventing a sham rationale for a policy preference doesn’t change this.

[_Chap]

So, if the matter hasn't been resolved at the Supreme Court leve, Congress hasn't amended the Constitution to clear up the matter,

What matter? The only 'matter' appears to be that Trump does not like the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, whose clear wording means something he hates. That's a problem he has to resolve inside his own head, or by listening to an expert advisor (as if!). That's not the job of the Supreme Court.

...then it seems to me the President can, in fact, issue an executive order

There's no 'then' about it. He can always issue an executive order anytime day or night, on any topic, and no-one can stop him, however pointless it is. He could order the sun to shine at night, or that it should rain Coca-Cola. So?

... to solve the problem until a court wants to decide the matter.

Again, the problem is in the President's head. But if he starts trying to make people act in contradiction to the words of the 14th Amendment, the courts will 'solve the problem' by declaring such action illegal, because contrary to the Constitution.

What's the problem here with an executive order?

See above. It will accomplish nothing but taking up the time of the courts. Oh, and maybe making loyal Trumpers even more devoted to him as their Lord and Saviour.