Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_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

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.

Meaning, this executive order should be grounds for impeachment.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, Trump has been harping on anchor babies since, I think, hanging out with Howard Stern. So this is clearly an issue to him and his base. If he wants to issue an executive order, issues an executive order, and then enforces his executive order (whatever that means) then it is, in fact, an issue.

Democrats may not like it, but this is something important to him and his base.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

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.

nailed what exactly?...nailed a convincing delivery? a.k.a. style over substance which seems to be, as attested by Dr Ford, your only measure for "believable".

So, the big clues in RI's post are:

1. Congress passing a statute is great...but unless a President signs it.....well, you get it. So, what LAW is being referred to? (Democrat circle commencing in 3...2...)

2. So the idea that because something is a LAW makes it a "slam dunk", is.....well, you get it....somebody tell Supreme Court they are no longer needed.

3. "The Constitution expressly extends citizenship to all persons born here."...but yet it does not...just ask the Snyder Act...or perhaps we can just apply your notion to the 2nd Amendment and call it a day.

4. The rest of the post becomes an incoherent non sequitur...but i get it....hair-fire!

Yeah, how crazy it is to think the Constitution was written to be interpreted...living and breathing isn't literal, amiright?

[_Kevin Graham]

I mean, Trump has been harping on anchor babies since, I think, hanging out with Howard Stern. So this is clearly an issue to him and his base. If he wants to issue an executive order, issues an executive order, and then enforces his executive order (whatever that means) then it is, in fact, an issue.

Democrats may not like it, but this is something important to him and his base.

- Doc

He can't enforce an unlawful executive order.

[_Chap]

I mean, Trump has been harping on anchor babies since, I think, hanging out with Howard Stern. So this is clearly an issue to him and his base. If he wants to issue an executive order, issues an executive order, and then enforces his executive order (whatever that means) then it is, in fact, an issue.

'An issue'? Yes, but not in the sense that there is any issue with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, for there clearly is not.

If Trump issues an executive order that in any way attempts to interfere with the right to citizenship conferred by the Constitution, the only 'issue' will be that the courts will take steps to prevent any action being taken in pursuance of that order. You know, like, because the President can't remove a constitutional right just because it upsets him and his 'base'?

[_subgenius]

I mean, Trump has been harping on anchor babies since, I think, hanging out with Howard Stern. So this is clearly an issue to him and his base. If he wants to issue an executive order, issues an executive order, and then enforces his executive order (whatever that means) then it is, in fact, an issue.

Democrats may not like it, but this is something important to him and his base.

- Doc

The enforcement of the executive order is the tried and true tactic exploited to new boundaries by Obama......As the executive in charge of various federal agencies, he can direct them accordingly...for example, President can define 'credible fear' when evaluating asylum requests and can ban asylum seeking outside an official port of entry (which is a power that is supported by the passed travel ban....a ban that Kevin and company claimed would never pass...but the important parts did pass....see also Trump's Art of the Deal where you always ask for more than what you want).

But specific to "birthright", he can quasi-enforce it by the same direction, whereas while a State can issue a birth certificate to an "anchor baby", they may not get a passport and they may not get access to Federal benefits, and while the baby may get citizenship, illegal immigrant parents can be deported etc....point being, it all ends up at Supreme Court and who knows what those guys are thinking....

[Guest]

'An issue'? Yes, but not in the sense that there is any issue with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, for there clearly is not.

If Trump issues an executive order that in any way attempts to interfere with the right to citizenship conferred by the Constitution, the only 'issue' will be that the courts will take steps to prevent any action being taken in pursuance of that order. You know, like, because the President can't remove a constitutional right just because it upsets him and his 'base'?

Snyder Act proves it is not "plain meaning" and is, and has been, a point of interpretation.

But again, the plain language of the Constitution seems less so when you guys want to talk about the 2nd Amendment....then magically the context, intent, historical circumstance, and interpretation in modern times are oh so importante!

[_EAllusion]

I mean, Trump has been harping on anchor babies since, I think, hanging out with Howard Stern. So this is clearly an issue to him and his base. If he wants to issue an executive order, issues an executive order, and then enforces his executive order (whatever that means) then it is, in fact, an issue.

Democrats may not like it, but this is something important to him and his base.

- Doc

He can issue an order for the federal takeover of the NYT. That would be consistent with his desires and his bases, but it would still be illegal. If people who want this egregiously misread the Constitution to justify it, that doesn’t make it legitimate debate with unclear resolution until the courts step in. It’s plainly illegal.

[_Res Ipsa]

'An issue'? Yes, but not in the sense that there is any issue with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, for there clearly is not.

If Trump issues an executive order that in any way attempts to interfere with the right to citizenship conferred by the Constitution, the only 'issue' will be that the courts will take steps to prevent any action being taken in pursuance of that order. You know, like, because the President can't remove a constitutional right just because it upsets him and his 'base'?

Snyder Act proves it is not "plain meaning" and is, and has been, a point of interpretation.

But again, the plain language of the Constitution seems less so when you guys want to talk about the 2nd Amendment....then magically the context, intent, historical circumstance, and interpretation in modern times are oh so importante!

The Second Amendment is not clear at all on its face. The 14th is. Why does it surprise you that some sentences are clearer than others?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He can issue an order for the federal takeover of the NYT. That would be consistent with his desires and his bases, but it would still be illegal. If people who want this egregiously misread the Constitution to justify it, that doesn’t make it legitimate debate with unclear resolution until the courts step in. It’s plainly illegal.

Are you deliberately omitting the fact the 14th amendment dealt with the issue of freed slaves? You probably are. That's how you operate. Hence the subsequent court cases surrounding the Chinese and Native Americans.

Whatever the case may be, I think the Trumpster ought to focus on immigration policy more than any sort of Constitutional challenge to the 14th amendment, which if I'm being honest I don't know how it would play out using an executive order to circumvent whatever it is the courts may or may not believe is legal at this point.

- Doc