The concept of birth-right citizenship being proposed includes resident aliens i.e. legal immigrants, along with citizens, for children born in the U.S.
I suspect Trump's issue is with babies born in US when parents are not citizens and not here legally. Meaning when parents go , the child must leave with them.
Let me begin by saying I am absolutely not endorsing Trump's effort to eliminate birth-right citizenship, just expressing that I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is at stake.
I think two things are being confused. Trump is making a declaration about the relationship between BIRTH on American soil and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP, i.e. citizenship without any requirements like a period of residency, passing of a test, a formal ceremony, etc. He is seeking to limit automatic citizenship at birth to those children born to American citizens. At least for now, there does not seem to be any distinction between children of naturalized citizens and children of those citizens who were born here
It simply states: “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.”
I suspect the argument in court will be that the Representatives who wrote the Amendment didn't intend for it to cover illegals. I've seen this claimed recently.
I am certain that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't intend it to apply to semi-automatic weapons. I suspect they meant it to apply to well regulated militias formed to help the Army defend our democracy against the British.
That’s an easy claim! Of course they didn’t. Automatic weapons didn’t exist then. However, the Court found in its Heller decision that the right for individuals to arm themselves was not absolute. Like, individuals couldn’t own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
There are two predicates for US citizenship, judging from the text of the 14th amendment: those born there, and those naturalized by whatever established process. Your birth certificate in a US territory confers citizenship: there is no non-automatic verification, waiting period, tests etc. Those subsist for naturalization. Note that your birth certificate reports the names of your parents (if known) WITHOUT any indication of their citizenship status. So your "at least for now" is something that you have made up.
Except, of course, the Constitution sets no such limit, makes no sucj distinction--though I am sure that SCotUS will likely try t fid such a distinction or some other tomfoolery to let it slide by.
I totally recognize what the Constitution says. No limits there. But Trump always ignores or fights what he doesn't like, including the results of the 2020 election.
JVL may well be correct that this is "a probing action" to learn how much SCOTUS is willing to oppose him or go along.
The legal v illegal part of immigration is irrelevant to Trump’s EO.
If a woman on a work visa or tourist visa has a child in this country and her husband is not a citizen, then that child does not get citizenship anymore. (I am not sure about the husband vs partner part, i.e. if marriage comes into play.)
Previously, the whole “anchor baby” concept involved women coming on visas and having babies here and, thus, attaining citizenship for the child.
Usha’s parents were not citizens when she was born. They were on some kind of visa status…work or education.
The 14th Amendment gave her citizenship due to her birth here—similar to the original idea that children born of non-citizen slaves would be granted citizenship.
Usha would not get citizenship if born under Trump’s EO because it effectively nullifies the 14th amendment and does not consider legal v illegal status of immigrants.
A child born under her exact situation will be deported. It doesn’t apply to her only because it is not retroactive.
Her birth fell under the second direct quote from the EO as per below:
The privilege of U.S. citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary."
These policies are just fig leaves to cover actual intent. Goebbels screeched about Aryan superiority while being physically infirm and disabled, himself. Goebbels 2.0 carries on about how “America is for Americans only” even though he is the offspring of Belarusian Jewish immigrants. The “policies” are meant for “people we don’t like,” not for our friends and allies
Not JUST his mother. His father was "born to immigrants," which means he wouldn't have been a citizen either according to the new formulation of things.
His mother may have been naturalized before his birth, but I would only agree to believe that if he could produce the paperwork.
I can see a lot of unintended consequences coming from this: When/ how does one establish citizenship? Only those of us who can claim indigenous ancestry can plausibly argue that we are not descended from immigrants. Will we extend citizenship to everyone whose ancestors were here before July 4, 1776? How was citizenship granted or proven before there was paperwork and a bureaucratic process?
I absolutely know that I have undocumented immigrants as ancestors on my father’s side. They came on the Fortune in 1621 right behind the Mayflower. No one gave them permission.
Before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, "US citizenship" was a function of the federal government "recognizing" the citizenship conferred by STATE governments.
So it could only be proven by having a State-level apparatchik "vouch" somehow, if it came down to it.
I noted something immediately after the Roberts Court implied that the 14th Amendment section 3 didn't mean anything because no law was passed to repeat what it said.
If that's supposed to be a Constitutional principle, then neither Biden nor Trump are citizens, because the STATUTE which described birthright citizenship wasn't passed until 1952.
I might not be a citizen myself, because my parents were both born before 1952.
If this isn't even my country, I'd feel a lot better rising up in revolt, I guess. Heh.
This. The funny thing is, you can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them. So when people claim that their towns are being overrun with illegal immigrants, you know what they are really saying.
The admin also killed the app that asylum seekers could use to schedule times to show up for hearings. It's almost like it was never about "legal vs illegal"immigration in the first place.
MAGAts also believe that all undocumented residents came into the country illegally by crossing the southern border. I’ve read that actually more of became undocumented when their original (or previously renewed) VISAs expired and were not renewed for a whole laundry list of reasons.
“Only people born to Americans are Americans.”
Huh. His mother was an immigrant.
Four of his children have mothers who were immigrants.
I suspect we’re actually talking about dark skinned immigrants here, but what do I know?
Nailed it!
The concept of birth-right citizenship being proposed includes resident aliens i.e. legal immigrants, along with citizens, for children born in the U.S.
I suspect Trump's issue is with babies born in US when parents are not citizens and not here legally. Meaning when parents go , the child must leave with them.
Yes, it's children born to illegals, according to the EO. If the Supreme Court agrees with his argument, those children must leave with their parents.
That is my understanding
Let me begin by saying I am absolutely not endorsing Trump's effort to eliminate birth-right citizenship, just expressing that I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is at stake.
I think two things are being confused. Trump is making a declaration about the relationship between BIRTH on American soil and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP, i.e. citizenship without any requirements like a period of residency, passing of a test, a formal ceremony, etc. He is seeking to limit automatic citizenship at birth to those children born to American citizens. At least for now, there does not seem to be any distinction between children of naturalized citizens and children of those citizens who were born here
The 14th amendment makes no mention of parents:
It simply states: “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.”
I suspect the argument in court will be that the Representatives who wrote the Amendment didn't intend for it to cover illegals. I've seen this claimed recently.
I am certain that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't intend it to apply to semi-automatic weapons. I suspect they meant it to apply to well regulated militias formed to help the Army defend our democracy against the British.
That’s an easy claim! Of course they didn’t. Automatic weapons didn’t exist then. However, the Court found in its Heller decision that the right for individuals to arm themselves was not absolute. Like, individuals couldn’t own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
I don't know why you think there's confusion on this point. No confusion.
There are two predicates for US citizenship, judging from the text of the 14th amendment: those born there, and those naturalized by whatever established process. Your birth certificate in a US territory confers citizenship: there is no non-automatic verification, waiting period, tests etc. Those subsist for naturalization. Note that your birth certificate reports the names of your parents (if known) WITHOUT any indication of their citizenship status. So your "at least for now" is something that you have made up.
Except, of course, the Constitution sets no such limit, makes no sucj distinction--though I am sure that SCotUS will likely try t fid such a distinction or some other tomfoolery to let it slide by.
This, specifically for the reason that without this broad approach, it was all to easy to craft ways to prevent someone from becoming a citizen.
I totally recognize what the Constitution says. No limits there. But Trump always ignores or fights what he doesn't like, including the results of the 2020 election.
JVL may well be correct that this is "a probing action" to learn how much SCOTUS is willing to oppose him or go along.
Melania is an example of the concept of “chain migration” (she brought her parents here).
There are entire articles written to detail the small distinction of why Usha Vance should technically not be subject to deportation.
It’s really breathtaking. Her husband should be asked if she plans to self-deport for national security concerns.
Is she illegal?
She is legal. Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship (thus, essentially nullifying the 14th Amendment) is not retroactive.
If Usha had been born a month from now, she would not get citizenship because neither one of her parents were citizens when she was born.
By all definition, she is an “anchor baby” that Republicans have maligned for years.
It’s a distinction without a difference that I hope she thinks about every time her husband rails against immigrants.
tell me more about her parents being illegal. I don’t know that story.
The legal v illegal part of immigration is irrelevant to Trump’s EO.
If a woman on a work visa or tourist visa has a child in this country and her husband is not a citizen, then that child does not get citizenship anymore. (I am not sure about the husband vs partner part, i.e. if marriage comes into play.)
Previously, the whole “anchor baby” concept involved women coming on visas and having babies here and, thus, attaining citizenship for the child.
Usha’s parents were not citizens when she was born. They were on some kind of visa status…work or education.
The 14th Amendment gave her citizenship due to her birth here—similar to the original idea that children born of non-citizen slaves would be granted citizenship.
Usha would not get citizenship if born under Trump’s EO because it effectively nullifies the 14th amendment and does not consider legal v illegal status of immigrants.
The EO won't apply to her. He seeks taking citizenship away from children with parents who are in the US illegally. That's not her.
A child born under her exact situation will be deported. It doesn’t apply to her only because it is not retroactive.
Her birth fell under the second direct quote from the EO as per below:
The privilege of U.S. citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary."
she was born in the us and her mother was illegal at the time?
These policies are just fig leaves to cover actual intent. Goebbels screeched about Aryan superiority while being physically infirm and disabled, himself. Goebbels 2.0 carries on about how “America is for Americans only” even though he is the offspring of Belarusian Jewish immigrants. The “policies” are meant for “people we don’t like,” not for our friends and allies
Not JUST his mother. His father was "born to immigrants," which means he wouldn't have been a citizen either according to the new formulation of things.
His mother may have been naturalized before his birth, but I would only agree to believe that if he could produce the paperwork.
The long-form paperwork, of course!
I can see a lot of unintended consequences coming from this: When/ how does one establish citizenship? Only those of us who can claim indigenous ancestry can plausibly argue that we are not descended from immigrants. Will we extend citizenship to everyone whose ancestors were here before July 4, 1776? How was citizenship granted or proven before there was paperwork and a bureaucratic process?
I absolutely know that I have undocumented immigrants as ancestors on my father’s side. They came on the Fortune in 1621 right behind the Mayflower. No one gave them permission.
Oh, by the way, I should've mentioned:
Before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, "US citizenship" was a function of the federal government "recognizing" the citizenship conferred by STATE governments.
So it could only be proven by having a State-level apparatchik "vouch" somehow, if it came down to it.
I noted something immediately after the Roberts Court implied that the 14th Amendment section 3 didn't mean anything because no law was passed to repeat what it said.
If that's supposed to be a Constitutional principle, then neither Biden nor Trump are citizens, because the STATUTE which described birthright citizenship wasn't passed until 1952.
I might not be a citizen myself, because my parents were both born before 1952.
If this isn't even my country, I'd feel a lot better rising up in revolt, I guess. Heh.
This means you don't have to pay income tax, right?
There's nothing at all like "rule of law" in effect in the USA, so my interpretation is that we can all just decide for ourselves.
Laws were passed to enact it.
Replying to myself to wonder aloud if one could tie this up in the legal system for a few years…
It would be fun, but very expensive, but the courts might just dismiss any attempts by claiming individuals lack standing to challenge anything.
This. The funny thing is, you can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them. So when people claim that their towns are being overrun with illegal immigrants, you know what they are really saying.
The admin also killed the app that asylum seekers could use to schedule times to show up for hearings. It's almost like it was never about "legal vs illegal"immigration in the first place.
MAGAts can tell your immigration status just by looking, apparently. It is a special skill.
MAGAts also believe that all undocumented residents came into the country illegally by crossing the southern border. I’ve read that actually more of became undocumented when their original (or previously renewed) VISAs expired and were not renewed for a whole laundry list of reasons.
Or he thinks that highly of his children. :)