If what you're saying is true, then it should also apply to vacationers, diplomats, children of enemy combatants, etc... It's never been taken to mean that, from what I've heard. No one would argue that a diplomat on U.S. soil can now have a child in the U.S. and have the kid be declared a citizen. In addition, the illegal immigrant is still "subject to the jurisdiction" of his home country. And no, he is not "subject" to our jurisdiction. He is here illegally, and very much NOT subject to our laws. The problem is that it's an ambiguous statement that can be interpreted differently. But the quote above clearly indicates the intent.
I am a geologist not an attorney, however, I found this argument had merit. The text below is from Congressman Steve King of Iowa. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment 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 where they reside.” By its own terms, the language in the amendment precludes the notion of universal automatic birthright citizenship. It would have been quite simple for the language to exclude “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to accomplish the goal of bestowing citizenship on any child born in the United States no matter the status of their parents. The 14th Amendment’s addition of a jurisdictional requirement to the territorial requirement, however, denies any interpretation that birth alone grants citizenship. During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[1] In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Do you guys really think I wasn't aware of Senator Howard's remarks and haven't read the Slaughterhouse Cases? I'm a little offended that you all thought I was that dumb.
No offense Deez, I wasn’t aware of Senator Howard’s remarks or the Slaughterhouse case. Just found it interesting and trying to learn a little bit about the subject.
I'm not really offended. As a white guy, I can't make any money off of being offended, so there's little point. Lol
This will disgust you, but I was born in Oakland, California and didn't move to Texas until I was 8 years old. That means I already knew how to speak when I moved and therefore have virtually no Texas accent at all. I don't say "y'all," "fixin'," or any other uniquely Texan words. Funny story about that - back in the days of Yahoo profiles (around 2000), I received a phone call completely out of the blue by some chick in London (thick accent, UK caller ID, etc.). I answered, and she said, "I saw your Yahoo profile and noticed that you were from Texas, and I think Texas accents are incredibly sexy. Can you just talk to me for a little bit?" I told her that I was originally from California, so I don't have a Texas accent but could fake one if she wanted me to. She was pretty disappointed, and that was pretty much the end of that. Still not sure how she got my phone number.
The fact that the US has applied the 14th amendment to mean birthright citizenship since its ratification means it has been a law by custom. So if it is so important to change, change the Constitution. That's the way it works.
When something is agreeable or easy for you to do, do you say, "Might could"? If so, that is Texan enough. I was born in New Orleans and moved to Texas at 5 years old.
Trump made this argument today -- “If [Obama] can do DACA we can do [birthright citizenship] by executive order"
Yes, but we're supposed to be against Obama doing DACA by executive order because he didn't have the authority.
Yep. Obama was wrong to act like he was King instead of President, and if Trump tries it, he will be wrong too.
For some reason I associate "you people" with hostility. I say it sometimes, but usually something negative follows. (See "you people suck.")
The softer version is "You folks." It's less confrontational but more condescending. "You people need to straighten up." "You folks have a lot to work on."
That is only half the argument. There are also many who say Obama was correct in his frequent use of EOs - what do they say today? To be consistent, they must agree Trump can do it too. Or, were they just talking out of their asses again?
Does that mean Trump should NOT use EO to try to correct the harm allowing illegals to drop kids here cause?
You're only pointing out the Left's obvious hypocrisy. That has no bearing on what Trump should be doing. Just because they are hypocrites doesn't mean we should be.
I believe that is exactly what he was doing with this commentary. It was rhetorical. He was merely turning their own argument back against them.
As with everything Trump says, I would recommend waiting until he actually does something to make a judgment on what he's trying to do. Right now it looks like he's floating out an idea to get the media to talk about it. What he really has planned will depend on whether he actually does what he says he wants to do. That's not a given.
Spot on. Everyone, on both sides, knee jerk reacts to his words and then is 99% of the time proven wrong by his actions.
It is not the use or # of EOs that is an issue. The issue is using EOs in an illegitimate way. Obama actually didn't enact that many EOs it is just ones he did were unconstitutional (imo).
I ask this question of Dems all the time, as inoffensively as possible. We get it that youre angry, that you dont like him tweeting, or many of the things he has said -- but what is it exactly that he has done that is so wrong and drives you to hysteria? For most of them, it's that they are offended or that their feelings are hurt. It's really all about how he makes them feel. I was in Austin for USC and took my niece (who is in grad school there now) and some of her friends out Matt's El Rancho (none had ever been). These are bright, educated young people but when it came to Trump, it was all emotions. None of them had a fact-based rational argument to make. I think it reflects on how they were raised/educated. The "everyone gets a participation trophy" generation.
That is the one argument that Trump can make on this, if he wants to take it that far. That he is not attempting amend or side-step the Constitution but rather attempting to force all the branches of the Govt to get back in compliance with it. That his argument is the Constitutional argument.
