Changing the Constitution by Executive Order
-
I wonder if those that are strict constitutionalists will stand up against this president for this or not.
I’ll hang up and listen off air.
-
@justanotherfan I was thinking the same thing.
-
justanotherfan said:
I wonder if those that are strict constitutionalists will stand up against this president for this or not.
I’ll hang up and listen off air.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this post.
-
SC’s heroically independent-minded Lindsey Graham has yanked another string to spin John McCain in his grave by immediately announcing he would introduce legislation to further Der Frumpster’s desires.
-
When are you cats going to wake up? Trump is using a political ploy to rile his base to come out and vote.
Before the ink is even dry on his executive order some judge will put a stay on his executive order.
This debate has gone back for over a hundred years. So many don’t even know the truth about Ellis Island. Not anybody could get in. Hell Immigrants were given two examinations before they could get into the country. One before they even got on the boat to come over to America. They only thing that has changed is some believe we should just have open borders. Thereby just letting anybody and everybody in. Back then a back ground check of some sort was agreed by all.
Really guys calm down.
-
@DoubleDD Did you see my first reply in this thread? That was serious.
-
My point isn’t about whether or not it can happen. Trump can’t change the constitution by executive order.
My point was about whether other Republicans would stand up and say that. Some have (Paul Ryan among them). Some have not (Kris Kobach is notable in this group).
There are lots of people in this country that don’t know that Trump cannot do this, just like there are lots of people that don’t understand sending the military to the border means nothing because they cannot engage in any action on U.S. soil without the permission of the local government. But that hasn’t stopped him from trying yet.
-
That is a straw man argument. Everybody knows (or should) the Constitution cannot be changed with an executive order. The objective is not for Trump to change the constitution, the real objective is for the executive order to be challenged and the case referred to the SCOTUS where the 14th Ammendment can be finally be interpreted and once and for all decided in the place where it should be. Here is a good write up on the subject.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
That is a straw man argument. Everybody knows (or should) the Constitution cannot be changed with an executive order. The objective is not for Trump to change the constitution, the real objective is for the executive order to be challenged and the case referred to the SCOTUS where the 14th Ammendment can be finally be interpreted and once and for all decided in the place where it should be. Here is a good write up on the subject.
You say this as if the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted in the Supreme Court before.
For those that don’t want to follow the link, that’s United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. Mr. Wong was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents in the 1870s. His parents returned to China in the 1890s and he went to visit them. Upon returning, he was denied entry because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which prohibited Chinese laborers from coming to the U.S. However, the Court held that because Mr. Wong was born in the U.S., he was a U.S. citizen and the act did not apply to him, therefore he was allowed to return and reside in the U.S.
The 14th Amendment was interpreted and decided in the place it should be, and the decision is that birthright citizenship is in fact extended to everyone born here.
-
You conveniently left out the part he was born in the US to “legal” immigrant parents.
The 14th amendment indicates…
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.
The “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the part that would exclude children of illegal immigrants since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country as per the Vienna convention and this is why, when detained, the call the Consul of their own country. This is the way every other country in the world address the issue and none that I know grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
It is now the time for the SCOTUS to finally issue a decision on this subject, which is exactly what Trump is aiming for.
-
The case does not analyze the immigration status of his parents - only of him. You are incorrect. The status of Mr. Wong was established by his birth in the United States, not by his parents’ immigration status.
-
@JayHawkFanToo It seems like a chicken and egg scenario if you take the Constitution literally. If they’re birthright citizens, then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US, if they’re not, then they’re not. But at the time of birth, they’re neither subject to it nor not subject to it.
Doesn’t this ambiguity stem from states not having consistent rules at the time of the Constitution, regarding birthright citizenship?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is established federal law that addressed how to interpret that exact phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of”.
The concept of birthright citizenship wasn’t invented in the United States. Jus soli (right of the soil) was English common law and Roman law before that (thank you, wikipedia).
-
I have read at number of papers on the subject by constitutional attorney and most of them cite the fact that since his parent were “legal” immigrants at the time of his birth and they were subject to the jurisdiction of the US which then gave him his citizenship rights.
In 1884, the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American born under the jurisdiction of a Native American tribe could not unilaterally make himself a United States citizen, since “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” If a Native American could not be a citizen solely by birth, then it is even more unrealistic for children of illegal aliens.
So, it is very apparent that the “jurisdiction” part played a big role in both decisions. Again, I am not a constitutional attorney or even an attorney but I am pretty good at doing research and from what I have gathered to date, while there is disagreement on the issue above, the majority seems to be on the side of non granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens.
It is also more apparent that this issue has moved from the legal to the political arena and it is time it moves back to the forum it belongs and that we have a definite decision on the issue and we all abide by it…this is the way our system is supposed to work.
-
See my post above. The decision you mentioned was based on the fact that his parents, at the time of his birth, were “legal immigrants. Kids don’t just pop up out of nowhere, they are born to a woman and the place of birth AND the status of the person giving birth are the criteria. Look at the only other decision the Supreme Court made on the subject that ruled a Native American was not entitled to citizenship because his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of a Native American Nation and not the US.
Again, this is something that the SCOTUS needs to rule now and this exactly what Trump is forcing them to do. Agree or disagree, their decision will be the law of the land and will settle the issue once and for all.
-
approxinfinity said:
@JayHawkFanToo It seems like a chicken and egg scenario if you take the Constitution literally. If they’re birthright citizens, then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US, if they’re not, then they’re not. But at the time of birth, they’re neither subject to it nor not subject to it.
Doesn’t this ambiguity stem from states not having consistent rules at the time of the Constitution, regarding birthright citizenship?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is established federal law that addressed how to interpret that exact phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of”.
The concept of birthright citizenship wasn’t invented in the United States. Jus soli (right of the soil) was English common law and Roman law before that (thank you, wikipedia).
Man I just watched somebody on Fox talk about the rights of these Immigrants. I know you hate Fox. yet some of these immigrants in this caravan have hired lawyers to sue the US government for infringing on their rights to become American citizens. So my question is the US constitution the law of the world. If so do citizens over in other countries have rights to America? So much rights they can just walk in when ever they want? That somehow America has no right to protect their borders.
Is this what you believe? Or is that your only ok when a Dem president is hard on Illegal Immigrants? As Obama was harder on Illegal Immigrants sneaking into our country, than Trump ever thought about being. I’m just curious.
Also why is it when Obama was president you were ok with separating children from their parents, yet you said nothing. Yet now that Trump is president you have a huge problem? You speak loudly. Obama separated more Latino families than Trump could ever dream of, even if he his the racist you make him out to be. Yet you had no problem with it when Obama was president?
What gives?
What gives? Is it just because it was a Rep president? So when a Dem president does it? you’re ok? But when a rep president does it, You scream bloody murder?
Way to be fair and balanced.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Time again for better legal research. The 1884 decision was based on the fact that the Indians in question were born on reservations that technically are considered separate sovereigns although physically within the US. Therefore, they fell outside the “subject to jurisdiction” category under the legislation and/or treaties governing reservations. Congress, under its authority in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and its authority to define the status of Indians and reservations, reversed the ruling in the 20’s to make NAs full citizens, as are people born in territories.
The primary class of people that the jurisdiction clause was meant to exclude was diplomats’ children. Trying to eliminate birthright citizenship of illegal aliens by EO saying they are not subject to US jurisdiction is crazy because with a stroke of the pen DT would immunize millions of adult illegals from criminal prosecution. After arguing how dangerous they are, is that what anyone on the Right wants?
Whether Congress could redefine it under their authority used for the Indians is a different question. It won’t happen in our lifetimes.
No one has addressed the question of how an EO would be implemented. Except for naturalized citizens, Americans do not get issued citizenship papers, just birth certificates. Would the EO apply to everyone currently thinking they are citizens who cannot prove their parents entered legally? And would the proposal mean the children born here, if not citizens, are therefore illegally here like their parents? We could see generations of disenfranchised progeny if the EO were applied retroactively.
If it only applies prospectively after a certain date, again, how does someone go about proving the status of their parents and grandparents if one or the other were progeny of illegals? It would be inherently contradictory to say that the Amendment changed in meaning using a bright line test of the date an EO is issued.
Ironically, implementing an EO like this would likely require legislation creating a comprehensive immigration policy, including (bated breath . . .wait for it. . . . .) AMNESTY!
Does anyone want to see literally millions of lawsuits flooding the courts? Full employment for my brethren Esquires while the rest of the country descends into chaos.
-
@DoubleDD USA law, as does international law, gives them the right to apply for asylum as refugees. That is what Trump is pledging to prevent them from doing. Thus, the lawsuits, not a claim to be citizens.
Most countries in our hemisphere recognize birthright citizenship. About 36 altogether do, at last count, I believe.
-
I guess one idea that could excite two different conservative groups would be to extend the “personhood at conception” argument to its logical extreme: redefine “birth” to mean “creation” (i.e., conception). If you were not conceived in the US, you can’t be a citizen just because Mommy came here hoping to deliver on US soil. No anchor babies, no maternity ward citizenship. Plan your honeymoons for the US, not your deliveries. Too late by then!
Warning! R-rated paragraph! Pardon my language, but that would require figuring out where the parents had sex–in other words, literally yet another “fucking” investigation.
-
I have read probably 20 different papers by constitutional lawyers and professors and many cite verbiage similar to yours but to support the opposite argument and most seem to lean towards not granting citizenship to children born of individual who were here illegally.
The one things that is universally agreed is that there is no agreement and certainly not a definite answer on the subject and it is about time that the discussion be moved from the political arena to the forum where it belongs which is the SCOTUS…I guess we can both agree on this, right?
-
@JayHawkFanToo You may have read 20 papers, but when you are choosing only to read ones that agree with a certain position, it means very little. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion in this country is that the 14th Amendment’s clear language establishes birthright citizenship. Whether it should be changed is the very essence of a political issue.
If you think it simply requires a Trumpian SCOTUS to change an interpretation, please tell me how far back we go, because if there are a couple of illegals in someone’s past, that means their current citizenship could be nullified.
-
I am not choosing to read one side or the other, I read whatever comes up on the search until I have read enough…and if you are familiar with Google it is bound to bring more liberal leaning items at the top of the search anyway.
Like I said, the only consensus I gathered is that there is no consensus and that a SCOTUS opinion is needed to decide the issue once and for all.
Are you saying now preemptively that if the SCOTUS rules that birthright is not part of the constitution you will not agree/accept? I am perfectly happy to go with whatever the ruling is and call it the law of the land.
-
mayjay said:
@DoubleDD USA law, as does international law, gives them the right to apply for asylum as refugees. That is what Trump is pledging to prevent them from doing. Thus, the lawsuits, not a claim to be citizens.
Most countries in our hemisphere recognize birthright citizenship. About 36 altogether do, at last count, I believe.
Yea but under international law aren’t refugees supposed seek asylum in the next closet country?
Also has the definition of refugee changed or is it viewed in a different light by the international community? As I was always under the impression that a refugee was considered to be fleeing a war torn country, or mass starvation.
I’m starting to get this feeling that Immigrants can just walk into our country anytime they want, without any penalty, or being refused.
Is this the new America?
-
@DoubleDD Obama didn’t separate children from their parents with no means of reuniting them.
And yes, I do think people from other countries should be able to walk in whenever they want unless there is a compelling reason they should not be allowed to do so. I’m a globalist.
In case of permanent immigrants, if they present a problem of some sort I’m all for finding a rational solution. If they stay here permanently but aren’t paying taxes, let’s make them pay taxes. If they are flooding the schools let’s find a way of fixing the schools. If we want to limit their opportunity here let’s go after the employers. There are sane ways to go about this. But we aren’t doing it. We are playing on people’s resentment and fears in election season but not really coming up with a logical approach to handling problems
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD Obama didn’t separate children from their parents with no means of reuniting them.
That is not quite correct. The original regulation was enacted during the Clinton administration, ratified and amended during the Bush administration and enforced during all the administrations including the Obama and Trump administrations. Most of the photos that have circulated recently were actually taken during the Obama administration. It is only after Trump became president that the liberal crowd became outraged by something that has been going on all along; why is it that it did not protest during the previous administrations?
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD Obama didn’t separate children from their parents with no means of reuniting them.
And yes, I do think people from other countries should be able to walk in whenever they want unless there is a compelling reason they should not be allowed to do so. I’m a globalist.
Well actually he did separate Children from their parents. A proven fact. Many of the facilities that house these separated children were indeed built under the Obama administration another proven fact. It’s not really a Obama or Trump issue it’s just the law, and the last fact?
Oh I know your a globalist. Believe me I know. So what if this caravan wasn’t just a few thousand but millions? Would you still feel the same way? Do you think the US economy could handle it? Or is that apart of the Global mindset? To break the US economy? So those that think like you can usher in a new world order?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Sessions enacted a zero tolerance policy leading to 2342 children being separated in one months time this summer. Under Obama only 21% of apprehended adults were referred for prosecution. It’s generally assumed that most in not all apprehended parents with child were part of the 79% , but the onus of proof is on you to show otherwise. Show me one legit source that tells you a number of how many parents were separated from child under Obama.
-
@DoubleDD what is wrong with being a globalist? I like people unless I have a reason not to. And I think we are all interconnected and that’s the nature of the world now so instead of fighting it, we should figure out the best way to operate in a global context. Whats wrong with that? You act like it’s a dirty word.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD what is wrong with being a globalist? I like people unless I have a reason not to. What’s wrong with that? You act like it’s a dirty word.
You didn’t answer my question?
Also here is a link to answer your question. Not my best work, but to be honest I’m kind of tiring of politics. Common sense has gone out the window.
-
As for being a globalist count me out. I’ve seen how the UN works. America picks up the bill with resources, and the lives of our sons and daughters.
-
@DoubleDD it’s not a few million. It’s a few thousand. If it were a few million we would have to address the conditions in Honduras that led to a few million expatriates going to the US. I don’t know. The fact is a lot of our legislation assumes humanity to act a certain way, if it deviates wildly it’ll have to be reexamined.
-
Though I do agree with you in this point. As technology keeps advancing at some point humanity and how we do things will have to change. The current systems won’t work. As there will be no jobs for people to work and no money to be made by the Rich.
-
DoubleDD said:
Don’t you think if there was inhumane stuff going on it would have been reported?
-
DoubleDD said:
Though I do agree with you in this point. As technology keeps advancing at some point humanity and how we do things will have to change. The current systems won’t work. As there will be no jobs for people to work and no money to be made by the Rich.
Agreed. I’ve been thinking about how the definition of humanity, culture and society are changing and it’s not being accounted for at all. Not to mention tech advances
-
Yea in this day in age somebody would say or report something, and I’m sure some bad things have happened. Its a tough issue. I never like the idea of separating children from their parents, but it does happen under American law. Plus in some ways as sad as it is it needs to happen. In some cases
-
I don’t believe the amendment should be changed but I also don’t believe anyone should be able to come and go as they wish into this country. Criminals and drug lords will amp up there business like crazy if the Democrats get what they want. Which is funny to because most of them have locks on their doors and privacy fence but don’t believe in borders or laws. Next time I’m hungry or want something guess I’ll just go take it from them. I’m personally against the tons of tax payer money that goes to help illegals and immigrants in general. I tried to find an article that I read a few years back about a New York City cab driver that had immigrated from Europe that hated how much the Hispanics were getting help and he was working nearly around the clock to get his family here.
-
@DoubleDD the part of changing society that is currently troubling me is that our democracy depends on sort of an organic opinion from it’s voters. Think time of our founding fathers and how information disseminated and individuals formed their opinions. Now opinions are fabricated. Consciousness is more collective. Something needs to protect us from being used. Our educational system doesn’t teach us to think for ourselves. It needs to.
I fear we are racing toward a nuclear hollocaust and don’t quite grasp how fragile and currently flawed everything is. We need to be interconnected. I like predictable interlocked economies and relationships. No loose cannons. It’s far better for humanity to be globalist than nationalist (this is more about our trade policies than our immigration, but also immigration). Aren’t we all in this together? War between nuclear powers is scary stuff, isn’t it?
-
kjayhawks said:
Criminals and drug lords will amp up there business like crazy if the Democrats get what they want.
Woh what? I absolutely think foreign criminals should be treated differently. This isn’t fair. Trump’s rhetoric about the caravan is working. If there are criminals in that group absolutely handle them as criminals. I don’t think this is anything new.
-
@approxinfinity This is why we shouldn’t just let anyone in. Every Democrat ik or see on social media wants completely open borders with no screenings or security whatsoever (there literally 0 countries like that by the way). There are plenty of good people that do deserve the chance to be here but that doesn’t mean you turn a blind eye to the situation. We all know people will take advantage of it, that’s what people do regardless of race.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD the part of changing society that is currently troubling me is that our democracy depends on sort of an organic opinion from it’s voters. Think time of our founding fathers and how information disseminated and individuals formed their opinions. Now opinions are fabricated. Consciousness is more collective. Something needs to protect us from being used. Our educational system doesn’t teach us to think for ourselves. It needs to.
I fear we are racing toward a nuclear hollocaust and don’t quite grasp how fragile and currently flawed everything is. We need to be interconnected. I like predictable interlocked economies and relationships. No loose cannons. It’s far better for humanity to be globalist than nationalist (this is more about our trade policies than our immigration, but also immigration). Aren’t we all in this together? War between nuclear powers is scary stuff, isn’t it?
I get what your saying and yes especially on your point of how we teach our children. I’m not sold on a nuclear holocaust though. I just don’t see it happening. (Well I do think that Israel and it’s people will be nuked at some point.) But I do see civil unrest in the population. There used to be a time when debates and conservations where had among the greatest minds and the regular average joes. It was celebrated. Now it’s about just winning.
It appears that our leaders are more concerned about keeping their cushy government jobs, than just being a public servant. Just doing what is right. It appears to me all they care about is getting reelected.
