Thread: Trump's EO Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism

.
I am fully on board with TRUMPS Day One Executive Order Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism which is in perfect harmony with the meaning of "....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .' as understood by those who framed Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and helped to ratify it.

In addition, a number of Supreme Court cases are in perfect harmony with Trump's proposed Executive Order, e.g., IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, U.S. 36 (1872) the court says:

"The 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."


And, in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884), the court emphatically observes:

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.



And in Wong Kim Ark, (189 the following facts are confirmed in rendering a decision:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


As repeatedly pointed out by the Court, there are specific requirements and conditions which must be met for a child born to a foreign national while on American soil to be blessed with citizenship upon birth. And those requirements and conditions stated by our Supreme Court and documented above, confirm a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is not granted citizenship upon birth.

.
Trump will enforce by Executive Order the 14th Amendment's qualifier '...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." and will be acting within constitutional limits to enforce a policy which excludes birthright citizenship and the benefits thereof, to children born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, unless they meet specific statutory laws passed by Congress entitling them to benefits reserved for citizens.

The following is coming to an end, including tourism birthright citizenship! Chinese National Pleads Guilty to Running ‘Birth Tourism’ Scheme that Helped Aliens Give Birth in U.S. to Secure Birthright Citizenship
.

.
Elections have consequences and Trump will end American citizens being made into taxed slaves to support the economic and social needs of illegal entrant foreign nationals and their offspring.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

From the article:

"... unless they meet specific statutory laws passed by Congress entitling them to benefits reserved for citizens."

My comment:
What specific statutory laws do you think might entitle them to benefits reserved for Citizens?
Is this a workaround so that nothing happens?

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

From the article:

"... unless they meet specific statutory laws passed by Congress entitling them to benefits reserved for citizens."

My comment:
What specific statutory laws do you think might entitle them to benefits reserved for Citizens?
Is this a workaround so that nothing happens?

In according with Congress’s power to enforce, by "appropriate legislation", the provisions of the 14th Amendment, see Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) which lists specific conditions adopted by Congress concerning the eligibility of birthright citizenship upon birth, e.g., one parent must be a U.S. citizen. After studying the above, it is abundantly clear no statutory law has been adopted granting citizenship to a baby born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, and thus excludes them from benefits created for our citizens.

Trump's E.O. will prevail in our Supreme Court.
.

Thank you, johnwk, for your excellent reply

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

Thank you, johnwk, for your excellent reply

With regard to Trump's Executive Order promising to end birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, i’m more than satisfied with the flawless document “SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTION THEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE” which adequately, and even overwhelmingly, will defend Trump’s Executive Order if challenged in court.

It is well worth reading and encouraging others to read!

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

.
With regard to a recent case, Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court once again emphatically emphasizes the necessity of owing a direct allegiance to the United States as a necessary requirement for birthright citizenship within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (our amended version of what may be called jus soli).

The Court, in 2015, expounds upon jus soli as follows:

"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).

Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).

Considering Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia provided a very clear exposition concerning jus soli, and that current immigration "policy" (not statutory law) recognizes offspring born to illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil as citizens of the United States, it follows that a current Administration is free to adopt a new policy not recognizing the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil, as a citizen of the United States.

Hopefully, Trump keeps his promise to end current birthright policy, which recognizes citizenship for the offspring born to illegal entrant foreign nationals while on American soil.

.
Note that the Wong Kim Ark ruling based birthright citizenship on the status of his parents when born, who were lawfully domiciled in the United States. Our current statutory wording for lawfully domiciled is lawful permanent residence (LPR) SOURCE

And, as expressed under existing statutory law see: A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if all of the following requirements are met at the time of the person’s birth:


The person is a child[2] of a U.S. citizen parent(s);


The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession before the person’s birth in accordance with the applicable provision;[3] and


The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309.

Considering the current recognition of birthright citizenship granted to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national is nothing more than unwritten “policy”, President Trump has a number of options to put an end to birthright citizenship being recognized for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. See: Here’s how Pres. Trump can end Birthright Citizenship…

YES! Trump can end fraudulent birthright citizenship being bestowed on the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals.


JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story